This is an open access article under the terms of a license that permits non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2022 The Authors. Société Internationale d'Urologie Journal, published by the Société Internationale d'Urologie, Canada. Key Words Competing Interests Article Information Prostate cancer, commercial airline pilots, incidence, mortality None declared. Received on September 1, 2021 Accepted on January 23, 2022 This article has been peer reviewed. Soc Int Urol J. 2022;3(3):145–162 DOI: 10.48083/PDKF1241 145SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 REVIEW Incidence and Mortality of Prostate Cancer in Commercial Airline Cockpit Crew: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Hadia Khanani,1 George McClintock,1 Hilary Fernando,1 Gillian Heller,2 Rebecca Asher,2 Cindy Garcia,1 David P. Smith,3 Ian Getley,4 Nariman Ahmadi,1 Norbert Doeuk,1 Scott Leslie,1 Niruban Thanigasalam,1 Henry H. Woo1 1 Department of Uro-Oncology, Chris O’Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, Australia 2 National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia 3 Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, Australia School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Australia 4 PCAire Inc, Australia 5 College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Wahroonga, Australia. SAN Prostate Centre of Excellence, Sydney Adventist Hospital, Wahroonga, Australia Abstract Commercial airline cockpit crew (CCC) are potentially exposed to occupational risk factors that may have detrimental health effects. However, available literature on prostate cancer (PCa) as a health outcome is conflicted. Therefore, this review of cohort studies aims to evaluate the incidence of and mortality from PCa in CCC based on studies published to date. PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and SCOPUS were searched from 1946 to April 2021. Cohort studies reporting standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and/or standardized mortality ratios (SMR) of PCa in CCC were included. Military, cabin crew and service personnel data were excluded. Independent data extraction was conducted, and study quality assessed. Standardized ratios were pooled using a fixed effects model and expressed with 95% confidence intervals. 75 studies were assessed for eligibility from which 6 involving 129 374 licensed CCC were included in the final analysis: Two reported incidence only, 1 incidence and mortality and 3 reported mortalities only. The pooled SIR for PCa in CCC was 1.41 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.71) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 53%) however, the pooled SMR was not statistically significant (1.08; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24) also with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 70%). The available evidence shows that CCC are at a higher risk of developing PCa but there is no evidence to suggest a similarly higher risk of death from the disease. The effect of early detection through PSA testing in this cohort is unclear. Occupational exposure to radiation and sleep disturbance may play a role, but clear evidence of additional risk is lacking. Our review indicates that most evidence is dated and to confidently assess contemporary health outcomes of CCC, further research is required. Introduction Commercial airline cockpit crew (CCC) usually includes captains (pilot in command), co-pilots (first officer) and flight engineers with variations in number depending on type of aircraft and route[1]. This is an occupational cohort who undergo strict medical surveillance and are often regarded as healthier than the general population[2]. Although a healthy worker effect exists among pilots[3,4], their unique work environment exposes them to several risk factors including exposure to electromagnetic fields, ionizing radiation of cosmic origin, disruptions of circadian rhythm, and noise pollution[5], ultimately raising their risk of poorer outcomes in several physical and mental health parameters[6–8,9]. http://SIUJ.org https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2101-8261 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6992-8013 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3647-8658 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1270-1499 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2502-4693 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5787-2964 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1474-3214 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5864-1044 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8727-5952 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4322-2984 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9848-969X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6438-8732 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4099-0339 mailto:henry.woo%40lh.org.au?subject=SIUJ In 1990, T he Internat iona l Com mission on Radiological Protection recommended that natural background radiation exposure be included as an occu- pational hazard for aircrew[10], and since then, various reports[5,9,11–21] have described the incidence and mortality risks of cancer in pilot cohorts. In summary, decreased mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases was reported in some cohorts[5,11,13,14] as well as all cancer deaths[13,15,16,18,20,21] when compared with mortality in the general population. Malignant melanoma has been consistently associated with high incidence[12,13,22–26] and mortality ratios[5,13,14]. Prostate cancer ranks second in incidence after lung cancer and fifth in mortality rates in males glob- ally[27]. To our knowledge, no studies have exclusively investigated PCa in CCC. However, data on prostate cancer risks have been reported in studies document- ing outcomes from multiple disease types that report conflicting results associated with incidence and mortal- ity rates of PCa. From these, 6 studies have reported increased incidence[12,13,25–29], 2 reported no signif- icant association[23,26] and one[30] reported a lower incidence of PCa compared with background popu- lation rates. Similar contradictory evidence is avail- able in mortality studies, with data reporting lower[9], unchanged[14,16,17,21,31,32], and higher[5,13,33] mortality rates of PCa in CCC relative to population statistics. Several commentaries[7], meta-analyses[34,35], and reviews[36] have reported cancer risks in f light personnel, with data for cockpit crew, f light atten- dants, and military personnel generally analyzed sepa- rately. These studies report for all cancer types, except one study[37] that focused exclusively on PCa in pilots. Raslau et al. in the review and meta-analysis reported a higher incidence of PCa (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.33) in pilots compared with the general population, but mortality was not significantly elevated (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.60). After initial retraction[38], the revised version[37] was criticised[39] for omission of eligible studies[5,9,12,21] and re-inclusion of military data[40]. Given the inconclusive nature of literature in this area and the previously retracted and criticised review, a new analysis is required. This study, therefore, in addition to correcting past errors, aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of data exclusively focusing on PCa in CCC. Materials and Methods This systemat ic rev iew a nd meta-a na lysis was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PR ISMA) statement recommendations[41]. Two independent investigators (H.F. and H.K.) conducted the literature search, study selection, and data extraction, and resolved any discrepancies through discussion. Selection criteria Studies that fit the following criteria were included in the meta-analysis: (1) published studies only, (2) original population data, (3) cohort study design, (4) investigating CCC only, (5) PCa as either one of the outcomes or the only outcome reported, (6) reporting in terms of standardized incidence ratios (SIR) or standardized mortality ratios (SMR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) only or studies containing sufficient data for calculation of these parameters, (7) reporting 2 or more cases of prostate cancer in either incidence or mortality occurrences and (8) written in any language. All studies that investigated military, cabin crew, f light attendants and other personnel not designated as an occupation undertaken inside the cockpit were excluded. Latest studies that were