RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access
Cance incidence among Finnish male
cobal p oduc ion wo ke s in 1969–2013:
a coho s udy
Rii a Sauni
1*
, Panu Oksa
2,3
, Jukka Ui i
2,3,4
, Asko Linna
5
, Raimo Ke ula
6
and Ee o Pukkala
7,8
Abs ac
Backg ound: The e is inadequa e e idence o he ca cinogenici y o cobal and cobal compounds in humans.
Consequen ly, he In e na ional Agency o Resea ch on Cance (IARC) has e alua ed cobal me al wi hou ungs en
ca bide as possibly ca cinogenic o humans (G oup 2B). The aim o he s udy was o assess he isk o cance
among wo ke s employed in a Finnish cobal plan since he beginning o p oduc ion in 1968.
Me hods: The s udy coho consis ed o all males employed by he Finnish cobal plan o a leas a yea du ing
1968–2004. The ollow-up o cance was pe o med by s udying he iles o he Finnish Cance Regis y, using
pe sonal iden i y codes as a key. The coho was di ided in o subcoho s by exposu e le els. S anda dised
incidence a ios (SIRs) and 95% con idence in e als (95% CIs) we e calcula ed as a ios o he obse ed numbe s o
cance cases and he numbe s expec ed on he basis o incidence a es in he popula ion o he same egion.
Resul s: The ollow-up coho consis ed o 995 men wi h 26,083 pe son-yea s. Du ing he ollow-up pe iod, 92
cases o cance we e diagnosed (SIR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81–1.22), six o which we e lung cance cases (SIR 0.50; 95% CI
0.18–1.08). The only cance ype wi h inc eased incidence was ongue cance ( h ee cases, SIR 7.39; 95% CI 1.52–21.6).
We obse ed no dose- esponse e ec ac oss he di e en exposu e le els and he incidence o any cance ype.
Conclusions: The esul s sugges ha occupa ional exposu e o cobal is no associa ed wi h an inc eased o e all
cance isk o lung cance isk among cobal wo ke s. Because o he small numbe o cance cases he esul s mus be
in e p e ed wi h cau ion.
Keywo ds: Cobal , Occupa ional exposu e, Incidence, Cance
Backg ound
Wo ke s may be exposed o cobal du ing he p oduc ion
o cobal and cobal sal s, in he p oduc ion o alloys and
ha d me al, d ying agen s, pigmen s and ca alys s, and
du ing diamond polishing. Wo ld p oduc ion o e ined
cobal has inc eased s eadily o e he las decade, due
pa ly o new ope a ions and pa ly o a ne inc ease in
p oduc ion by es ablished p oduce s [1]. Wo ld cobal
mine p oduc ion in 2001 was 36,700 ons and he cobal
e ine y p oduc ion 38,400 ons [2]. The espec i e
numbe s in 2016 we e 123,000 ons and 91,300 ons [3].
In he Uni ed S a es, mo e han a million wo ke s a e
po en ially exposed o cobal and i s compounds [4]. In
Finland, abou 1500 wo ke s (0.1% o employed people)
a e es ima ed o be exposed o cobal o cobal
compounds a wo k [5].
Di e en epidemiological s udies p o ide ela i ely
spa se and con adic o y da a on he ca cinogenici y o
cobal o humans. A Swedish s udy e ospec i ely
ollowed a coho o 3000 cobal wo ke s in 1951–1982
[6]. I ound a non-signi ican inc ease in mo ali y om
lung cance in he whole coho (SMR 1.34, 95% CI
0.77–2.13). A signi ican excess mo ali y om lung
cance was ound among wo ke s wi h o e en yea s o
employmen who had died mo e han 20 yea s a e he
end o exposu e (SMR 2.78, 95% CI 1.11–5.72). Ea ly
indings om a F ench s udy in he 1980s sugges ed
inc eased mo ali y om cance s o he achea, lung
* Co espondence: [email p o ec ed]
1
Depa men o Occupa ional Sa e y and Heal h, Minis y o Social A ai s
and Heal h, P.O. Box 33FI-00023 Go e nmen Tampe e, Finland
Full lis o au ho in o ma ion is a ailable a he end o he a icle
© The Au ho (s). 2017 Open Access This a icle is dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0
In e na ional License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and
ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o
he C ea i e Commons license, and indica e i changes we e made. The C ea i e Commons Public Domain Dedica ion wai e
(h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/publicdomain/ze o/1.0/) applies o he da a made a ailable in his a icle, unless o he wise s a ed.
Sauni e al. BMC Cance (2017) 17:340
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3333-2
and b onchus among cobal wo ke s (SMR 4.66; 95% CI
1.46–10.64) [7]. Howe e , he esul s we e based on only
ou cases. In hei ollow-up s udy o he same popula-
ion, Moulin e al. [8] could no con i m he p e ious
esul s. A No wegian s udy in a nickel e ine y did no
ind any inc ease in isk o lung cance om cobal
exposu e [9].
