Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2024 Sep;67(9):865-873.
doi: 10.1002/ajim.23637. Epub 2024 Jul 9.

Comparison of internal and external reference populations for occupational cancer surveillance in a cohort drawn from a diverse workforce

Louis Everest  1 , Shirui Tan  1 , Tanya Navaneelan  1 , Paul A Demers  1   2 , Nathan DeBono  1   2 , Colin Berriault  1 , Jeavana Sritharan  1   2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of internal and external reference populations for occupational cancer surveillance in a cohort drawn from a diverse workforce

Louis Everest et al. Am J Ind Med. 2024 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: Prior analyses of the Occupational Disease Surveillance System (ODSS) have compared cancer rates using internal referent groups. As an exploratory analysis, we sought to estimate cancer risk using general population reference rates to evaluate the impact that the comparison population has on findings from our surveillance program.

Methods: A cohort of approximately 2.3 million workers in Ontario, Canada with an accepted lost-time workers' compensation claim were followed for all cancer diagnoses between 1983 and 2018. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for workers in specific occupational groups using (1) all other workers in the ODSS cohort, and (2) the general population of Ontario.

Results: SIRs using the general population reference group were generally equal to or modestly lower compared to SIRs using the internal reference group. Within occupation groups, SIRs had a discordant direction of association (increased rate in the internal comparison and decreased in the external comparison) for some cancer sites including urinary, prostate, and colorectal.

Conclusions: Findings emphasize the importance of the choice of reference group when evaluating cancer risks in large occupational surveillance cohorts. Importantly, the magnitude of confounding and the healthy worker hire bias may depend on the occupation group and cancer site of interest.

Keywords: cancer incidence; general population; occupation; surveillance.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Takala J. Eliminating occupational cancer. Ind Health. 2015;53(4):307‐309. doi:10.2486/indhealth.53-307
    1. Gakidou E, Afshin A, Abajobir AA, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1345‐1422. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32366-8
    1. Labrèche F, Kim J, Song C, et al. The current burden of cancer attributable to occupational exposures in Canada. Prev Med. 2019;122:128‐139. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.03.016
    1. Loomis D, Guha N, Hall AL, Straif K. Identifying occupational carcinogens: an update from the IARC Monographs. Occup Environ Med. 2018;75(8):593‐603. doi:10.1136/oemed-2017-104944
    1. Keefe AR, Demers PA, Neis B, et al. A scoping review to identify strategies that work to prevent four important occupational diseases. Am J Ind Med. 2020;63(6):490‐516. doi:10.1002/ajim.23107

Publication types