...
首页> 外文期刊>Applied Geochemistry: Journal of the International Association of Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry >A comparison of two techniques for calculating groundwater arsenic-related lung, bladder and liver cancer disease burden using data from Chakdha block, West Bengal
【24h】

A comparison of two techniques for calculating groundwater arsenic-related lung, bladder and liver cancer disease burden using data from Chakdha block, West Bengal

机译:使用来自西孟加拉邦Chakdha区块的数据计算两种与地下水砷相关的肺癌,膀胱癌和肝癌疾病负担的技术的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Calculation of excess disease burden for As exposed populations is becoming increasingly important to enable quantitative estimation of the impacts of various As mitigation options. There are several methods by which such calculations may be carried out. In this study, two methods, recently applied to estimating groundwater As-related health risks in southern Asia, to estimate disease burden arising from lung, bladder and liver cancer from As exposure for an As-effected area of West Bengal have been compared. Both utilized calculated distributions of exposure of the studied population to As from groundwater. Method (I) then entailed calculating disease burden by combining published background rates for death and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) and standard mortality ratios (SMRs) for excess health impacts related to As exposure, whilst for Method (II). disease burden from As exposure was estimated using the basic DALY formula, combined with incidence rates based on the NRC multistage Weibull model. Dose-response data for both methods were based on Studies in Taiwan. When the same dose-response model was used for both methods, the two methods were broadly comparable, agreeing to within a factor of 4 for both deaths and DALYs. Much larger differences, up to a factor of 40, were noted when SMRs from different previous studies were utilized by Method (1). Thus, the death and DALYs calculations are most sensitive to the choice of dose-response model and less so to the calculation method. The differences are also partly ascribed to different background (i.e. for As non-exposed populations) rates for lung, bladder and liver cancers between Chakdha block and Taiwan. However, the differences also highlight some of systematic uncertainties in the application of epidemiological studies in one part of the world to another, emphasizing that accurate health risk estimates are likely to be better obtained by large scale systematic surveys of health outcomes in the study population. Irrespective of the comparability of the results of the two methods, it is noted that the lack of detailed consideration of confounding factors such as genetic polymorphisms, smoking and dietary habits, and, in particular, exposure to As through other routes, notably ingestion of As-bearing rice, may significantly impact on the accuracy of the results obtained by either method. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:对于砷暴露人群的过量疾病负担的计算变得越来越重要,以便能够定量估计各种砷缓解方案的影响。有几种方法可以执行这种计算。在这项研究中,比较了最近用于估算南亚地下水与砷相关的健康风险的两种方法,以估算西孟加拉邦受灾地区砷暴露对肺癌,膀胱癌和肝癌造成的疾病负担。两者都利用计算得出的研究人群从地下水接触砷的分布。然后,方法(I)通过将已公布的死亡和残疾调整生命年(DALYs)的本底率以及与砷暴露相关的健康过度影响的标准死亡率(SMRs)相结合来计算疾病负担,而方法(II)则需要计算疾病负担。使用基本的DALY公式,结合基于NRC多阶段Weibull模型的发病率,估算了砷暴露引起的疾病负担。两种方法的剂量反应数据均基于台湾的研究。当两种方法使用相同的剂量反应模型时,这两种方法具有广泛的可比性,死亡和DALYs均在4倍以内。当通过方法(1)使用来自先前不同研究的SMR时,注意到最大差异高达40倍。因此,死亡和DALYs的计算对剂量反应模型的选择最敏感,而对计算方法则不那么敏感。差异也部分归因于Chakdha街区与台湾地区肺癌,膀胱癌和肝癌的背景不同(即非暴露人群的比率)。但是,这些差异也凸显了在世界某个地方对另一地方进行流行病学研究的系统性不确定性,并强调通过对研究人群进行健康结局的大规模系统性调查,可能会更好地获得准确的健康风险估计。不管这两种方法的结果是否可比,都注意到缺乏对混杂因素的详细考虑,例如遗传多态性,吸烟和饮食习惯,尤其是通过其他途径接触砷,特别是摄入砷-大米可能会严重影响通过这两种方法获得的结果的准确性。 (C)2008 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号