Objective To present the protocol and the early results of a urothelial carcinoma （UC） screening analysis performed in a risk population of coke workers. Methods Between June 2006 and October 2008, 171 male workers ...Objective To present the protocol and the early results of a urothelial carcinoma （UC） screening analysis performed in a risk population of coke workers. Methods Between June 2006 and October 2008, 171 male workers （mean age 43 years）, employed in a Ligurian coke plant （Italiana Coke S.r.l） and exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons （PAHs） for a median period of 16 years, underwent screening for UC. Urological evaluation included medical history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, urine analysis, urinary cytology and uCyt＋ assay. In the event of signs and symptoms suggestive of UC or positive urinary tests, the workers were also subjected to urinary ultrasonography and cystoscopy with biopsy of any suspicious lesions. Results Regarding the laboratory tests, 19/171 （11%） uCyt＋ samples were considered inadequate and were excluded from the outcomes assessment. Overall, urine analysis, cytology and uCyt＋ were positive in 18/152 （12%） subjects who showed no evidence of UC at the scheduled check-ups. No significant association was identified between marker positivity and occupational activity. Conclusions Our results fail to show an increased risk of UC among the coke workers evaluated. However, they will need to be confirmed in the future by a larger enrollment and a longer follow-up in order to assess the definitive risk for UC after exposure to coke.展开更多
文摘Objective To present the protocol and the early results of a urothelial carcinoma （UC） screening analysis performed in a risk population of coke workers. Methods Between June 2006 and October 2008, 171 male workers （mean age 43 years）, employed in a Ligurian coke plant （Italiana Coke S.r.l） and exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons （PAHs） for a median period of 16 years, underwent screening for UC. Urological evaluation included medical history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, urine analysis, urinary cytology and uCyt＋ assay. In the event of signs and symptoms suggestive of UC or positive urinary tests, the workers were also subjected to urinary ultrasonography and cystoscopy with biopsy of any suspicious lesions. Results Regarding the laboratory tests, 19/171 （11%） uCyt＋ samples were considered inadequate and were excluded from the outcomes assessment. Overall, urine analysis, cytology and uCyt＋ were positive in 18/152 （12%） subjects who showed no evidence of UC at the scheduled check-ups. No significant association was identified between marker positivity and occupational activity. Conclusions Our results fail to show an increased risk of UC among the coke workers evaluated. However, they will need to be confirmed in the future by a larger enrollment and a longer follow-up in order to assess the definitive risk for UC after exposure to coke.