The esul s o he s udies on he ca cinogenici y o co-
bal a y acco ding o he kind o indus y in which he
exposed wo ke s a e employed. Inc eased mo ali y om
lung cance has been ound among wo ke s in he ha d
me al indus y [10]. In addi ion o cobal , ha d me al also
con ains ungs en ca bide. Acco ding o he In e na ional
Agency o Resea ch on Cance (IARC) he ca cinogen-
ici y o cobal me al wi h ungs en ca bide was e alua ed
as p obably ca cinogenic o humans (G oup 2A), whe eas
cobal me al wi hou ungs en ca bide was e alua ed as
possibly ca cinogenic o humans (G oup 2B). Cobal
sulpha e and o he soluble cobal (II) sal s we e also e alu-
a ed as possibly ca cinogenic o humans (G oup 2B) [1].
In ea ly 2014, he Ne he lands Compe en Au ho i y
(RIVM) no i ied i s in en ion ia he Regis y o In en
o p epa e an EU-ha monised classi ica ion and labelling
p oposal on ‘cobal me al and o he cobal compounds
( o be de e mined)’. Eu opean Commission is ac i ely
igh ing agains occupa ional cance and aiming o
amend he Ca cinogens and Mu agens Di ec i e [11]. I
is impo an o ha e up- o-da e scien i ic e idence based
da a as a backg ound o legisla ion.
The pu pose o his s udy was o assess he isk o
cance among wo ke s employed in a Finnish cobal
plan , using he company’s employmen eco ds, expos-
u e da a, and da a om he Finnish Cance Regis y. On
he basis o his eliable da a, we aimed o add o he
knowledge on he ca cinogenici y o cobal wi hou
ungs en ca bide in occupa ional se ings.
Me hods
This is a e ospec i e coho s udy. The s udy coho was
made up o all males employed o a leas one yea a he
Kokkola cobal plan (F eepo Cobal Oy) du ing he
pe iod 1968–2004. The coho o 1004 men was iden i ied
om he company’s employmen eco ds. The co ec
pe sonal iden i y codes (PICs), i al s a us and possible
da es o emig a ion o dea h we e sea ched om he
na ional Popula ion Regis e Cen e . Nine men (0.9%)
we e no ound in he popula ion egis e and we e ex-
cluded, lea ing 995 wo ke s in he inal coho (Table 1).
Since 1967, all Finnish esiden s ha e had a unique PIC,
which is used in all main egis e s in Finland. The PIC en-
ables eliable au oma ic eco d linkage.
We used PICs as keys in he ollow-up o cance
h ough he iles o he popula ion-based na ionwide
Finnish Cance Regis y. Follow-up began on he da e
when he pe son had been wo king o one yea a he
Kokkola cobal plan , and ended a emig a ion, dea h o
on 31 Decembe 2013, whiche e came i s . We also
calcula ed he cance isk as s a ing om he da e when
a pe son had wo ked o i e yea s a he cobal plan .
The numbe s o obse ed cases and pe son-yea s a
isk we e coun ed, in i e-yea age g oups and i e-yea
calenda pe iods. The expec ed numbe s o cases o
o al cance and o speci ic cance ypes we e calcula ed
by mul iplying he numbe o pe son-yea s in each
s a um by he co esponding cance incidence among
men in he cen al hospi al ca chmen a ea o Cen al
Os obo hnia a ound he Kokkola cobal plan .
Table 1 Numbe o male wo ke s (N) in cobal plan coho ,
and pe son-yea s du ing 1969–2013, by age and exposu e
g oup ( o de ini ions, see Table 2). The numbe s in he
N column in di e en age g oups e e o he age a he
beginning o ollow-up
N Pe son-yea s
To al 995 26,083.2
High exposu e 380 11,254.9
Age (yea s)
15–29 269 1480.0
30–44 103 4243.6
45–59 7 3663.5
60–74 1 1736.5
75+ - 131.6
Mode a e exposu e 159 2823.4
Age (yea s)
15–29 122 563.4
30–44 35 1378.4
45–59 2 674.8
60–74 - 205.8
75+ - 1.0
Low exposu e 364 9966.7
Age (yea s)
15–29 275 1431.2
30–44 81 3903.3
45–59 8 2987.7
60–74 - 1522.6
75+ - 121.9
Va iable exposu e wi h peak exposu es 110 2174.1
Age (yea s)
15–29 94 475.9
30–44 16 960.6
45–59 - 551.2
60–74 - 182.8
75+ - 3.7
Sauni e al. BMC Cance (2017) 17:340 Page 2 o 8
To calcula e he s anda dised incidence a io (SIR), he
obse ed numbe o cases was di ided by he expec ed
numbe . The 95% con idence in e al (95% CI) o he
SIR was based on he assump ion ha he numbe o
obse ed cases ollowed a Poisson dis ibu ion.
A non-comme cial so wa e p og am o Finnish
Cance Regis y was used o s a is ical analysis. We call
an SIR as “s a is ically signi ican ”i i s 95% con idence
in e al does no include alue 1.0.
Wo kplace exposu es
Be ween 1966 and 1987, cobal powde was p oduced
om py i e o e concen a e a he Kokkola cobal plan .
A e 1987, cobal powde , ino ganic cobal , and nickel
compounds ha e been p oduced using by-p oduc s o
he me allu gic indus y as aw ma e ial (Fig. 1).
