Industry‐based retrospective cohort study of the risk of prostate cancer among rotating‐shift workers
Abstract
Objectives: The risk of prostate cancer among shift workers was examined in the present industry‐based retrospective cohort study. Methods: The study was established based on a health‐care database from a Japanese manufacturing corporation. Work schedules of 4995 male workers (mean age = 55.5 years) were followed up retrospectively; mean follow‐up period = 25.0 years. Of the subjects, 4168 had previously undertaken only daytime work (daytime workers), whereas 827 had undertaken rotating three‐shift work for >80% of their career (shift workers). All subjects had undergone prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) testing. Prostate cancer incidence data were obtained from the health insurance records of 13 daytime and four shift workers. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the relative risk of prostate cancer for the two groups with adjustments for age, body mass index, alcohol intake, smoking, exercise and marital status. Results: Compared with daytime workers, shift workers showed a non‐significant increase in the risk of prostate cancer (odds ratio = 1.79; 95% confidence interval = 0.57, 5.68; P‐value = 0.32). Conclusions: Some increase in the risk of prostate cancer for shift workers was observed, although the result was not statistically significant as a result of the small number of cases. To identify the prostate cancer risk among shift workers, longer‐term follow up, including the period after retirement, is required.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A number of studies found no association between cancer and shift work.
“However, a number of studies have found no association between cancer and shift work [64,65,66,67].”
From Shift Work: Disrupted Circadian Rhythms and Sleep—Implications for Health and Well-being (2017) · cites this paper as [65]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Kubo, T., Oyama, I., Nakamura, T., Kunimoto, M., Kadowaki, K., Otomo, H., Fujino, Y., Fujimoto, N., Matsumoto, T., & Matsuda, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Occupational and Environmental Health Japan (JP)
- Asahi Kasei (Japan) (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Kubo, Tatsuhiko
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Urology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-02-20
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 206-211
- ISSN
- 0919-8172 (ISSN-L)
- 1442-2042
- OpenAlex
- W1505776154
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 8.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Urology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Circadian rhythm and melatonin
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- prostate cancer, shift work, rotating shifts, occupational cancer risk, industrial workers, work schedules, PSA screening, male workers
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Humans, Japan, Male, Middle Aged, Prostatic Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Work Schedule Tolerance, Cohort Studies, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Databases, Factual, Occupational Health, Asian People
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review