ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2025
Firefighting, other protective service occupations and prostate cancer risk: a pooled analysis of three case-control studies.
Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ambient aromatic hydrocarbons and prostate cancer: mechanistic evidence linking benzene and PAH exposure to tumor progression.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer (PCa) is the most frequent incident cancer among males in industrialized countries, but little is known about its aetiology. A role for occupational exposures is suggested. Occupational exposure as a firefighter, a protective service occupation (PSO), is classified as carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with limited evidence in humans for PCa. We studied the association between PSO and PCa risk considering tumour aggressiveness and screening practices.
methodsThe EPIdemiological study of Prostate Cancer (EPICAP), the Prostate cancer & Environment Study (PROtEuS) and the MultiCase-Control study in common tumours in Spain (MCC-Spain) are population-based case-control studies, conducted respectively in France, Canada, Spain, in 2005–2014 in men ≤ 85 years old, including overall 3,859 incident cases and 4,359 controls frequency-matched on age. Participants were interviewed face-to-face using general and occupational questionnaires covering all jobs held in career, coded according to the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations. Unconditional logistic regressions estimated associations between PSO and PCa, after adjusting for potential confounders. Two sets of analyses were conducted, without and with consideration of screening. The latter is believed to yield the main findings since less subject to detection bias.
resultsWhen restricting controls to those recently screened, men employed as firefighters ≥ 10 years had increased risk (OR (Odds ratio) = 2.01 [95% confidence interval] [1.02; 3.97]) of non-aggressive PCa. Positive associations for non-aggressive PCa among men employed < 10 years as police officers (OR = 2.53 [1.07; 5.96]) and police inspectors and detectives (OR = 6.75 [1.47; 30.96]) were observed. Very few cases in PSO were characterized by aggressive tumours.
conclusionsFindings from this large population-based study corroborate the higher PCa risk previously reported among firefighters, but only for non-aggressive tumours. Screening practices had a substantial impact on risk estimates. Future studies should investigate specific exposures, and account for PCa aggressiveness and individual screening patterns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.