In sulpha ising oas ing, dus in he ambien ai was
ound o con ain 15–20% i on, 1% zinc, 0.4% cobal , and
0.2% nickel, whe eas in leaching building, he dus
consis ed o me al sulphides and sulpha es. The highes
exposu e le els o nickel (0.12 mg/m
3
) we e measu ed in
he chemical depa men du ing 1987–1999, o he wise
exposu e le els ha e been ≤0.04 mg/m
3
. Cobal and
nickel we e p esen as wa e -soluble sulpha es. In he e-
duc ion plan and powde p oduc ion acili y, cobal is
mainly in he o m o cobal powde and ine powde . In
he chemical depa men , he cobal and nickel com-
pounds we e mainly sulpha es, ca bona es, oxides, and
hyd oxides.
To al exposu e o dus , cobal , nickel, sulphu dioxide,
hyd ogen sulphide, and ammonia has been egula ly
moni o ed se e al imes a yea since 1966, as bo h s a-
iona y measu emen s and pe sonal samples. The mean
exposu e le el o o al dus was high in he sulpha ising
oas ing depa men , a 8.5 mg/m
3
. The mean le els o
cobal in he wo kplace ai in 1967–2003 a e p esen ed
in Fig. 2. The me hods o measu ing wo kplace expo-
su es ha e been desc ibed in de ail ea lie [12, 13].
Acco ding o biological moni o ing su eillance, he
highes exposu e o cobal was in he educ ion and
powde p oduc ion depa men . The highes u ina y
con en o cobal was abou 16,000 nmol/l (le el o
unexposed pe sons being <40 nmol/l). In he solu ion
pu i ica ion and chemical depa men s, he u ina y
cobal le els we e be ween 200 and 2000 nmol/l. Respi a-
o s we e a ailable since he plan s a ed ope a ing, and
became manda o y in he las en yea s in he powde
p oduc ion and chemical depa men s. The biological
moni o ing esul s show ha exposu e is s ill conside able,
despi e he in ensi ied use o espi a o s [12, 13].
Exposu e g oups
The coho was di ided in o subcoho s by exposu e
le els, acco ding o he depa men in which hey had
s a ed wo king du ing hei employmen a he plan
(Tables 1, 2). The exposu e in di e en depa men s was
classi ied acco ding o he indus ial hygienic measu e-
men s (Fig. 2) and biological moni o ing. Exposu e in
ac o y main enance was classi ied as a iable, because i
includes e.g. epai s in di e en depa men s wi h possible
peak exposu es when he machine y is ou o o de .
Resul s
The ollow-up coho consis ed o 995 men wi h 26,083
pe son-yea s (Table 1). The mean ollow-up o a pe son
was hus 26.2 yea s.
Cobal p ocess 1966 – 1987 Cobal p ocess 1987 – p esen
Py i e o e concen a ion Cobal concen a es
I on esidue I on esidue
Coppe sulphide
Zinc sulphide
Coppe sulphide
Zinc sulphide
Nickel ammonium
sulpha e
Cobal and
nickel solu ions
Cobal powde
Cobal ine powde
Sulpha ising
oas ing
Leaching and
solu ion pu i ica ion
Reduc ion and
powde p oduc ion
Leaching and
solu ion
pu i ica ion
Cobal
ex ac ion
Chemical
p oduc ion
Reduc ion and
powde
p oduc ion
Cobal powde
Cobal ine powde
Cobal and nickel
sulpha es, oxides,
h
y
d oxides
Fig. 1 Cobal p oduc ion p ocess in he Kokkola cobal plan in 1966 –1987 and 1987 –p esen
Sauni e al. BMC Cance (2017) 17:340 Page 3 o 8
Du ing he ollow-up pe iod, 92 cases o cance we e
diagnosed, and he expec ed numbe was 91.9 (SIR 1.00,
95% CI 0.81–1.22; Table 3). Fi e cases we e obse ed
5–15 yea s a e he beginning o ollow-up and 87 cases
mo e han 15 yea s a e he beginning o ollow-up.
A o al o 77 cases o cance we e diagnosed among
men who had been wo king in he plan o o e i e
yea s (SIR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85–1.34) (Table 3). The o e all
cance incidence was no signi ican ly ele a ed in any o
he exposu e g oups (Table 4).
The SIR o lung cance among men wi h a leas one
yea o employmen was 0.50 (95% CI 0.18–1.08) and
among men wi h a leas i e yea s o employmen 0.52
(95%CI 0.17–1.22) (Table 3). None o he exposu e
g oup-speci ic SIRs o lung cance was signi ican ly di -
e en om 1.0 (Table 4). Th ee o he lung cance cases
we e in he age g oup 45–59 yea s and h ee in he age
g oup 60–74 yea s. The age speci ic SIRs o lung cance
did no di e signi ican ly om hose o he e e ence
popula ion (age g oup 45–59 yea s: SIR 0.75, 95% CI
0.15–2.18 and age g oup 60–74 yea s: SIR 0.42, 95% CI
0.09–1.24).
