CORRIGENDUM
British Journal of Cancer (2013) 108, 1222 | doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.110
An examination, with a meta-analysis,
of studies of childhood leukaemia in relation
to population mixing
L J Kinlen
Correction to: British Journal of Cancer (2012) 107, 1163–1168.
doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.402
(study number 11) was given as 1.64 (1.28–2.07), whereas this
should have been 1.92 (1.39–2.59). This change increases the
overall RR from 1.72 (1.54–1.92) to 1.76 (1.57–1.97).
In addition, a footnote was omitted to indicate that the data
given for ages 0–14 years for study number 12 (growth census
tracts) in fact referred to ages 0–4 years, as data for 0–14 years were
not provided. A revised Figure 1 is shown below.
The author apologises for the error and omission in the paper.
Upon publication of the above recent paper in British Journal of
Cancer, the author noticed an error in Figure 1 which had the effect
of slightly underestimating the overall effect of rural population
mixing at ages 0–4 years. The relative risk (RR) for the
highest exposure category in the study of military concentrations
Ages 0–14 years
Study
RR (95% CI)
Ages 0–4 years
RR (95% CI)
RR (95% CI)
Highest exposure cateogory relative to national rates
1. Rural new towns (NTs) (Britain)
1.58 (1.00–2.37)
2. Construction projects (Britain)
1.37 (1.09–1.71)
1.37 (1.02–1.80)†
3. Hydro-electric schemes (Scotland)
4. Forestry areas (New Zealand)
0.84 (0.50–1.44)
5. New territories (NT) (Hong Kong)
10.00 (4.53–19.06)*
6. Wartime orkney/shetland (Scotland)
3.64 (1.65–6.95)
7. La Hague construction (France)
3.56 (1.19–10.58)
8. Wartime ordnance factories (England)
2.19 (0.56–5.96)
9. Seascale 1984–92 (England)
18.75 (3.53–55.50)†,#
26.67 (6.94–68.95)
10. Fallon (post inquiry) (USA)
1.67 (1.45–1.93)
Subtoal
2 for heterogeneity=76.0, P <0.001
2.75 (1.68–4.26)
1.51 (1.08–2.05)
1.22 (0.76–1.84)†
0.92 (0.45–1.87)
‡
12.20 (3.85–28.69)*,
5.12 (1.33–13.26)
5.33 (1.43–19.84) ‡
3.39 (0.57–11.20)‡
16.67 (0.02–96.54)†
37.50 (7.07–111.01)
1.97 (1.61–2.41)
χ2 for heterogeneity=50.1, P<0.001
9
9
Highest exposure cateogory relative to lowest exposure category
1.64 (1.28–2.07)
11. Military areas (E–W)
,
12. Growth census tracts (E–W)
1.34 (1.02–1.73)** @
1.85 (1.37–2.46)†
13. North sea oil worker areas (Scotland)
1.16 (0.62–2.89)#
14. Growth communes (France)
15. Wartime evacuee areas (E–W)
1.49 (1.20–1.83)
,†
16. Ontario census units (Canada)
1.30 (0.90–1.70)*
17. Growth counties (USA)
1.80 (1.10–3.00)*
1.52 (1.36–1.70)
Subtoal
2 for heterogeneity=4.9, P=0.6
1.92 (1.39–2.59)
1.34 (1.02–1.73)**
2.67 (1.81–3.79)†
0.83 (0.00–4.78)
1.24 (0.92–1.64)
†
1.80 (1.10–2.80)*,
2.60 (1.50–4.60)*
1.67 (1.45–1.92)
χ 2 for heterogeneity=16.3, P=0.01
6
ALL STUDIES
6
1.57 (1.44–1.72)
2 for heterogeneity=81.9, P<0.001
1.76 (1.57–1.97)
χ2 for heterogeneity=68.2, P <0.001
16
0.25
RR (95% CI)
0.5
16
1.0
2.0
4.0
8.0
16.0 32.0
64.0
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
4.0
8.0
16.0 32.0
64.0
Figure 1. Marked rural population mixing and childhood leukaemia. *Acute lymphocytic leukaemia; wincludes NHL; **lymphocytic and
unspecified leukaemia; #ages 0–24; zdata for 0–4 not available, instead, study 5 refers to 2–6 years, study 7 to 1–6 years, and study 8 to 1–4 years;
@
refers to 0–4 years, as data were not available for 0–14 years. CI ¼ confidence interval; E–W ¼ England and Wales; RR ¼ relative risk. þ RR and CI
given to one decimal place. Key: 1. Kinlen et al, 1990; 2 and 3. Kinlen et al (1995); 4. Dockerty et al (1996); 5. Alexander et al (1997, and personal
communication); 6. Kinlen and Balkwill (2001); 7. Boutou et al (2002); 8. Kinlen (2006); 9. COMARE (1996); 10. Todd (2004, personal
communication); US Bureau of Census; 11. Kinlen and Hudson (1991); 12. Rodrigues et al (1991); 13. Kinlen et al (1993); 14. Laplanche and de
Vathaire (1994); 15. Kinlen and John (1994); and 16. Koushik et al (2001); 17. Wartenberg et al (2004).
& 2013 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved 0007 – 0920/13
1222
www.bjcancer.com | DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.110