Hormone therapy and physical activity as predictors of lung cancer risk and survival: The California Teachers Study

Cigarette smoking is responsible for the majority of lung cancer cases worldwide; however, a proportion of never smokers still develop lung cancer over their lifetime, prompting investigation into additional factors that may modify lung cancer incidence, as well as mortality. Although hormone therapy (HT), physical activity (PA), and lung cancer have been previously examined, the associations remain unclear. This study investigated exposure to HT and PA that may modulate underlying mechanisms of lung cancer etiology and progression among women by using existing, de-identified data from the California Teachers Study (CTS).^ The CTS cohort, established in 1995–1996, has 133,479 active and retired female teachers and administrators, recruited through the California State Teachers Retirement System, and followed annually for cancer diagnosis, death, and change of address. Each woman enrolled in the CTS returned a questionnaire covering a wide variety of issues related to cancer risk and women's health, including recent and past HT use and physical activity, as well as active and environmental cigarette smoke exposure. Complete data to assess the associations between HT and lung cancer risk and survival were available for 60,592 postmenopausal women. Between 1995 and 2007, 727 of these women were diagnosed with invasive lung cancer; 441 of these died. Complete data to assess the associations between PA and lung cancer risk and survival were available for 118,513 women. Between 1995 and 2007, 853 of these women were diagnosed with invasive lung cancer; 516 of these died.^ After careful adjustment for smoking habits and other potential confounders, no measure of HT use was associated with lung cancer risk; however, any HT use (vs. no use) was associated with a decrease in lung-cancer-specific mortality. Specifically, among women who only used estrogen (E-only), decreases in lung cancer mortality were seen for recent use, but not for former use; no association was observed for estrogen plus progestin (E+P). Furthermore, among former users of HT, a statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality was observed for E-only use within 5 years prior to baseline, but not for E-only use >5 years prior to baseline. Neither long-term recreational PA nor recent recreational PA alone were associated with lung cancer risk; however, among women with a BMI<25 and ever smokers, high long-term moderate+strenuous PA was associated with a decrease in lung cancer risk. Women with non-local disease showed a decrease in lung cancer mortality associated with increasing duration of strenuous long-term activity, and 1.50-3.00 h/wk/y of recent moderate or recent strenuous PA. Long-term moderate PA was associated with decreased lung cancer mortality in never smokers, whereas recent moderate PA was associated with increased lung cancer mortality in current smokers. ^ Placing our findings in the context of the current literature, HT does not appear to be associated with lung cancer risk and previous studies reporting a protective effect of HT use on lung cancer risk may be subject to residual confounding by smoking. Looking at our findings regarding PA overall, the evidence still remains inconclusive regarding whether or not physical activity influence lung cancer risk or mortality. Our results suggest that recreational PA may associated with decreased lung cancer risk among women with BMI<25 and ever smoking-women; however, residual confounding by smoking should be strongly considered. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate lifetime recreational PA and lung cancer mortality among women. Our results contribute to the growing body of knowledge regarding non-smoking-related risk factors for lung cancer incidence and mortality among women. Given the potential clinical and interventional significance, further study and validation of these findings is warranted.^

A multi-site pilot test study to measure safety climate in the university work setting

Next to leisure, sport, and household activities, the most common activity resulting in medically consulted injuries and poisonings in the United States is work, with an estimated 4 million workplace related episodes reported in 2008 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). To address the risks inherent to various occupations, risk management programs are typically put in place that include worker training, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. Recent studies have shown that such interventions alone are insufficient to adequately manage workplace risks, and that the climate in which the workers and safety program exist (known as the "safety climate") is an equally important consideration. The organizational safety climate is so important that many studies have focused on developing means of measuring it in various work settings. While safety climate studies have been reported for several industrial settings, published studies on assessing safety climate in the university work setting are largely absent. Universities are particularly unique workplaces because of the potential exposure to a diversity of agents representing both acute and chronic risks. Universities are also unique because readily detectable health and safety outcomes are relatively rare. The ability to measure safety climate in a work setting with rarely observed systemic outcome measures could serve as a powerful means of measure for the evaluation of safety risk management programs. ^ The goal of this research study was the development of a survey tool to measure safety climate specifically in the university work setting. The use of a standardized tool also allows for comparisons among universities throughout the United States. A specific study objective was accomplished to quantitatively assess safety climate at five universities across the United States. At five universities, 971 participants completed an online questionnaire to measure the safety climate. The average safety climate score across the five universities was 3.92 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating very high perceptions of safety at these universities. The two lowest overall dimensions of university safety climate were "acknowledgement of safety performance" and "department and supervisor's safety commitment". The results underscore how the perception of safety climate is significantly influenced at the local level. A second study objective regarding evaluating the reliability and validity of the safety climate questionnaire was accomplished. A third objective fulfilled was to provide executive summaries resulting from the questionnaire to the participating universities' health & safety professionals and collect feedback on usefulness, relevance and perceived accuracy. Overall, the professionals found the survey and results to be very useful, relevant and accurate. Finally, the safety climate questionnaire will be offered to other universities for benchmarking purposes at the annual meeting of a nationally recognized university health and safety organization. The ultimate goal of the project was accomplished and was the creation of a standardized tool that can be used for measuring safety climate in the university work setting and can facilitate meaningful comparisons amongst institutions.^