investigative extensions of previous data cohorts were selected to avoid data duplication. Literature search and data sources Eligible cohort studies in any language published on PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and SCOPUS from inception up to April 2021 were searched using the search strategies outlined in Appendix 1. Commercial aircraft pilot, navigator, and flight engineer data were included as CCC, and military and helicopter pilots, flight/cabin attendant and service personnel data were excluded. Flight attendant cohorts that reported cancer incidence[24,42] and mortality[43,44] collectively analyzed 5 times as many females as males; most of the population were younger than 50 years, and they had a much shorter work period than pilots. They were therefore excluded. Military and helicopter pilots fly different routes and at different altitudes[29] from commercial cockpit crew and so were also excluded from the analysis. The titles and abstracts of all identified articles were reviewed by 2 investigators independently, and disagree- ments and ambiguities resolved by discussion. The refer- ence lists of identified studies and previous systematic reviews were manually examined for additional stud- Abbreviations CCC commercial airline cockpit crew PCa prostate cancer PSA prostate specific antigen SIR standardized incidence ratio SMR standardized mortality ratio 146 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 SIUJ.ORG REVIEW http://SIUJ.org ies of interest. Reports in which the data were dupli- cated were identified, and only the most recent cohorts were included. The abbreviation “CCC” and the words “pilots” and “cockpit crew” are used interchangeably throughout the paper. Data extraction and quality assessment A standardized data extraction form was used by 2 independent researchers. The following relevant infor- mation was extracted from each study: author, year of publication, study outcome (incidence, mortality, or both), title of paper, country, population size of cohort, duration of study, mean age at conclusion, Newcastle– Ottawa Scale (NOS)[45] score, risk factors assessed (years of employment, cumulative radiation dose in µSv or mSv, cumulative block hours and high altitude long-haul or short-haul flights), observed and expected number of PCa cases, SIR or SMR, and 95% confidence intervals. The quality of the papers included in the review was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) developed by Wells et al.[45]. The NOS is tailored to the design type and allows assessment the validity of results in the presence of selection, reporting, and confound- ing biases. It uses 3 domains for assessment: selection, comparability, and outcome. Stars were added in each domain, with the totals signifying “good,” “fair,” or “poor” quality. Details of each item can be found on the website (www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/ oxford.asp). Data synthesis and statistical analysis The outcomes of interest were standardized incidence rat ios (SIR) a nd sta nda rdized mor ta lit y rat ios (SMR). For each study, the observed and expected numbers were extracted. This allowed the calculation of the standardized ratios (SR) and corresponding confidence intervals to be consistent across studies. The SR was calculated as observed/expected and then log-transformed. The standard error of the log(SR) was calculated using 1/sqrt(observed) and confidence intervals constructed on the log-scale and exponentiated. This ensured that all estimates would be positive. A fixed effects meta-analysis was used to calculate the pooled standardized ratios across studies. The I2 statistic was calculated to investigate the extent of heterogeneity across studies. Heterogeneity was considered low for I2 values between 25% and 50%, moderate for 50% to 75%, and high for >75%. R software (version 4.0.2) was used for computation of the estimates and construction of forest plots packages, with packages meta[46] and metaphor[47]. Publication bias could not be assessed as the study included fewer than 10 studies[48]. Results Literature search and study selection Figure 1 shows the literature search and study selection process. We identified 3100 records by key word search, and hand searching elicited 17 further studies. After screening, 75 remaining full-text articles were assessed for eligibility of which 6 were included in the review: 2 studies reported incidence only, 3 reported mortality only, and 1 reported both for PCa. From the large number of studies excluded, 30 were tabulated with reasons for ex clusion and selected data characteristics (0- and Supplementary Table S1B). Methodological evaluation of studies: identification of systematic bias The NOS components and total scores are shown against each study in Table 1. The 1996 study by Band et al.[13] was assessed for incidence and mortality outcomes separately. The median total score was 6, and only 2 studies scored a total of 7, indicating an overall good quality of studies and no manuscripts with a high risk of bias. Total scores and thus quality of the studies tended to be less prone to bias if they were published more recently. Incidence of prostate cancer among CCC: meta-analysis results Table 2 and Figure 2 summarize the results of the meta- analysis of 3 studies reporting incidence of PCa. The pooled analysis resulted in a pSIR of 1.41 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.71) suggesting that observed rates were significantly higher than expected. The pooled results were of moderate heterogeneity (I2= 53%). An exploration of sources and subsequently a pooled analysis of sub- groups and risk factors was not possible because of heterogeneity and lack of sufficient and consistent data in individual cohorts. Studies by Band et al.[12,13] did not include a risk factor analysis, leaving only one[25] from the included incidence studies attempting to analyze cosmic radiation and circadian disruptions as risk factors of PCa by calculating relative risk estimates. They did so by approximating radiation exposure with block hours on short-haul flights and hormone disturbances with block hours on long-haul flights. Mortality of prostate cancer among CCC: meta-analysis results The summary of results of the meta-analysis of the 4 mortality studies are shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. The analysis resulted a pSMR of 1.08 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.24), suggesting that observed mortality rates were not significantly different to the rate expected in the general population with moderate heterogeneity (I2=70%). The 1990[12] study by Band et al. was excluded from the mortality analysis because only 1 death from PCa 147SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 Incidence and Mortality of Prostate Cancer in Commercial Airline Cockpit Crew: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp http://SIUJ.org was observed. From the included studies, only 2[5,21] reported a risk factor analysis (discussed below); however, it is noteworthy that Yong et al.[21] reported standardized rate ratios of duration of employment and cumulative cosmic radiation dose with mortality, but no data on PCa were available. Lack of risk factor analysis from other included studies prevented a multivariable analysis with mortality data as well. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes available literature pertaining to incidence and mortality rates of PCa in CCC. These results may support the hypothesis that prostate cancer risks in CCC ref lect a combination of screening, sociodemographic, and environmental factors that increase the risk of diagnosis but have no effect on the risk of death from prostate cancer. However, because of substantial heterogeneity among studies and an overall small sample size, we believe these results should be interpreted with caution. The most plausible drivers of the observed increased incidence of PCa in CCC appear to be occupational risk factors discussed in detail below. However, it is also worth noting that over the last 2 decades the rise of pros- tate specific antigen (PSA) testing in many developed countries has led to dramatic increases in the incidence rates of PCa via diagnosis of sub-clinical disease[49]. Although in most developed countries, PSA testing is FIGURE 1. Flow diagram of literature search and study selection for meta-analysis of prostate cancer in commercial airline cockpit crew/pilots. Records identi�ed through search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS (n = 3100) In cl ud ed S cr ee ni ng Id en ti �c at io n El ig ib il it y Additional records identi�ed through manual search (n = 17) Records after duplicates removed (n = 2852) Records screened (n = 2852) Records excluded (n = 2777) Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n =75) Studies included in meta-analysis (n= 6) Incidence and mortality of prostate cancer (n = 1) Mortality of prostate cancer (n = 3) Incidence of prostate cancer (n = 2) Full-text articles excluded, with reasons:air force data / military data / cabin crew data / no data on outcome of interest / no data on prostate cancer / duplicated data cohorts (n = 69) 148 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 SIUJ.ORG REVIEW http://SIUJ.org not mandated as part of the medical certification process for CCC[50–52], CCC are more likely to be tested for PSA upon inquiry of reported lower urinary tract symp- toms as they undergo more regularly scheduled and concentrated medical surveillance[2] than males in the general population. The results of this meta-analysis are likely also affected by increased use of PSA testing in CCC, which results in the detection of more localised PCa compared to the general population. CCC typi- cally have higher incomes and PSA testing with subse- quent follow-up of abnormal results is performed more frequently in men with higher incomes[53]. Despite increased incidence, mortality from PCa was unchanged as compared with the general population. Higher socioeconomic status and better baseline health could be factors in this observation, especially given the general long life expectancy of men diagnosed with PCa. The data related to the impact of PSA testing and early diagnosis of PCa is controversial, with current literature suggesting it does not affect overall mortality[54], which would be consistent with these results. Exposure to ionizing radiation of cosmic origin PCa is not frequently included in the list of neoplasms attributable to ionizing radiation[55], largely due to the lack of sensitivity of the prostate to ionizing radiation, but also due to the latency period of radiation induced solid tumours being decades[56] and PCa being among the slower growing solid tumours. Supporting this theory, studies investigating radiologists and other medical radiation workers have shown no increase in incidence[57] or mortality[58] rates of PCa. In contrast to this, studies after the 1986 Chernobyl incident show an increase in the incidence of PCa in regions surround- ing the area of the accident[56,59]. The large release of radioactive material from the incident[60] makes it less relevant to pilots; however, findings of radiation induced incidence rates of PCa in pilots show similarly conflict- ing results. The study of Nordic pilots[25] quantified cumula- tive radiation exposure by converting aircraft specific block hours to effective doses. Block hours are indus- try-standard measure of aircraft use and are defined as the time elapsed between closure of aircraft doors before departure and opening of these doors at the arrival gate following landing of the aircraft. The same study used the number of block hours on long-haul aircrafts to estimate circadian hormonal disruption among pilots as well. A statistically significant increase of PCa was observed in exposure category ≥ 20 mSv, RR 9.13; 95% CI 1.11 to 74.9 in men age < 60 years as compared with older ages in the same category of exposure (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.12). Similarly, Gudmundsdóttir et al.[26] reported a statistically significant risk ratio of 2.57 (95% CI 1.18 to 5.56) in Icelandic pilots exposed to > 25mSv of ionizing radiation of cosmic origin compared with pilots who were not. These values could possibly be related to greater levels of UV radiation at the poles than at the equator. The association between prostate cancer and radiation exposure remains uncertain. According to available literature it seems unlikely that development of prostate cancer at an early age would be associated with ionizing radiation as no studies have been able to estab- lish a causal link between the two[25]. Adding to this evidence is the 20-year-old Norwegian study[23] that reported an inconsistent trend in SIR values as ioniz- ing radiation exposure increased from 0mSv to >20mSv with a statistically non-significant elevated SIR of 1.8 (95% CI 0.7 to 4.0) for pilots exposed to >20mSv of ioniz- ing radiation. Overall mortality data show moderate but higher heterogeneity than incidence data, but information on measurement of risk factors is less conflicted, with the majority of studies showing no significant difference, although with heterogeneity in measurement meth- odology. A mortality analysis of PCa cases exposed to >25 mSv cumulative effective dose of cosmic radiation reported in a German publication[32] reported low and non-significant mortality and risk ratios (SMR 0.92; 95% CI 0.00 to 37.69, RR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.18 to 4.79). A large European cohort study (ESCAPE)[61] attempted a risk factor analysis of cosmic radiation and mortal- ity rates in pilots. PCa was placed in the category of non-radiation related neoplasms[62,63] but SMRs of PCa with increasing doses of radiation were not reported individually. Mortality studies that quantify years of employment[16,31] or number of block hours since attaining a license[15] as proxies for radiation expo- sure have reported no statistically significant mortal- ity ratios of PCa. An extension[5] of the ESCAPE[61] study cohort with addition of pilots from Greece and United Kingdom, analyzed years of employment as proxy for cumulative radiation exposure. This large study, included in this review, also reported no consis- tent change in SMRs in proportion to increasing years of employment. It is important to keep in mind that this study was an extension of previously reported cohorts hence similar results were to be expected. Further research into occupations frequently exposed to radi- ation is warranted for clarification of the relationship between radiation and prostate cancer. Exposure to electromagnetic fields and disruption of circadian rhythm Although not fully understood, the incidence of PCa has been suspected to be linked with exposure to magnetic fields, which, it has been suggested, may lead to alteration in pineal function, subsequently causing reduction in levels of the pineal hormone, melatonin[33]. Melatonin is associated with the sleep–wake cycle and maintenance 149SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 Incidence and Mortality of Prostate Cancer in Commercial Airline Cockpit Crew: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis http://SIUJ.org TABLE 1. Characteristics of six studies included in the meta-analysis of prostate cancer among pilots Study author (Year) Sample size Study period Country/ region Observed Expected SIR (95% CI) Mean age at conclusion Risk factors considered Quality score categories Total quality score* Selection Comparability Outcome Band et al. (1990) 891 1950–1988 Canada 6 3.9 1.54 (0.69–3.43) 49.9 Not available 6 Fair Band et al. (1996) 2680 1950–1992 Canada 34 18.2 1.87 (1.34–2.62) 50.5 Not available 6 Fair Pukkala et al. (2003) 10 051 1946–1997 (Denmark from 1946, Finland up to 1996, Iceland from 1937, Norway 1946–1994, Sweden 1957–1994) Nordic countries 64 52.9 1.21 (0.93–1.54) Not available Cumulative block hours, Cumulative radiation dose 7 Good Band et al. (1996) 2680 1950–1992 Canada 7 4.62 1.52 (0.72–3.19) 50.5 Not available 6 Fair Cashman et al. (2007) 72 972 1980–2002 United States 4 10.9 0.37 (0.10–0.94) 43.09 Not available 6 Fair Yong et al. (2014) 5964 1953–2008 United States (PanAm) 77 Not available 0.90 (0.71–1.12) Not available Duration of employment, Cumulative radiation dose 6 Good Hammer et al. (2014) 36 816 1957–1999 (Denmark 1960–1996, Finland 1971–1997, Germany, Greece, Iceland 1960–1997, Italy 1965–1996, Norway 1962–1994, Sweden 1957–1994, United Kingdom 1989–1999) Europe / United States† 114 119.99 1.23 (1.03–1.47) 53.3 Duration of employment as proxy for radiation exposure 7 Good *Assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale45 †United States was part of the cohort but data on pilots was not available or analysed (cabin crew data analysed only) 150 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 SIUJ.ORG REVIEW http://SIUJ.org TABLE 1. Characteristics of six studies included in the meta-analysis of prostate cancer among pilots Study author (Year) Sample size Study period Country/ region Observed Expected SIR (95% CI) Mean age at conclusion Risk factors considered Quality score categories