The incidence o ongue cance was signi ican ly in-
c eased (SIR 7.39; 95% CI 1.52–21.6) (Table 3). The age
o he pa ien s a he ime o diagnosis was 39, 52 and
70 yea s. The age g oup speci ic SIRs o ongue cance
did no di e signi ican ly om hose o he e e ence
popula ion (age g oup 30–44 yea s: SIR 16.35, 95% CI
0.41–91.08; age g oup 45–59 yea s: SIR 8.02, 95% CI
0.20–44.66 and age g oup 60–74 yea s: SIR 16.23, 95%
CI 0.41–90.40). All h ee cases we e smoke s. One o
hem had wo ked o 20.5 yea s in he cobal plan
( a iable exposu e g oup), one had wo ked he e o
36.1 yea s (low exposu e g oup) and he hi d o
15.8 yea s (high exposu e g oup).
The e was an excess o bladde cance cases in he low
exposu e g oup (SIR 3.07; 95% CI 1.12–6.67) (Table 4).
One bladde cance pa ien was a non-smoke , ou we e
smoke s and he smoking s a us o ou pa ien s was
unknown. The SIRs o s omach cance , la ynx cance
and hy oid cance exceeded 2.0 bu we e based on small
numbe s o cases and we e no s a is ically signi ican
(Table 3).
Discussion
Ea ly indings om a F ench s udy in he 1980s sug-
ges ed ha cobal wo ke s may be a an inc eased isk o
cance s o he achea, lung and b onchus [7]. La e
indings indica ed ha occupa ional exposu e o cobal
in he ambien ai does no inc ease ei he he o al
cance isk o he isk o lung cance [8]. The esul s o
he p esen s udy a e in line wi h he no-inc ease
indings. In he p esen s udy o a coho o 995 men
wo king in a cobal plan , wi h a mean ollow-up o
26.2 yea s, we obse ed no ele a ed o e all cance
incidence o ele a ed incidence o lung cance .
Ou coho consis ed o all employees who had been
wo king in he in eg a ed p oduc ion uni o he
Kokkola cobal plan du ing 1969–2004. Iden i ica ion o
coho membe s and ollow-up o dea hs and emig a-
ion we e comple e o he pe iod o his s udy. The
comple eness o cance egis a ion in Finland is a leas
99% [14], and he compu e ised eco d linkage p oced-
u e p ecise [15]. The e o e, echnical incomple eness
does no cause bias in he esul s.
Exposu e assessmen
The mean le els o cobal in he ambien ai in his plan
we e gene ally a he le el o he cu en occupa ional
exposu e limi in Finland (0.02 mg/m
3
). Du ing he i s
yea s o cobal p oduc ion, he cobal le els may ha e
been conside ably highe , o e 1 mg/m
3
, especially in
he oas ing depa men . The Finnish occupa ional limi s
we e also o en exceeded in he educ ion and powde
p oduc ion depa men s.
Cobal exposu e was moni o ed wi h excep ional
accu acy om he ea ly days o he s udied plan . The
wo king his o y o he pa ien s was e i ied om he
egis e s, which minimises ecall and in o ma ion bias.
This was no he case in p e ious epidemiological
s udies, which did no epo ei he he exposu e le els
o cobal o simul aneous co-exposu es [7].
O he o he simul aneous co-exposu es, nickel is con-
side ed as ca cinogenic. The e has been nickel exposu e
Fig. 2 Mean cobal exposu e le els a Kokkola cobal plan in 1968–2014
Table 2 Exposu e g oups acco ding o depa men s
De ini ion Depa men s
Va iable exposu e wi h peak
exposu es
Fac o y main enance
Low exposu e Leaching and solu ion pu i ica ion
Mode a e exposu e Chemical depa men , es plan
High exposu e Sulpha ising oas ing, educ ion
and powde p oduc ion
Sauni e al. BMC Cance (2017) 17:340 Page 4 o 8
in leaching, solu ion, pu i ica ion and chemical depa -
men s. In a ecen s udy on cance isk in a Finnish nickel
e ine y he inc eased lung cance and sinonasal cance
isk was ound in he mos nickel-exposed wo k si e whe e
he nickel concen a ion had been ≥0.2 mg/m
3
[16]. The
nickel exposu e le els ha e been much lowe in he cobal
plan han in he nickel e ine y, and in he p esen s udy
he e we e no sinonasal cance s and he isk o lung
cance was low.
SIR
The p e ious epidemiological s udies on he ca cinogen-
ici y o cobal used he s anda dised mo ali y a io
(SMR) as a measu e o cance isk, compa ing he
numbe o dea hs in he coho wi h he expec ed num-
be o dea hs, calcula ed om he mo ali y a es o he
gene al popula ion [7, 8, 10]. As he majo i y o cance
pa ien s die om non-cance causes o dea h, he SIR is
a mo e sensi i e way o analysing he e ec s o cobal
han he SMR.
O e all cance
The o e all cance incidence was no ele a ed in he
p esen s udy. We used he incidence a es o he
popula ion o Cen al Os obo hnia Finland as he main
e e ence, because incidence a es a y geog aphically.
