Environmental exposure to carcinogens causing lung cancer: epidemiological evidence from the medical literature

OBJECTIVE: In 2000 there were 1.1 million lung or bronchial cancer deaths worldwide, with relatively limited evidence of causation other than for smoking. We aimed to search and appraise the literature regarding evidence for a causal relationship between air pollution and lung cancer according to the 10 Bradford Hill criteria for causality. METHODOLOGY: A MEDLINE search was performed using the following key words: 'lung neoplasm', 'epidemiology', 'human', 'air pollution'and 'not molec*'. The criteria for inclusion was: cited original research that described the study population, measured environmental factors, was of case control or cohort design, and was undertaken after 1982. RESULTS: Fourteen papers (10 case control, four cohort studies) fulfilled the search criteria, with a sample size ranging from 101 cases and 89 controls, to a cohort of 552 cases and 138 controls. Of the 14 papers that fulfilled the search criteria the number of papers addressing each of the Bradford Hill criteria were as follows: Strength of association: eight studies demonstrated significant positive associations between environmental exposure and lung cancer with a relative risk range of 1.14-5.2. One study found a negative association with relative risk 0.28. Consistency: eight of 14 studies found significant positive associations and one of 14 a significant negative association. Specificity: tobacco smoking and occupational exposure were addressed in all studies (often crudely with misclassification). Temporality: exposure prior to diagnosis was demonstrated in nine studies. Dose-response relationship: evident in three studies. Coherence, analogy: not addressed in any study. CONCLUSION: Evidence for causality is modest, with intermediate consistency of findings, limited dose-response evidence and crude adjustment for important potential confounders. Large studies with comprehensive risk factor quantification are required to clarify the potentially small effect of air pollution given the relatively large effects of tobacco smoking and occupational carcinogen exposure.