Total quality score* Selection Comparability Outcome Band et al. (1990) 891 1950–1988 Canada 6 3.9 1.54 (0.69–3.43) 49.9 Not available 6 Fair Band et al. (1996) 2680 1950–1992 Canada 34 18.2 1.87 (1.34–2.62) 50.5 Not available 6 Fair Pukkala et al. (2003) 10 051 1946–1997 (Denmark from 1946, Finland up to 1996, Iceland from 1937, Norway 1946–1994, Sweden 1957–1994) Nordic countries 64 52.9 1.21 (0.93–1.54) Not available Cumulative block hours, Cumulative radiation dose 7 Good Band et al. (1996) 2680 1950–1992 Canada 7 4.62 1.52 (0.72–3.19) 50.5 Not available 6 Fair Cashman et al. (2007) 72 972 1980–2002 United States 4 10.9 0.37 (0.10–0.94) 43.09 Not available 6 Fair Yong et al. (2014) 5964 1953–2008 United States (PanAm) 77 Not available 0.90 (0.71–1.12) Not available Duration of employment, Cumulative radiation dose 6 Good Hammer et al. (2014) 36 816 1957–1999 (Denmark 1960–1996, Finland 1971–1997, Germany, Greece, Iceland 1960–1997, Italy 1965–1996, Norway 1962–1994, Sweden 1957–1994, United Kingdom 1989–1999) Europe / United States† 114 119.99 1.23 (1.03–1.47) 53.3 Duration of employment as proxy for radiation exposure 7 Good *Assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale45 †United States was part of the cohort but data on pilots was not available or analysed (cabin crew data analysed only) 151SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 Incidence and Mortality of Prostate Cancer in Commercial Airline Cockpit Crew: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis http://SIUJ.org of circadian rhythm, and it may have a protective effect against prostate cancer[64]. Magnetic field exposure in commercial aircraft has been measured in a prior study[65] and was concluded to be substantially higher than that of a home or a typical office environment. Most studies used block hours as approximate values for amount of magnetic field exposure and hormonal disruption[21,25]. The Nordic study[25] reported increased risk associated with a greater number of long- haul hours in men > 60 years of age as the strongest flying-related variable studied in the context of prostate cancer. The possibility that circadian disruptions have a role in causing hormone-related neoplasms cannot therefore be entirely excluded. However, a precise association or disassociation between jet lag and development of hormone-related cancers could not be established. Gudmundsdóttir et al.[26] observed similar results of higher incidence rates of PCa in pilots with >10 000 cumulative air hours (RR 2.61; 95% CI 1.22 to 5.60). In contrast, however, an incidence study[29] not included in the meta-analysis (Supplementary Table S1A and Supplementary Table S1B) reported no significant increase in the incidence of PCa in relation to block hours (SIR 1.28; 95% CI 0.73 to 2.08 for >10 000 block hours). Similarly, the Norwegian pilot cohort[23] reported a statistically non-significant SIR of 1.1 (95% CI 0.6 to 1.9) among pilots who flew >10 000 block hours. The same year, in their study on Icelandic pilots, Raffnson et al.[28] attempted to evaluate the possible association between cancer risk and circadian rhythm disturbance but reported only incidence rates of malignant melanoma and all-cancer risk. An extension of this cohort[26] could not differentiate between pilots who had flown to North America and those who had flown within Europe, as all Icelandic pilots had flown both ways and so were unable to report cases of PCa in pilots on long-haul versus short-haul flights. Although long-haul flights suppress melatonin and, as hypothesized, might be expected to be associated with higher incidence rates of PCa, a study of British Airways pilots[14] (excluded from the review because of inclusion of helicopter crew data) reported a statistically non-sig- nificant relative risk of PCa (RR 2.47; 95% CI 0.83 to 7.65) for short-haul compared with long-haul flights. In an attempt to resolve ambiguities in this area, a recent review[66] reported that neither short sleep (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07) nor long sleep (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.04) was associated with PCa in the general popula- tion, and long sleep may have a protective effect on PCa; however, specific pilot cohorts were not investigated. Available evidence has again proven to be inconsistent in arriving at a conclusion on the association of circadian abnormalities and PCa necessitating deeper investiga- tion into the subject. FIGURE 2. Study Year SIR 95% CI Weight Band et al. 1990 0.5 1 2 3.5 1.54 (0.69–3.43) 5.8% Band et al. 1996 1.87 (1.34–2.62) 32.7% Pukkala et al. 2003 1.21 (0.95–1.55) 61.5% 1.41 (1.17–1.71) 100% TABLE 2. Included incidence studies with observed and expected number of prostate cancer cases, individual and calculated SIR, weightage, and calculated heterogeneity. SIR, standardised incidence ratio Study author (Year) Observed Expected SIR (95% CI) Weight, % Band et al. (1990) 6 3.9 1.5400 (0.6919–3.4279) 5.8 Band et al. (1996) 34 18.16 1.8700 (1.3362–2.6171) 32.7 Pukkala et al (2003) 64 52.9 1.2100 (0.9471–1.5459) 61.5 Overall I2 = 53% 1.4146 [1.1673–1.7144] 100.0 152 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 SIUJ.ORG REVIEW http://SIUJ.org Other considerations The pilot population investigated to date has reported a mean age at conclusion of 41.7 to 50.5 years in incidence and 43.1 to 53.3 years in mortality studies. It is important to note that the Japanese study[11] recorded a mean age of 45.9±13.6 years at conclusion of follow-up, indicating PCa cases contributing to the reported all- cancer mortality could possibly be non-existent because of the very low incidence of prostate cancer in younger men[67]. As older age is a well-established risk factor for PCa, it can be deduced that studies on CCC reflecting the mean age group mentioned above may be reporting an underestimation of true risk of the disease. The strengths of this review lie in its exhaustive search and strict selection criteria for accurate represen- tation of disease outcome and the inclusion of only CCC. Including data related to military pilots and cabin crew can often be misleading, especially when risk factors such as ionizing radiation exposure and circadian rhythm are being explored concomitantly, because of the differences in aircraft and route selection and flight altitudes between the 2 categories of pilot[29]. Although a sub-group analysis was not performed because of heterogenous exposure assessments in different stud- ies, a streamlined sample approach aims to increase the credibility of this review. An important limitation of our review was the inabil- ity of search terms to produce important studies that were instead discovered by manual searching of refer- ences by both researchers. The large North American study[9] eligible for the meta-analysis, as well as some that were later excluded, were not initially identified via the online database search. It is noteworthy that the recent review by Raslau et al.[37] did not include this study, perhaps due to the same reason. Quality assessment of each study was conducted by both researchers independently, using the NOS[45] that has proven to be useful in multiple similar systematic reviews[68,69]. The quality of 2 out of 3 incidence studies was “fair,” only one was “good” and none were “poor.” It was noted that studies with lower population samples were of ‘fair’ quality and also reported higher incidence rates than the ‘good’ quality study. This phenomenon of likelihood of publishing studies with lower sample sizes and positive associations has been previously described by researchers[70]. Additionally, studies with fair quality were also older (published in the 1990s) than the ‘good’ quality study (published in 2003)[25]. In comparison to incidence cohorts, half of the mortality studies were of “fair” quality, and the other half were of “good” quality (none were of “poor” quality). It is noteworthy that the study with the largest sample TABLE 3. Included mortality studies with observed and expected number of deaths due to prostate cancer, individual and calculated SMR, weightage and calculated heterogeneity. SMR, standardised mortality ratio Study author (Year) Observed Expected SMR (95% CI) Weight, % Band et al. (1996) 7 4.62 1.5200 (0.7246–3.1884] 3.4 Cashman et al. (2007) 4 10.9 0.3700 [0.1389–0.9858] 1.9 Hammer et al.