Table 3 Obse ed (Obs) and expec ed (Exp) numbe s o cance cases and s anda dised incidence a ios (SIR) wi h 95% con idence
in e als (CI) among male wo ke s a he Kokkola cobal plan du ing 1969–2013, by si e and du a ion o employmen . Only p ima y
si es wi h ≥2 obse ed o expec ed cance cases included
P ima y si e Employmen >1 yea Employmen >5 yea s
Obs Exp SIR 95% CI Obs Exp SIR 95% CI
All si es 92 91.9 1.00 0.81–1.22 77 71.6 1.08 0.85–1.34
Tongue 3 0.41 7.39 1.52–21.6 3 0.30 10.0 2.06–29.2
Oesophagus 2 1.15 1.74 0.21–6.28 2 0.89 2.24 0.27–8.08
S omach 7 3.47 2.01 0.81–4.15 5 2.73 1.83 0.59–4.26
Colon 4 4.36 0.92 0.25–2.34 4 3.46 1.16 0.32–2.96
Rec um, ec osigmoid 4 3.80 1.05 0.29–2.69 3 2.93 1.03 0.21–2.99
Panc eas 2 3.44 0.58 0.07–2.09 1 2.69 0.37 0.01–2.07
La ynx, epiglo is 2 0.81 2.45 0.30–8.86 2 0.65 3.09 0.37–11.2
Lung, achea 6 12.0 0.50 0.18–1.08 5 9.55 0.52 0.17–1.22
Melanoma o he skin 1 3.29 0.30 0.01–1.69 1 2.53 0.39 0.01–2.20
Skin, non-melanoma 3 2.78 1.08 0.22–3.15 3 2.22 1.35 0.28–3.94
Basal cell ca cinoma o he skin 18 19.2 0.94 0.56–1.48 12 15.1 0.80 0.41–1.38
P os a e 33 24.4 1.35 0.93–1.89 26 19.4 1.34 0.87–1.96
Kidney 2 3.81 0.52 0.06–1.89 2 3.00 0.67 0.08–2.40
Bladde and u ina y ac 9 4.79 1.88 0.86–3.56 6 3.76 1.60 0.59–3.47
B ain, cen al ne ous sys em 2 2.82 0.71 0.09–2.56 2 2.07 0.97 0.12–3.49
Thy oid gland 2 0.99 2.01 0.24–7.26 2 0.72 2.78 0.34–10.0
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 3 4.44 0.68 0.14–1.97 3 3.42 0.88 0.18–2.56
Leukaemia 3 2.11 1.42 0.29–4.15 3 1.58 1.90 0.39–5.54
Table 4 Obse ed (Obs) and expec ed (Exp) numbe s o cance cases (all si es, lung and nasal cance ) and s anda dised incidence
a ios (SIR) wi h 95% CI du ing 1967–2011 among wo ke s in he Kokkola cobal plan du ing 1969–2013wi h employmen o >1 yea , by
exposu e g oup
Exposu e
g oup
All si es Lung, achea Tongue Bladde
Obs Exp SIR 95% CI Obs Exp SIR 95% CI Obs Exp SIR 95% CI Obs Exp SIR 95% CI
Va iable 7 5.02 1.39 0.56–2.87 - 0.55 0.00 0.00–6.68 1 0.04 26.4 0.67–14.0 - 0.25 0.00 0.00–15.0
Low 42 37.8 1.11 0.80–1.50 2 4.89 0.41 0.05–1.47 1 0.15 6.48 0.16–36.1 6 1.96 3.07 1.12–6.67
Mode a e 4 6.02 0.66 0.18–1.70 - 0.66 0.00 0.00–5.56 - 0.06 0.00 0.00 - 0.30 0.00 0.00–12.2
High 39 43.6 0.90 0.64–1.22 4 5.95 0.67 0.18–1.72 1 0.16 6.12 0.15–34.1 3 2.32 1.30 0.27–3.78
To al 92 91.9 1.00 0.81–1.22 6 12.0 0.50 0.18–1.08 3 0.41 7.39 1.52–21.6 9 4.79 1.88 0.86–3.56
Sauni e al. BMC Cance (2017) 17:340 Page 5 o 8

Cance incidence also a ies acco ding o socioeconomic
posi ion. The majo i y o he wo ke s in he depa men s
o he Kokkola cobal plan we e skilled blue-colla
wo ke s, whe eas he e e ence g oup included all socio-
economic g oups. I is known ha he cance incidence
o blue-colla wo ke s in mos cance ypes is close o
he popula ion a e age [17], and hence, he e e ence
a es used in ou calcula ions o expec ed numbe s o
cases should be alid.
Heal hy wo ke e ec is a phenomenon ini ially
obse ed in s udies o occupa ional diseases: wo ke s
usually exhibi lowe o e all dea h a es han he gene al
popula ion because he se e ely ill and ch onically
disabled a e o dina ily excluded om employmen [18].
The heal hy wo ke e ec migh also a ec cance inci-
dence in he i s yea s a e employmen bu he e ec
is much smalle han i would be in a s udy on mo ali y.
