ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
Outdoor air pollution and prostate cancer risk in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOutdoor air pollution, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5), is an established carcinogen, yet few studies evaluate its associations with prostate cancer risk, and findings are mixed.
methodsWe used spatiotemporal prediction models to estimate annual average historical residential PM2.5 (1980-2017) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (1990-2017) concentrations for 289 299 men aged 50 years and older in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study, enrolled from 6 states and 2 metro areas in 1995-1996, followed through 2018. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals of associations between 5-year average PM2.5 and NO2 and incident prostate cancer, overall and by tumor aggressiveness (ie, advanced [n = 5791], high-grade [ie, Gleason score ≥8, n = 5793], fatal [n = 3057]). We evaluated interactions with hypothesized effect modifiers.
resultsHistorical PM2.5 and NO2 concentrations were not associated with prostate cancer risk overall (10-year lagged PM2.5 HR per 5 µg/m3 = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98 to 1.02; 10-year lagged NO2 HR per 10 ppb = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.01). Some positive trends were observed for aggressive disease (eg, high-grade: 10-year lagged PM2.5 HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.09; advanced: 10-year lagged NO2 HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.08). Stratified analyses also showed stronger associations for aggressive disease among Hispanic men (eg, high-grade: NO2 HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.48; P = .01 for interaction). Heterogeneity was also evident by urbanicity (high-grade: P = .01 for interaction, PM2.5 and NO2) and state (advanced: P = .05 for interaction, NO2), potentially reflecting air pollution mixture heterogeneity.
conclusionsIn this large US cohort, historical residential PM2.5 or NO2 concentrations were not associated with prostate cancer risk overall; however, risk was elevated in some subgroups and for aggressive outcomes. Future evaluation of air pollution mixture components may clarify observed subgroup differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.