(2014) 114 119.99 1.2300 [1.0285–1.4710] 57.7 Yong et al. (2014) 77 not available 0.9000 [0.7198–1.1252] 37.0 Overall I2 = 70% 1.0783 [0.9413–1.2353] 100 FIGURE 3. Study Year SMR 95% CI Weight Band et al. 1996 0.50.1 1 2 3.5 1.52 (0.72–3.19) 3.4% Cashman et al. 2007 0.37 (0.14–0.99) 1.9% Hammer et al. 2014 1.23 (1.03–1.47) 57.7% Yong et al. 2014 0.90 (0.72–1.13) 37.0% 1.08 (0.94–1.24) 100% 153SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 Incidence and Mortality of Prostate Cancer in Commercial Airline Cockpit Crew: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis http://SIUJ.org of pilots (n = 72 972)[9] scored a total of 6 on the NOS and was of “fair” quality. It also reported a markedly decreased mortality rate of PCa among pilots, the lowest among all mortality studies, as well as in comparison to the pooled SMR (1.08; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24). Although risk of potential bias is known to decrease with a higher sample size, this study is not only an exception but is also outnumbered by other included studies in this review that support results of low or unchanged mortality rates among pilots in comparison to the general population. The 1996 publication by Band et al.[13] favours the theory of increased risk of bias associated with a smaller sample size and positive associations as it reported the highest mortality rate among all studies. We a re awa re of t he latest 2017 st udy by Gudmundsdóttir et al.[26]. However, after consider- ation by the authors, it was concluded that this study should be excluded for a number of reasons. Firstly, the 2003 study by Pukkala et al. was a multinational cohort[25], inclusion of which would allow examina- tion of a larger sample size, whereas the 2017[26] study by Gudmundsdóttir et al. investigated only Icelandic pilots. Secondly, the latter study added only 47 new pilots to the initial Icelandic sample in the Pukkala et al. study, resulting in 83.6% data duplication (n = 239[25] and n = 286[26]). Furthermore, it cannot be confirmed that differences in observed cases of PCa from the 2003 study were in fact, observed cases in the added number of pilots. To demonstrate that results remain unchanged even with inclusion of this study, an analysis was performed with adjustment of sample sizes between the 2 studies to prevent data duplication (Supplementary Figure S1A). Supplementary Figure S1B shows pooled SIR results (meta-SIR 1.39; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.67 with I2 = 35.9%). It is evident that results remain largely unchanged. Conclusions This systematic review of all available evidence suggests that compared with the general population, commercial airline cockpit crew have an increased risk of developing PCa; however, there was no evidence of elevated risk of death from this disease. Caution is suggested in interpretation of results, as most evidence is dated, results are inconclusive, and because of significant data duplication, the sample size for assessment of outcomes is ultimately small. The risk of developing PCa as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation and circadian disruptions needs to be investigated further for accurate estimates of the associated burden of disease. This work supports previous calls for national registries for commercial airline cockpit crew to track incidence and mortality rates of PCa and for better understanding of health outcomes in this population. 154 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 SIUJ.ORG REVIEW http://SIUJ.org References 1. Yan S, Chang J-C. Airline cockpit crew scheduling. Eur J Oper Res.2002;136(3):501–511. 2. dos Santos Silva I, De Stavola B, Pizzi C, Evans AD, Evans SA. Cancer incidence in professional flight crew and air traffic control officers: disentangling the effect of occupational versus lifestyle exposures. Int J Cancer.2013;132(2):374–384. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27612. Epub 2012 May 22. 3. Li G, Baker SP, Grabowski JG, Qiang Y, McCarthy ML, Rebok GW. Age, flight experience, and risk of crash involvement in a cohort of professional pilots. Am J Epidemiol.2003;157(10):874–880. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwg071. 4. Howe GR, Chiarelli AM, Lindsay JP. Components and modifiers of the healthy worker effect: evidence from three occupational cohor ts and implications for industrial compensation. Am J Epidemiol.1988;128(6):1364–1375. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje. a115089 5. Hammer GP, Auvinen A, De Stavola BL, Grajewski B, Gundestrup M, Haldorsen T, et al. Mortality from cancer and other causes in commercial airline crews: a joint analysis of cohorts from 10 countries. Occup Environ Med.2014;71(5):313–322. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2013- 101395. Epub 2014 Jan 3. 6. Miura K, Olsen CM, Rea S, Marsden J, Green AC. Do airline pilots and cabin crew have raised risks of melanoma and other skin cancers? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol.2019;181(1):55 – 64. doi: 10.1111/bjd.17586. Epub 2019 Mar 18. 7. Lynge E. Commentar y: cancer in the air. Int J Epidemiol.2001; 30(4):830–832. doi: 10.1093/ije/30.4.830. 8. Wu AC, Donnelly-McLay D, Weisskopf MG, McNeely E, Betancourt TS, Allen JG. Airplane pilot mental health and suicidal thoughts: a cross-sectional descriptive study via anonymous web-based survey. Environ Health.2016;15(1):121. doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0200-6 9. International Commission of Radiation Protection. Recommendations of the ICRP. In: Press P, ed. New York.1991. 10. Kaji M, Tango T, Asukata I, Tajima N, Yamamoto K, Yamamoto Y, et al. Mortality experience of cockpit crewmembers from Japan Airlines. Aviat Space Environ Med.1993;64(8):748–750. 11. Band PR, Spinelli JJ, Ng V T Y, Math M, Moody J, Gallagher RP. Mortality and cancer incidence in a cohort of commercial airline pilots. Aviat Space Environ Med.1990;61(4):299–302. 12. Band PR, Le ND, Fang R, Deschamps M, Goldman AJ, Gallagher RP, et al. Cohort study of Air Canada pilots: mortality, cancer incidence, and leukemia risk. Am J Epidemiol.1996;143(2):137–143. doi: 10.1093/ oxfordjournals.aje.a008722 13. Irvine D, Davies DM. British Airways flightdeck mortality study, 1950–1992. Aviat Space Environ Med.1999;70(6):548–555. 14. Zeeb H, Blettner M, Hammer GP, Langner I. Cohort mortality study of German cockpit crew, 1960–1997. Epidemiology.2002;13(6):693–699. doi: 10.1097/01.EDE.0000029605.69271.8E. 15. Zeeb H, Hammer GP, Langner I, Schafft T, Bennack S, Blettner M. Cancer mortality among German aircrew: second follow-up. Radiat Environ Biophys.2010;49(2):187–194. doi: 10.1007/s00411-009-0248-6. Epub 2009 Oct 16. 16. Blettner M, Zeeb H, Auvinen A, Ballard TJ, Caldora M, Eliasch H, et al. Mortality from cancer and other causes among male airline cockpit crew in Europe. Int J Cancer.2003;106(6):946–952. doi: 10.1002/ ijc.11328. 17. Paridou A, Velonakis E, Langner I, Zeeb H, Blettner M, Tzonou A. Mortality among pilots and cabin crew in Greece, 1960–1997. Int J Epidemiol.2003;32(2):244–247. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg056. 18. Cashman JP, Nicholas JS, D. L, Mohr LC, Woolson RS, G. G, et al. Mortality Among Airline Pilots in the United States. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies.2007;7(2):202–211. 19. Linnersjo A, Brodin LA, Andersson C, Alfredsson L, Hammar N. Low mortality and myocardial infarction incidence among flying personnel during working career and beyond. Scand J Work Environ Health.2011;37(3):219–226. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3134. Epub 2010 Nov 22. 20. De Stavola BL, Pizzi C, Clemens F, Evans SA, Evans AD, Dos Santos Silva I. Cause-specific mortality in professional flight crew and air traffic control officers: findings from two UK population-based cohorts of over 20,000 subjects. Intl Arch Occup Environ Health.2012;85(3):283–293. doi: 10.1007/s00420-011-0660-5. Epub 2011 Jun 15. 21. Yong LC, Pinkerton LE, Yiin JH, Anderson JL, Deddens JA. Mortality among a cohort of U.S. commercial airline cockpit crew. Am J Ind Med.2014;57(8):906–914. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22318 Published online 2014 Apr 3. 22. Perez-Gomez B, Pollán M, Gustavsson P, Plato N, Aragonés N, López- Abente G. Cutaneous melanoma: hints from occupational risks by anatomic site in Swedish men. Occup Environ Med.2004;61(2):117–126. doi: 10.1136/oem.2002.006320 23. Haldorsen T, Reitan JB, Tveten U. Cancer incidence among Norwegian airline pilots. Scand J Work Environ Health.2000;26(2):106–111. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.519. 24. Linnersjö A, Hammar N, Dammström BG, Johansson M, Eliasch H. Cancer incidence in airline cabin crew: experience from Sweden. Occup Environ Med.2003;60(11):810–814. doi: 10.1136/oem.60.11.810. 