In he Kokkola cobal plan he e was no selec ion o
wo ke s because o possible cance isk. No ma ke s o
es s we e used in p e-employmen heal h examina ions
o he plan o exclude indi iduals ha could be in isk
o cance . We could ollow he wo ke s also a e he
end o employmen . Thus, i hey had o lea e wo k
because o heal h easons, hey we e s ill included in ou
coho . The e o e, we sugges ha heal hy wo ke e ec
did no play a ma ked ole in his s udy.
A dose- esponse ela ionship be ween exposu e le el
o cobal and cance incidence would ha e suppo ed
he idea o cobal as a causa i e agen o he cance s.
Howe e , he o e all cance incidence did no inc ease
acco ding o he cobal exposu e le el.
Lung cance
In he p esen s udy, he incidence o lung cance cases
dec eased by 50%, and e en mo e among he coho
membe s who had been wo king in he same depa -
men o mo e han i e yea s.
A F ench s udy [7] ound an inc eased SMR o lung
cance among cobal wo ke s, bu a ollow-up s udy o
he same coho wi h an ex ended obse a ion pe iod
could no e i y he p e ious esul s [8]. In ha F ench
s udy, he exposing compounds we e qui e compa able
o hose in ou s udy, bu he exposu e le els we e no
known.
Tongue cance
The o al s udy g oup con ained h ee cases o ongue
cance . The SIR o ongue cance was signi ican ly highe
in he o al g oup (7.39, 95% CI 1.52–21.60). In di e en
exposu e o age g oups he inc ease was no s a is ically
signi ican . To ou knowledge, no p e ious s udies ha e
associa ed cobal exposu e wi h ongue cance . Acco ding
o he li e a u e, he mos signi ican isk ac o s o o al
cance a e smoking and alcohol use [19, 20]. All h ee
cases o ongue cance in ou coho we e smoke s. We
do no ha e da a on hei alcohol consump ion.
In e ac ion o di e en ca cinogenic me als could be a
hypo he ical explana ion o he excess o ongue cance s.
Howe e , none o he ongue cance pa ien s had wo ked
in he chemical depa men whe e he nickel exposu e
was highes , bu obacco smoke con ains also di e en
me als including aluminium, cadmium, ch omium, nickel,
lead, me cu y, selenium, anadium, manganese and zinc
[21], which may ha e syne gis ic e ec s wi h cobal ex-
posu e. Me als a e hough o p omo e cance by a num-
be o common mechanisms. In e ms o di ec damage o
DNA, mos me als a e only weakly mu agenic; howe e ,
many a e s ong co-ca cinogens, p omo ing a syne gis ic
e ec in he p esence o o he cance -causing agen s [22].
Because he small numbe o ongue cases he e, he excess
may be explained by chance alone.
Cance o u ina y bladde
Nine cases we e bladde cance , which is nea ly wice
he expec ed numbe , bu he di e ence was no s a is i-
cally signi ican . Howe e , he lowes exposu e g oup
had a s a is ically signi ican h ee- old excess o u ina y
bladde cance cases. All in all, 2/3 o he cases we e
om he lowes exposu e ca ego y. The mos impo an
isk ac o o bladde cance is obacco smoking [23].
Only one bladde cance pa ien was a non-smoke ou
o i e cases wi h known smoking s a us. Occupa ionally,
a oma ic amines a e known o cause bladde cance as
an occupa ional disease [24]. No one in his s udy g oup
was known o ha e been exposed o a oma ic amines.
Smoking
The mos impo an sou ce o incompa abili y be ween
he esul s de i ed om di e en coho s is usually
con ounding due o smoking, which has no been
con olled o in mos s udies and which may lead o a
bias in a di e en di ec ion, depending on whe he
smoking in he coho is lowe o highe han in he
e e ence popula ion. Acco ding o da a ga he ed in
2000, he p e alence o cu en smoke s among he em-
ployees o he Kokkola cobal plan was 31.8% [13]. The
p e alence o daily smoke s in he male popula ion in
he p o ince o Cen al Os obo hnia a ound he cobal
plan in 1990–2005 a ied om 18% in he highes
educa ional class o 25% in he lowes [25]. These
pe cen ages may be an unde es ima ion o smoke s,
possibly due o he small sample size. Du ing his same
ime pe iod, he p e alence o daily smoke s in he
whole coun y was abou 30% [25]. Mo eo e , daily
smoke s and cu en smoke s may ep esen di e en
g oups. Hence, he explana ion o he SIR 0.5 o lung
cance in ou coho is appa en ly no a lowe smoking
p e alence as compa ed o he e e ence popula ion.
Sauni e al. BMC Cance (2017) 17:340 Page 6 o 8
Di e en e ec s o di e en compounds
An assessmen o cobal and i s compounds equi es a
clea dis inc ion be ween di e en compounds and
needs o ake in o accoun he di e en mechanisms in-
ol ed. The e is e idence ha soluble cobal (II) ca ions
exe geno oxic and ca cinogenic ac i i y bo h in i o
and in i o in expe imen al sys ems [26, 27]. The e is
also e idence ha ha d me al pa icles ha con ain
ungs en ca bide, in addi ion o cobal , exe geno oxic
and ca cinogenic ac i i y in i o and in human s udies
[28]. Howe e , he conclusion o IARC (2006) is ha he
e idence is limi ed in humans o inc eased isk o lung
cance in case o cobal wi h ungs en ca bide and inad-
equa e in case o cobal wi hou ungs en ca bide [1].
