Anne Sibille, Jessica Hendrick, Aurore Cue Alvarez, Marie Ernst, Laurence Seidel, Bernard Duysinx, Renaud Louis, Jean-Louis Corhay
{"title":"Environmental and occupational exposure in newly diagnosed lung cancer - data from the PROTEON study.","authors":"Anne Sibille, Jessica Hendrick, Aurore Cue Alvarez, Marie Ernst, Laurence Seidel, Bernard Duysinx, Renaud Louis, Jean-Louis Corhay","doi":"10.1080/17476348.2026.2729508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Environmental (E) and occupational (O) lung cancer (LC) is under-reported. Raising the awareness for this problem could help optimize prevention and screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 181 consecutive non-small cell LC patients (January 2023-December 2024, University Hospital of Liège, Belgium) E risk factors (RF) and ORF were collected through a self-reporting questionnaire (open and direct questions) with sociodemographic, tumor- and work-related data. The primary objective was to identify ERF and ORF prevalence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean age was 68.2 ± 8.8 years, 55.8% males, 93.4% (former) smokers. Half of the patients (53%) lived in (peri-)urban areas. 50% disclosed an obstructive airway disease and 31.5% had a positive LC family history. Of the 270 jobs registered, 78.5% were manual. Only 23.8% of the workers used protective equipment. 72.4% of the patients reported exposure to at least one ORF through direct questions, and the most frequent pulmonary carcinogens were asbestos (36.5%), silica (22.1%), welding fumes (15.5%), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (14.9%), and diesel engine exhaust (14.4%). Overall, 93.9% of patients reported at least one E/ORF other than tobacco. A request for compensation was introduced in <3% of the patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Non-tobacco RF for LC are virtually always present in non-small cell LC patients and under-reported.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00005602,259).</p>","PeriodicalId":94007,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of respiratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2026.2729508","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Environmental (E) and occupational (O) lung cancer (LC) is under-reported. Raising the awareness for this problem could help optimize prevention and screening.
Methods: In 181 consecutive non-small cell LC patients (January 2023-December 2024, University Hospital of Liège, Belgium) E risk factors (RF) and ORF were collected through a self-reporting questionnaire (open and direct questions) with sociodemographic, tumor- and work-related data. The primary objective was to identify ERF and ORF prevalence.
Results: Mean age was 68.2 ± 8.8 years, 55.8% males, 93.4% (former) smokers. Half of the patients (53%) lived in (peri-)urban areas. 50% disclosed an obstructive airway disease and 31.5% had a positive LC family history. Of the 270 jobs registered, 78.5% were manual. Only 23.8% of the workers used protective equipment. 72.4% of the patients reported exposure to at least one ORF through direct questions, and the most frequent pulmonary carcinogens were asbestos (36.5%), silica (22.1%), welding fumes (15.5%), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (14.9%), and diesel engine exhaust (14.4%). Overall, 93.9% of patients reported at least one E/ORF other than tobacco. A request for compensation was introduced in <3% of the patients.
Conclusion: Non-tobacco RF for LC are virtually always present in non-small cell LC patients and under-reported.