25. Pukkala E, Aspholm R, Auvinen A, Eliasch H, Gundestrup M, Haldorsen T, et al. Cancer incidence among 10,211 airline pilots: a Nordic study. Aviat Space Environ Med.2003;74(7):699–706. PMID: 12862322 26. Gudmundsdottir EM, Hrafnkelsson J, Rafnsson V. Incidence of cancer among licenced commercial pilots flying North Atlantic routes. Environ Health.2017;16(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12940-017-0295-4. 155SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 Incidence and Mortality of Prostate Cancer in Commercial Airline Cockpit Crew: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis http://SIUJ.org 27. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre L A, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin.2018;68(6):394– 424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. Epub 2018 Sep 12. 28. Rafnsson V, Hrafnkelsson J, Tulinius H. Incidence of cancer among commercial airline pilots. Occup Environ Med.2000;57(3):175–179. doi: 10.1136/oem.57.3.175 29. Hammar N, Linnersjö A, Alfredsson L, Dammström BG, Johansson M, Eliasch H. Cancer incidence in airline and military pilots in Sweden 1961–1996. Aviat Space Environ Med.2002;73(1):2–7. PMID: 11817615 30. Gundestrup M, Storm HH. Radiation-induced acute myeloid leukaemia and other cancers in commercial jet cockpit crew: a population-based cohort study. Lancet.1999;354(9195):2029 –2031. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(99)05093-X. 31. Ballard TJ, Lagorio S, De Santis M, De Angelis G, Santaquilani M, Caldora M, et al. A retrospective cohort mortality study of Italian commercial airline cockpit crew and cabin attendants, 19 65 – 9 6. Int J Occup Environ Health.20 02;8 (2):87– 9 6. doi: 10.1179/107735202800338957. 32. Hammer GP, Blettner M, Langner I, Zeeb H. Cosmic radiation and mortality from cancer among male German airline pilots: extended cohort follow-up. Eur J Epidemiol.2012;27(6):419–429. doi: 10.1007/ s10654-012-9698-2. Epub 2012 Jun 8. 33. Nicholas JS, Lackland DT, Dosemeci M, Mohr Jr LC, Dunbar JB, Grosche B, et al. Mor talit y among US commercial pilots and navigators. J Occup Environ Med.1998;4 0 (11):980 – 985. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199811000-00008. 34. Buja A, Lange JH, Perissinotto E, Rausa G, Grigoletto F, Canova C, et al. Cancer incidence among male militar y and civil pilots and flight attendants: an analysis on published data. Toxicol Ind Health.2005;21(10):273–282. doi: 10.1191/0748233705th238oa. 35. Ballard T, Lagorio S, De Angelis G, Verdecchia A. Cancer incidence and mortality among flight personnel: a meta-analysis. Aviat Space Environ Med.2000;71(3):216–224. PMID: 10716165 36. Blettner M, Grosche B, Zeeb H. Occupational cancer risk in pilots and flight attendants: current epidemiological knowledge. Radiat Environ Biophys.1998;37(2):75–80. doi: 10.1007/s004110050097. 37. Raslau D, Abu Dabrh AM, Summerfield DT, Wang Z, Steinkraus LW, Murad MH. Prostate cancer in pilots. Aerosp Med Hum Perform.2016;87(6):565–570. doi: 10.3357/AMHP.4453.2016. 38. Bonato F. Retraction. Aerosp Med Hum Perform.2015;86(5):491. PMID: 25945673 39. Rafnsson V. Letter to the Editor re: Prostate cancer in pilots: Letter. Aerosp Med Hum Perform.2017;88(6):600. PMID: 28539153 40. Rogers D, Boyd DD, Fox EE, Cooper S, Goldhagen M, Shen Y, et al. Prostate cancer incidence in U.S. Air Force aviators compared with non-aviators. Aviat Space Environ Med.2011;82(11):1067–1070. doi: 10.3357/asem.3090.2011. 41. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med.2009;151(4):264–269, W64. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819- 151-4-200908180-00135. Epub 2009 Jul 20. 42. Pukkala E, Helminen M, Haldorsen T, Hammar N, Kojo K, Linnersjö A, et al. Cancer incidence among Nordic airline cabin crew. Int J Cancer.2012;131(12):2886–2897. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27551. Epub 2012 Apr 16. 43. Zeeb H, Blettner M, Langner I, Hammer GP, Ballard TJ, Santaquilani M, et al. Mortality from cancer and other causes among airline cabin attendants in Europe: a collaborative cohort study in eight countries. Am J Epidemiol.2003;158(1):35–46. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwg107 44. Blettner M, Zeeb H, Langner I, Hammer GP, Schafft T. Mortality from cancer and other causes among airline cabin attendants in Germany, 1960–1997. Am J Epidemiol.2002;156(6):556–565. doi: 10.1093/aje/ kwf083 45. Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell J. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Health Research Institute Web site. 2014;7. 46. Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health.2019;22(4):153–160. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117. Epub 2019 Sep 28. 47. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with The Metafor Package. Journal of Statistical Software.2010;36. doi.org/10.18637/ jss.v036.i03 48. Dalton JE, Bolen SD, Mascha EJ. Publication bias: the elephant in the review. Anesth Analg.2016;123(4):812–813. doi: 10.1213/ ANE.0000000000001596 49. R a w l a P. E p i d e mio l o g y o f P r o s t a t e C a n c e r. Wo rl d J Oncol.2019;10(2):63–89. doi: 10.14740/wjon1191. Epub 2019 Apr 20. 50. Federal Aviation Administration. Guide for aviation medical examiners- application process for medical certification. United States Department of Transportation. 2016. Available at: https://www.faa.gov/about/ office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/ app_process/exam_tech/. Accessed April 8, 2022. 51. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. Medical examination information. United Kingdom. 2015. ht tps://w w w.caa.co.uk / Commercial-industry/Pilot-licences/Medical/Medical-examination- information/. Accessed April 8, 2022. 156 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 SIUJ.ORG REVIEW https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/. Accessed April 8, 2022 https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/. Accessed April 8, 2022 https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/. Accessed April 8, 2022 https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Pilot-licences/Medical/Medical-examination-information/ https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Pilot-licences/Medical/Medical-examination-information/ https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Pilot-licences/Medical/Medical-examination-information/ http://SIUJ.org 52. Australian Government Civil Aviation and Safety Authority. Designated aviation medical examiner’s handbook. 4.4 Special reports and periodic tests required for medical certification. 2018. https://www.casa.gov. au/information-dame-dao-co-and-medical-specialists/publication/ designated-aviation-medical-examiners-handbook. Accessed April 8, 2022. 53. Nair-Shalliker V, Bang A, Weber M, Goldsbury DE, Caruana M, Emery J, et al. Factors associated with prostate specific antigen testing in Australians: analysis of the New South Wales 45 and Up Study. Sci Rep.2018;8(1):4261. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22589-y 54. Ilic D, Djulbegovic M, Jung JH, Hwang EC, Zhou Q, Cleves A, et al. Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ.2018;362:k3519. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k3519. 55. Parkin DM, Darby SC. 12. Cancers in 2010 attributable to ionising radiation exposure in the UK. Br J Cancer.2011;105(Suppl 2):S57–S65. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.485 56. Leung KM, Shabat G, Lu P, Fields AC, Lukashenko A, Davids JS, et al. Trends in solid tumor incidence in Ukraine 30 years after Chernobyl. J Glob Oncol.2019;5:1–10. doi: 10.1200/JGO.19.00099 57. Sigurdson AJ, Doody MM, Rao RS, Freedman DM, Alexander BH, Hauptmann M, et al. Cancer incidence in the US radiologic technologists health study, 1983–1998. Cancer.2003;97(12):3080 –3089. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11444 58. Berrington de González A, Ntowe E, Kitahara CM, Gilbert E, Miller DL, Kleinerman RA, et al. Long-term mor tality in 43 763 U.S. radiologists compared with 64 990 U.S. psychiatrists. Radiology. 2016;281(3):847–857. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016152472. Epub 2016 Jul 19. 59. Vosianov AF, Romanenko AM, Zabarko LB, Szende B, Wang CY, Landas S, et al. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and apoptosis in benign prostatic hyperplasia before and after the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine. Pathol Oncol Res.1999;5(1):28–31. doi: 10.1053/ paor.1999.0028 60. Ten years after Chernobyl: what do we really know? Based on the proceedings of the IAEA/ WHO/EC international conference, Vienna, April 1996 (INIS-X A--001). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):1–24. 61. Langner I, Blettner M, Gundestrup M, Storm H, Aspholm R, Auvinen A, et al. Cosmic radiation and cancer mortality among airline pilots: results from a European cohort study (ESCAPE). Radiat Environ Biophys.2004;42(4):247–256. doi: 10.1007/s00411-003-0214-7. Epub 2003 Nov 28. 62. Boice JD, Land CE, Preston DL. Ionizing Radiation. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF, Eds. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. Oxford University Press: New York;1996:319–341. 63. UNSCEAR. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. New York: United Nations 2000. 64. Stevens RG, Davis S. The melatonin hypothesis: electric power and breast cancer. Environ Health Perspect.1996;104(Suppl 1):135–140. doi: 10.1289/ehp.96104s1135 65. Nicholas JS, Butler GC, L ackland DT, Hood WC Jr, Hoel DG, Mohr LC Jr. Flight deck magnetic fields in commercial a i r c r a f t . A m J I n d M e d . 2 0 0 0 ; 3 8 ( 5 ) : 5 4 8 – 5 5 4 . d o i : 10.1002/1097-0274(200011)38:5<548::aid-ajim7>3.0.co;2-h. 66. Liu R, Wu S, Zhang B, Guo M, Zhang Y. The association between sleep duration and prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine.2020;99(28):e21180-e. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021180 67. Bell KJL, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: a systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer.2015;137(7):1749–1757. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29538. Epub 2015 Apr 21. 68. Geng Q, Zhang QE, Wang F, Zheng W, Ng CH, Ungvari GS, et al. Comparison of comorbid depression bet ween irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Affect Disord.2018;237:37–46. doi: 10.1016/j. jad.2018.04.111. Epub 2018 May 4. 69. He X, Yang K, Wang H, Chen X, Wu H, Yao L, et al. Expression and clinical significance of survivin in ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One.2018;13(5):e0194463-e. Published online 2018 May 24. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194463 70. Rivera-Izquierdo M, Martínez-Ruiz V, Castillo-Ruiz EM, Manzaneda- Navío M, Pérez-Gómez B, Jiménez-Moleón JJ. Shift work and prostate cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health.2020;17(4):1345. Published online 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041345 157SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 Incidence and Mortality of Prostate Cancer in Commercial Airline Cockpit Crew: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis https://www.casa.gov.au/information-dame-dao-co-and-medical-specialists/publication/designated-aviation-medical-examiners-handbook https://www.casa.gov.au/information-dame-dao-co-and-medical-specialists/publication/designated-aviation-medical-examiners-handbook https://www.casa.gov.au/information-dame-dao-co-and-medical-specialists/publication/designated-aviation-medical-examiners-handbook http://SIUJ.org SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE S1A. Incidence studies excluded during eligibility assessment for the final meta-analysis, with characteristics and reasons for exclusion Study Sample size Study duration Observed Expected Standardized ratio Mean age at conclusion Country/ region Reason(s) for exclusion Prostate cancer Incidence data: Standardized Incidence Ratio (SIR) 1 Haldorsen et al. (2000) 3701 1946–1994 25 25 1.00 (0.68–1.48) Not reported Norway Duplicated data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2003) 2 Gudmundsdottir et al. (2017) 286 1955–2015 15 11.8 1.27 (0.71– 2.10) Not reported Iceland Duplicated data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2003) 3 Rafnsson et al. (2000) 265 1955–1997 4 2.84 1.41 (0.53– 3.76) Not reported Iceland Duplicated data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2003) 4 Hammar et al. (2002) 1490 1961–1997 18 14.5 1.24 (0.78–1.97) Not reported Sweden Duplicated data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2003) 5 Dos Santos De Silva et al. (2013) 15 867 1989–1999 Not reported Not reported 1.10 (0.96–1.26) Not reported United Kingdom Duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) 6 Gundestrup et al. (1999) 3790 1921–1995 3 (jet) 3 (non-jet) 3.97 (jet) 3.59 (non-jet) 0.8 (0.2–2.2) for both 41.65 years Denmark Duplicated data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2002) 7 Milanov et al. (1999) 34 1964–1994 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Republic of Bulgaria No statistical data on prostate cancer reported 8 Nicholas et al. (2001) 6533 1970–1998 65 Not reported 0.7 (0.59–0.84) Not reported United States, Canada Investigated cancer incidence by questionnaire (self-reported disease outcomes)–different methodology could give inconsistent results 9 Pukkala et al. (2002) 10 032 1946–1997 (Denmark from 1946, Finland up to 1996, Norway 1946–1994, Sweden 1957–1994 Iceland 1955–1997 64 52.9 1.21 (0.93–1.54) Not reported Nordic countries Duplicate data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2003) 10 Pukkala et al. (2012) 1559 1947–1997 (Finland 1947–1993, Iceland 1947–1997, Norway 1950–1994, Sweden 1957–1994) 24 21.7 1.11 (0.71–1.65) Not reported Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden Cabin crew data 11 Rogers et al. (2011) 106 418 1987–2008 Not reported Not reported Not reported Mean age at diagnosis ~ 50 years United States Exclusively Air force / military data, comparative study, calculates hazard ratio 158 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 SIUJ.ORG REVIEW http://SIUJ.org SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE S1A. Incidence studies excluded during eligibility assessment for the final meta-analysis, with characteristics and reasons for exclusion Study Sample size Study duration Observed Expected Standardized ratio Mean age at conclusion Country/ region Reason(s) for exclusion Prostate cancer Incidence data: Standardized Incidence Ratio (SIR) 1 Haldorsen et al. (2000) 3701 1946–1994 25 25 1.00 (0.68–1.48) Not reported Norway Duplicated data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2003) 2 Gudmundsdottir et al. (2017) 286 1955–2015 15 11.8 1.27 (0.71– 2.10) Not reported Iceland Duplicated data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2003) 3 Rafnsson et al. (2000) 265 1955–1997 4 2.84 1.41 (0.53– 3.76) Not reported Iceland Duplicated data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2003) 4 Hammar et al. (2002) 1490 1961–1997 18 14.5 1.24 (0.78–1.97) Not reported Sweden Duplicated data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2003) 5 Dos Santos De Silva et al. (2013) 15 867 1989–1999 Not reported Not reported 1.10 (0.96–1.26) Not reported United Kingdom Duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) 6 Gundestrup et al. (1999) 3790 1921–1995 3 (jet) 3 (non-jet) 3.97 (jet) 3.59 (non-jet) 0.8 (0.2–2.2) for both 41.65 years Denmark Duplicated data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2002) 7 Milanov et al. (1999) 34 1964–1994 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Republic of Bulgaria No statistical data on prostate cancer reported 8 Nicholas et al. (2001) 6533 1970–1998 65 Not reported 0.7 (0.59–0.84) Not reported United States, Canada Investigated cancer incidence by questionnaire (self-reported disease outcomes)–different methodology could give inconsistent results 9 Pukkala et al. (2002) 10 032 1946–1997 (Denmark from 1946, Finland up to 1996, Norway 1946–1994, Sweden 1957–1994 Iceland 1955–1997 64 52.9 1.21 (0.93–1.54) Not reported Nordic countries Duplicate data cohort in Pukkala et al. (2003) 10 Pukkala et al. (2012) 1559 1947–1997 (Finland 1947–1993, Iceland 1947–1997, Norway 1950–1994, Sweden 1957–1994) 24 21.7 1.11 (0.71–1.65) Not reported Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden Cabin crew data 11 Rogers et al. (2011) 106 418 1987–2008 Not reported Not reported Not reported Mean age at diagnosis ~ 50 years United States Exclusively Air force / military data, comparative study, calculates hazard ratio 159SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 Incidence and Mortality of Prostate Cancer in Commercial Airline Cockpit Crew: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis http://SIUJ.org SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE S1B. Mortality studies excluded during eligibility assessment for the final meta-analysis, with characteristics and reasons for exclusion Study Sample size Study duration Observed Expected Standardized ratio Mean age at conclusion Country/ region Reason(s) for exclusion 1 Salisbury et al. (1991) 402 1950–1984 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Canada Discusses proportional mortality rates, unable to pool in to standardized mortality data 2 Irvine & Davies (1992) 411 1966–1989 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported United Kingdom Helicopter pilots included and discusses proportional mortality rates, unable to pool in to standardized mortality data 3 Kaji et al. (1993) 2327 1952–1988 Not reported Not reported Not reported 45.9 ± 13.6 years Japan No statistical data on prostate cancer 4 Nicholas et al. (1998) 1538 1984–1991 38 27.56 1.38 (1.00–1.90) Not reported USA Discusses proportional mortality rates, unable to pool in to standardized mortality data 5 Haldorsen et al. (2002) 3707 1946–1994 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Norway Helicopter pilots included, duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) and no statistical data on prostate cancer. 