Fo ca cinogenici y o cobal oxides and o he com-
pounds he e is insu icien in o ma ion [28].
Conclusions
The esul s sugges ha occupa ional exposu e o cobal is
no associa ed wi h an inc eased o e all cance isk o
lung cance isk among cobal wo ke s. Unexpec edly we
ound a signi ican inc ease in he incidence o ongue
cance . The e a e no p e ious da a om ei he animal o
human s udies o suppo an associa ion be ween cobal
and ongue cance . Because o he small numbe o cance
cases he esul s mus be in e p e ed wi h cau ion.
Abb e ia ions
CI: Con idence in e al; IARC: In e na ional Agency o Resea ch on Cance ;
SIR: S anda dised incidence a io
Acknowledgemen s
We acknowledge Alice Leh inen o p o essional edi ing o g amma o
he manusc ip .
Funding
This esea ch ecei ed unding o da a collec ion om F eepo Cobal . The
analysis, in e p e a ion o da a and w i ing was pe o med independen ly.
A ailabili y o da a and ma e ials
Da a can be made a ailable wi h he pe mission o Kokkola cobal plan and
Finnish Ins i u e o Occupa ional Heal h.
Au ho s’con ibu ions
RS, PO and JU p epa ed he s udy plan and he a icle, AL and RK ex ac ed
he da a om he iles o he company’s employmen eco ds, and EP
pa icipa ed in s udy design and pe o med he s a is ical analyses.
All au ho s ead and app o ed he inal manusc ip .
Compe ing in e es s
RK has been employed by Boliden since 2006 and AL 1983–2005. Boliden
and he Kokkola Cobal Plan a e loca ed in he same Kokkola Indus ial Pa k
a ea. Boliden has p o ided occupa ional heal h se ices o he Kokkola
Cobal Plan un il end o 2016.
Consen o publica ion
No applicable.
E hics app o al
Na ional Ins i u e o Heal h and Wel a e, Finland.
Publishe ’sNo e
Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in
published maps and ins i u ional a ilia ions.
Au ho de ails
1
Depa men o Occupa ional Sa e y and Heal h, Minis y o Social A ai s
and Heal h, P.O. Box 33FI-00023 Go e nmen Tampe e, Finland.
2
Clinic o
Occupa ional Medicine, Tampe e Uni e si y Hospi al, Tampe e, Finland.
3
Finnish Ins i u e o Occupa ional Heal h, Tampe e, Finland.
4
The Facul y o
Medicine and Li e Sciences, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e, Finland.
5
Heal h
Cen e o Kokkola own, Kokkola, Finland.
6
Occupa ional Heal h, Boliden,
Kokkola, Finland.
7
Facul y o Social Sciences, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e,
Finland.
8
Finnish Cance Regis y, Ins i u e o S a is ical and Epidemiological
Cance Resea ch, Helsinki, Finland.
Recei ed: 23 May 2016 Accep ed: 9 May 2017
Re e ences
1. In e na ional Agency o Resea ch on Cance . Cobal in Ha d Me als and
Cobal Sul a e, Gallium A senide, Indium Phosphide and Vanadium
Pen oxide. IARC Monog E al Ca cinog Risks Hum. 2006;86:37–155.
2. Shedd KB. Mine als yea book: cobal . Res on: US geological su ey; 2001. p.
20.1–20.18. h p://mine als.usgs.go /mine als/pubs/commodi y/cobal /index.
h ml. Accessed 4 Ma 2017.
3. Shedd KB. Mine als yea book: cobal . Res on: US geological su ey; 2014. p.
19.10. h p://mine als.usgs.go /mine als/pubs/commodi y/cobal /index.h ml.
Accessed 4 Ma 2017.
4. Na ional Ins i u e o Heal h. Cobal . h ps://www.cdc.go /niosh/ opics/
cobal /. Accessed 4 Ma 2017.
5. Vainio H, Liesi uo i J, Leh ola M, Loueka i K, Engs öm K, Kauppinen T,
Ku ppa K, Riipinen H, Sa olainen K, Tossa ainen A. Chemicals and wo k
(in Finnish). Helsinki: Finnish Ins i u e o Occupa ional Heal h; 2005.
6. Högs ed C, Alexande sson R. Mo ali y s udy among wo ke s om he ha d
me al indus y (in Swedish), A be e och Hälsa; 1990. p. 211–20.
7. Mu JM, Moulin JJ, Cha uye -Seine a MP, La i e J. A coho mo ali y s udy
among cobal and sodium wo ke s in an elec ochemical plan . Am J Ind
Med. 1987;11:75–81.
8. Moulin JJ, Wild P, Romazini S, Las a gues G, Pel ie A, Bozec C, e al. Lung
cance isk on ha d-me al wo ke s. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;148:241–8.
9. G ims ud TK, Be ge SR, Haldo sen T, Ande sen A. Can lung cance isk
among nickel e ine y wo ke s be explained by occupa ional exposu es
o he han nickel? Epidemiology. 2005;16:146–54.
