Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health (Mar 2019)

Exposure to loud noise and risk of vestibular schwannoma: results from the INTERPHONE international case‒control study

  • Isabelle Deltour,
  • Brigitte Schlehofer,
  • Amélie Massardier-Pilonchéry,
  • Klaus Schlaefer,
  • Bruce Armstrong,
  • Graham G Giles,
  • Jack Siemiatycki,
  • Marie-Elise Parent,
  • Daniel Krewski,
  • Mary McBride,
  • Christoffer Johansen,
  • Anssi Auvinen,
  • Tiina Salminen,
  • Martine Hours,
  • Lucile Montestrucq,
  • Maria Blettner,
  • Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff,
  • Siegal Sadetzki,
  • Angela Chetrit,
  • Susanna Lagorio,
  • Ivano Iavarone,
  • Naohito Yamaguchi,
  • Toru Takebayashi,
  • Alistair Woodward,
  • Angus Cook,
  • Tore Tynes,
  • Lars Klaeboe,
  • Maria Feychting,
  • Stefan Lönn,
  • Sarah Fleming,
  • Anthony J Swerdlow,
  • Minouk J Schoemaker,
  • Monika Moissonnier,
  • Ausrele Kesminiene,
  • Elisabeth Cardis,
  • Joachim Schüz,
  • INTERPHONE Study Group

DOI
https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3781
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 45, no. 2
pp. 183 – 193

Abstract

Read online

OBJECTIVE: Studies of loud noise exposure and vestibular schwannomas (VS) have shown conflicting results. The population-based INTERPHONE case‒control study was conducted in 13 countries during 2000–2004. In this paper, we report the results of analyses on the association between VS and self-reported loud noise exposure. METHODS: Self-reported noise exposure was analyzed in 1024 VS cases and 1984 matched controls. Life-long noise exposure was estimated through detailed questions. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using adjusted conditional logistic regression for matched sets. RESULTS: The OR for total work and leisure noise exposure was 1.6 (95% CI 1.4–1.9). OR were 1.5 (95% CI 1.3–1.9) for only occupational noise, 1.9 (95% CI 1.4–2.6) for only leisure noise and 1.7 (95% CI 1.2–2.2) for exposure in both contexts. OR increased slightly with increasing lag-time. For occupational exposures, duration, time since exposure start and a metric combining lifetime duration and weekly exposure showed significant trends of increasing risk with increasing exposure. OR did not differ markedly by source or other characteristics of noise. CONCLUSION: The consistent associations seen are likely to reflect either recall bias or a causal association, or potentially indicate a mixture of both.

Keywords