6 Irvine & Davies (1999) 6209 1950–1992 15 13.48 111.3 (62.3–183.5) Not reported United Kingdom Includes helicopter pilot data as well 7 Ballard et al. (2002) 3022 1965–1996 4 3.76 1.06 (0.40–2.82) Not reported Italy Duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) 8 Zeeb et al. (2002) (cockpit crew) 6061 1953–1997 8.7 6.9 1.26 (0.53–2.59) Not reported Germany Duplicated data cohort in Blettner et al. (2003) 9 Zeeb et al. (2003) (cabin crew/ att -endants) 11 079 1946–1997 (Denmark 1947–1996) (Finland 1947–1992) (Germany 1953–1997) (Greece 1946–1997) (Iceland 1955–1997) (Italy 1965–1995) (Norway 1950–1994) (Sweden 1957–1994) 5.2 4.8 1.09 (0.35–2.68) Not reported Europe Cabin crew data, no mention of separate data for pilots/cockpit crew 10 Zeeb et al. (2010) (cockpit crew) 6017 1953–2003 11 Not reported 0.96 (0.42–1.91) Not reported Germany Extended (+6 years) follow up after 2003 study – no new cohort members added hence duplicated data cohort in Blettner et al. (2003) 11 Blettner et al. (2003) 27 797 1921–1997 (Denmark 1946–1996) (Finland 1921–1997) (Germany 1953–1997) (Greece 1946–1997) (Iceland 1935–1997) (Italy 1965–1995) (Norway1946–1994) (Sweden 1957–1994) (United Kingdom 1950–1997) 54 60.1 0.94 (0.72–1.23) Not reported Europe Duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) 12 Hammer et al. (2012) 6006 1960–2004 11.9* 12.4 0.96 (0.36–2.53) 51.5 years Germany Duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) 13 Dreger et al. (2020) 6006 1960–2014 24 27.5 0.93 (0.54–1.51) 59.8 years Germany Only German data and extended follow-up (to 2014) of the same cohort from Hammer et al. 2014. Cumulative SMR of all countries only in 2014 study 14 Langner et al. (2004) 19 184 (ESCAPE) 1921–1997 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Europe Duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) and no statistical data on prostate cancer 15 Stavola et al. (2012) 15 881 1989–1999 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported United Kingdom Duplicated data cohort in Dos Santos de Silva et al. (2013) and no statistical data on prostate cancer 16 Krstev et al. (1998) 60 878 1984–1993 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported United States Discusses mortality odds ratio—unable to pool in to standardized mortality data, case–control study 17 Linnersjö et al. (2011) 1478 1957–1994 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Sweden No statistical data on prostate cancer 18 Blettner et al. (2002) 4185 1953–1997 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Germany Cabin crew / attendant data 19 Paridou et al. (2003) 2678 1960–1997 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Greece No statistical data on prostate cancer 160 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 SIUJ.ORG REVIEW http://SIUJ.org SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE S1B. Mortality studies excluded during eligibility assessment for the final meta-analysis, with characteristics and reasons for exclusion Study Sample size Study duration Observed Expected Standardized ratio Mean age at conclusion Country/ region Reason(s) for exclusion 1 Salisbury et al. (1991) 402 1950–1984 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Canada Discusses proportional mortality rates, unable to pool in to standardized mortality data 2 Irvine & Davies (1992) 411 1966–1989 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported United Kingdom Helicopter pilots included and discusses proportional mortality rates, unable to pool in to standardized mortality data 3 Kaji et al. (1993) 2327 1952–1988 Not reported Not reported Not reported 45.9 ± 13.6 years Japan No statistical data on prostate cancer 4 Nicholas et al. (1998) 1538 1984–1991 38 27.56 1.38 (1.00–1.90) Not reported USA Discusses proportional mortality rates, unable to pool in to standardized mortality data 5 Haldorsen et al. (2002) 3707 1946–1994 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Norway Helicopter pilots included, duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) and no statistical data on prostate cancer. 6 Irvine & Davies (1999) 6209 1950–1992 15 13.48 111.3 (62.3–183.5) Not reported United Kingdom Includes helicopter pilot data as well 7 Ballard et al. (2002) 3022 1965–1996 4 3.76 1.06 (0.40–2.82) Not reported Italy Duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) 8 Zeeb et al. (2002) (cockpit crew) 6061 1953–1997 8.7 6.9 1.26 (0.53–2.59) Not reported Germany Duplicated data cohort in Blettner et al. (2003) 9 Zeeb et al. (2003) (cabin crew/ att -endants) 11 079 1946–1997 (Denmark 1947–1996) (Finland 1947–1992) (Germany 1953–1997) (Greece 1946–1997) (Iceland 1955–1997) (Italy 1965–1995) (Norway 1950–1994) (Sweden 1957–1994) 5.2 4.8 1.09 (0.35–2.68) Not reported Europe Cabin crew data, no mention of separate data for pilots/cockpit crew 10 Zeeb et al. (2010) (cockpit crew) 6017 1953–2003 11 Not reported 0.96 (0.42–1.91) Not reported Germany Extended (+6 years) follow up after 2003 study – no new cohort members added hence duplicated data cohort in Blettner et al. (2003) 11 Blettner et al. (2003) 27 797 1921–1997 (Denmark 1946–1996) (Finland 1921–1997) (Germany 1953–1997) (Greece 1946–1997) (Iceland 1935–1997) (Italy 1965–1995) (Norway1946–1994) (Sweden 1957–1994) (United Kingdom 1950–1997) 54 60.1 0.94 (0.72–1.23) Not reported Europe Duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) 12 Hammer et al. (2012) 6006 1960–2004 11.9* 12.4 0.96 (0.36–2.53) 51.5 years Germany Duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) 13 Dreger et al. (2020) 6006 1960–2014 24 27.5 0.93 (0.54–1.51) 59.8 years Germany Only German data and extended follow-up (to 2014) of the same cohort from Hammer et al. 2014. Cumulative SMR of all countries only in 2014 study 14 Langner et al. (2004) 19 184 (ESCAPE) 1921–1997 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Europe Duplicated data cohort in Hammer et al. (2014) and no statistical data on prostate cancer 15 Stavola et al. (2012) 15 881 1989–1999 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported United Kingdom Duplicated data cohort in Dos Santos de Silva et al. (2013) and no statistical data on prostate cancer 16 Krstev et al. (1998) 60 878 1984–1993 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported United States Discusses mortality odds ratio—unable to pool in to standardized mortality data, case–control study 17 Linnersjö et al. (2011) 1478 1957–1994 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Sweden No statistical data on prostate cancer 18 Blettner et al. (2002) 4185 1953–1997 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Germany Cabin crew / attendant data 19 Paridou et al. (2003) 2678 1960–1997 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Greece No statistical data on prostate cancer 161SIUJ.ORG SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 Incidence and Mortality of Prostate Cancer in Commercial Airline Cockpit Crew: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis http://SIUJ.org SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S1B. Pooled SIR results with inclusion of latest study Study Year OR 95% CI Weight Band et al. 1990 0.5 1 2 3.5 1.54 (0.69–3.43) 5.4% Band et al. 1996 1.87 (1.34–2.62) 30.4% Pukkala et al. 2003 1.21 (0.95–1.55) 56.5% GGudmundsdóttir et al. 2017 1.12 (0.58–2.17) 7.8% I2 = 35.9% 1.39 (1.16–1.67) 100% SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S1A. Adjustmentof sample size between 2 studies Study Original totals Number overlapping Number deducted Pukkala et al. Total 10032 239 120 Observed 64 0.77 Expected 52.9 0.63 Gudmundsdóttir et al. Total 286 239 119 Observed 15 6.24 Expected 11.8 4.91 162 SIUJ • Volume 3, Number 3 • May 2022 SIUJ.ORG REVIEW http://SIUJ.org