10. Las a gues G, Wild P, Moulin JJ, Hammon B, Rosmo duc B, Rondeau du
Noye C, e al. Lung cance mo ali y o a F ench coho o ha d-me al
wo ke s. Am J Ind Med. 1994;26:585–95.
11. Eu opean Commission. Communica ion om he commission o he
Eu opean Pa liamen , he Council, he Eu opean Economic and Social
Commi ee and he Commi ee o Regions. Sa e and Heal hie Wo k o All
- Mode nisa ion o he EU Occupa ional Sa e y and Heal h Legisla ion and
Policy. COM(2017) 12 Final. B ussels; 2017.
12. Linna A, Oksa P, Palm oos P, Ro o P, Laippala P, Ui i J. Respi a o y heal h o
cobal p oduc ion wo ke s. Am J Ind Med. 2003;44(2):124–32.
13. Linna A, Oksa P, G ounds oem K, Halkosaa i M, Palm oos P, Huikko S, e al.
Exposu e o cobal in he p oduc ion o cobal and cobal compounds and
i s e ec on he hea . Occup En i on Med. 2004;61(11):877–85.
14. Teppo L, Pukkala E, Leh onen M. Da a quali y and quali y con ol o a
popula ion-based cance egis y. Expe ience in Finland. Ac a Oncol.
1994;33:365–9.
15. Pukkala E. Biobanks and egis e s in epidemiological esea ch on cance .
In: Dillne J, edi o . Me hods in biobanking. Me hods in molecula biology.
To owa: Humana P ess. 2011;675:127–64.
16. Pa ela M, Ui i J, Pukkala E. Cance incidence among coppe smel ing and
nickel e ining wo ke s in Finland. Am J Ind Med. 2017;60:87–95.
17. Pukkala E. Cance isk by social class and occupa ion. A su ey o 109,000
cance cases among Finns o wo king age. Con ibu ions o epidemiology
and bios a is ics 7. Basel: Ka ge ; 1995.
18. Las J. A dic iona y o epidemiology. 3 d ed. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess;
1995.
19. Bagna di V, Blangia do M, La Vecchia C, Co ao G. A me a-analysis o alcohol
d inking and cance isk. B J Cance . 2001;85:1700–5.
Sauni e al. BMC Cance (2017) 17:340 Page 7 o 8
20. Mayne ST, Mo se DE, Winn DM. Cance s o he o al ca i y and pha ynx.
In: Scho en eld D, F aumeni J JF, edi o s. Cance epidemiology and
p e en ion. New Yo k (US): Ox o d Uni e si y P ess; 2006. p. 674–96.
21. Be nha d D, Rossmann A, Wick G. Me als in ciga e e smoke. IUBMB Li e.
57(12):805–9.
22. Du ham TR, Snow ET. Me al ions and ca cinogenesis. In: Bignold LP, edi o .
Cance : cell s uc u es, ca cinogens and genomic ins abili y. Swi ze land:
Bi khäuse Ve lag; 2006. p. 97–130.
23. Cumbe ba ch MG, Ro a M, Ca o JW, La Vecchia C. The ole o obacco
smoke in bladde and kidney ca cinogenesis: a compa ison o exposu es
and me a-analysis o incidence and mo ali y isks. Eu U ol. 2016;70(3):458–
66. doi: 10.1016/j.eu u o.2015.06.042.
24. Schul e PA, Ringen K, Hems ee GP, Al ek use EB, Gullen WH, Tille S, e al.
Risk ac o s o bladde cance in a coho exposed o a oma ic amines.
Cance . 1986;58(9):2156–62.
25. Helako pi S, Lai alainen E, Abse z P, To ppa J, Uu ela A, Puska P. Heal h
beha iou and heal h among Finnish adul s in he Finnish egions in 1978–
2005 (In Finnish, wi h English abs ac ). Na ional Public Heal h Ins i u e.
2007;B15:14.
26. Buche JR, Hailey JR, Royc o JR, Haseman JK, Sills RC, G umbein SL, e al.
Inhala ion oxici y and ca cinogenici y s udies o cobal sul a e. Toxicol Sci.
1999;49:56–67.
27. Bo m PJ, D oscoll K. Pa icles, in lamma ion and espi a o y ac
ca cinogenesis. Toxicol Le . 1996;88:109–13.
28. Lison D, De Boeck M, Ve ougs ae e V, Ki sch-Volde s M. Upda e on he
geno oxici y and ca cinogenici y o cobal compounds. Occup En i on Med.
2001;58:619–25.
• We accep p e-submission inqui ies
• Ou selec o ool helps you o ind he mos ele an jou nal
• We p o ide ound he clock cus ome suppo
• Con enien online submission
• Tho ough pee e iew
• Inclusion in PubMed and all majo indexing se ices
• Maximum isibili y o you esea ch
Submi you manusc ip a
www.biomedcen al.com/submi
Submi you nex manusc ip o BioMed Cen al
and we will help you a e e y s ep:
Sauni e al. BMC Cance (2017) 17:340 Page 8 o 8