IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i8p4343-d539446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cancer Incidence and Mortality among Petroleum Industry Workers and Residents Living in Oil Producing Communities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Felix M. Onyije

    (Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), 150 Cours Albert Thomas, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France)

  • Bayan Hosseini

    (Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), 150 Cours Albert Thomas, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France)

  • Kayo Togawa

    (Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), 150 Cours Albert Thomas, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France)

  • Joachim Schüz

    (Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), 150 Cours Albert Thomas, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France)

  • Ann Olsson

    (Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), 150 Cours Albert Thomas, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France)

Abstract

Petroleum extraction and refining are major sources of various occupational exposures and of air pollution and may therefore contribute to the global cancer burden. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed at evaluating the cancer risk in petroleum-exposed workers and in residents living near petroleum facilities. Relevant studies were identified and retrieved through PubMed and Web of Science databases. Summary effect size (ES) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using random effect models, and heterogeneity across studies was assessed (I 2 ). Overall, petroleum industry work was associated with an increased risk of mesothelioma (ES = 2.09, CI: 1.58–2.76), skin melanoma (ES = 1.34, CI: 1.06–1.70 multiple myeloma (ES =1.81, CI: 1.28–2.55), and cancers of the prostate (ES = 1.13, Cl: 1.05–1.22) and urinary bladder (ES = 1.25, CI: 1.09–1.43) and a decreased risk of cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, and pancreas. Offshore petroleum work was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (ES = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.03–1.39) and leukemia (ES = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.12–1.92) in stratified analysis. Residential proximity to petroleum facilities was associated with childhood leukemia (ES = 1.90, CI: 1.34–2.70). Very few studies examined specific exposures among petroleum industry workers or residents living in oil producing communities. The present review warrants further studies on specific exposure levels and pathways among petroleum-exposed workers and residents living near petroleum facilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Felix M. Onyije & Bayan Hosseini & Kayo Togawa & Joachim Schüz & Ann Olsson, 2021. "Cancer Incidence and Mortality among Petroleum Industry Workers and Residents Living in Oil Producing Communities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-22, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:8:p:4343-:d:539446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4343/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4343/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tapani Tuomi & Henna Veijalainen & Tiina Santonen, 2018. "Managing Exposure to Benzene and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons at Two Oil Refineries 1977–2014," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, January.
    2. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    3. Joachim Schüz & Igor Bukhtiyarov & Ann Olsson & Monika Moissonnier & Evgenia Ostroumova & Eleonora Feletto & Sara J Schonfeld & Graham Byrnes & Iraklii Tskhomariia & Valerie McCormack & Kurt Straif & , 2020. "Occupational cohort study of current and former workers exposed to chrysotile in mine and processing facilities in Asbest, the Russian Federation: Cohort profile of the Asbest Chrysotile Cohort study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Haider Mahmood & Tarek Tawfik Yousef Alkhateeb & Maham Furqan, 2020. "Oil sector and CO2 emissions in Saudi Arabia: asymmetry analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Sorana Vătavu & Oana-Ramona Lobonț & Iulia Para & Andrei Pelin, 2018. "Addressing oil price changes through business profitability in oil and gas industry in the United Kingdom," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eun-A Kim, 2021. "Standardized Incidence Ratio and Standardized Mortality Ratio of Malignant Mesothelioma in a Worker Cohort Using Employment Insurance Database in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-13, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    2. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    5. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    6. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    7. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    8. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    10. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    11. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    12. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Wesam Salah Alaloul & Muhammad Altaf & Muhammad Ali Musarat & Muhammad Faisal Javed & Amir Mosavi, 2021. "Systematic Review of Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement and a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-38, April.
    14. Claudia Peters & Agnessa Kozak & Albert Nienhaus & Anja Schablon, 2020. "Risk of Occupational Latent Tuberculosis Infection among Health Personnel Measured by Interferon-Gamma Release Assays in Low Incidence Countries—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, January.
    15. Sehee Kim & Mihyeon Park & Sukhee Ahn, 2022. "The Impact of Antepartum Depression and Postpartum Depression on Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 31(5), pages 866-880, June.
    16. Habarurema Jean Baptiste & Yan Guang Cai & A. Y. M. Atiquil Islam & Nzabalirwa Wenceslas, 2022. "A Systematic Review of University Social Responsibility in Post-Conflict Societies: The Case of the Great Lakes Region of East Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 439-475, November.
    17. Yafei Shen & Weide Shao, 2022. "Influence of Hybrid Pedagogical Models on Learning Outcomes in Physical Education: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-16, August.
    18. Nicola Andreij Rieg & Birgitta Gatersleben & Ian Christie, 2021. "Organizational Change Management for Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Quantitative Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, June.
    19. Alessandro Concari & Gerjo Kok & Pim Martens, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Review of Concepts and Factors Related to Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Waste Management Through an Interdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-50, May.
    20. Mariam El Hourani & Gabriele Broll, 2021. "Soil Protection in Floodplains—A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-23, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:8:p:4343-:d:539446. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.