Table 6.

Association between childhood acute leukemia and indicators of proximity to vines in the period of 2010 to 2013; exposure assessment based on the 2012-VV map with RPG, CLC, and VV sources.

	Controls ($n=\mathrm{20,198}$)	All acute leukemia ($n=\mathrm{1,909}$)			Acute lymphoblastic leukemia ($n=\mathrm{1,605}$)			Acute myeloid leukemia ($n=282$)
	[$n$ (%)]	$n$ (%)	ORa (95% CI)	$p$ b	$n$ (%)	ORa (95% CI)	$p$ b	$n$ (%)	ORa (95% CI)	$p$ b
Presence of vines within $\mathrm{1,000}\mathrm{m}$
No vines, no other crops, UU $\ge \mathrm{100,000}$ inhabitants	4,243 (21.0)	423 (22.2)	0.88 (0.64, 1.20)	—	334 (20.8)	0.75 (0.54, 1.04)	—	85 (30.1)	2.25 (0.82, 6.17)	—
No vines, no other crops, UU $<\mathrm{100,000}$ inhabitants	449 (2.2)	50 (2.6)	1 (Ref)	—	46 (2.9)	1 (Ref)	—	4 (1.4)	1 (Ref)	—
No vines, other cropsc $\le \mathrm{1,000}\mathrm{m}$ but none $\le 500\mathrm{m}$	2,339 (11.6)	214 (11.2)	0.83 (0.60, 1.14)	—	182 (11.3)	0.76 (0.54, 1.08)	—	29 (10.3)	1.41 (0.49, 4.02)	—
No vines, other cropsc $\le 500\mathrm{m}$	9,890 (49.0)	920 (48.2)	0.84 (0.62, 1.14)	—	780 (48.6)	0.78 (0.57, 1.06)	—	131 (46.5)	1.52 (0.56, 4.13)	—
Possible presence of vines $\le \mathrm{1,000}\mathrm{m}$d	21 (0.1)	1 (0.1)	0.44 (0.06, 3.32)	—	1 (0.1)	0.47 (0.06, 3.56)	—	0 (0.0)	—	—
Probable presence of vines $\le \mathrm{1,000}\mathrm{m}$e	3,256 (16.1)	301 (15.8)	0.84 (0.61, 1.16)	—	262 (16.3)	0.80 (0.57, 1.11)	—	33 (11.7)	1.16 (0.41, 3.30)	—
Probable $>500\mathrm{m}$, not $\le \mathrm{500}\mathrm{m}$	1,373 (6.8)	121 (6.3)	0.80 (0.56, 1.13)	—	102 (6.4)	0.73 (0.51, 1.06)	—	—	—	—
Probable $>500\mathrm{m}$, possible $\le \mathrm{500}\mathrm{m}$	39 (0.2)	8 (0.4)	1.95 (0.86, 4.45)	—	8 (0.5)	2.14 (0.94, 4.92)	—	—	—	—
Probable $\le \mathrm{500}\mathrm{m}$ but not $\le 2\mathrm{00}\mathrm{m}$	918 (4.5)	97 (5.1)	0.97 (0.67, 1.39)	—	82 (5.1)	0.89 (0.61, 1.30)	—	—	—	—
Probable $\le \mathrm{500}\mathrm{m}$, possible $\le 2\mathrm{00}\mathrm{m}$	93 (0.5)	6 (0.3)	0.60 (0.25, 1.45)	—	6 (0.4)	0.66 (0.27, 1.59)	—	—	—	—
Probable $\le 2\mathrm{00}\mathrm{m}$	833 (4.1)	69 (3.6)	0.76 (0.52, 1.12)	—	64 (4.0)	0.77 (0.52, 1.15)	—	—	—	—
Density of vines within $\mathrm{1,000}\mathrm{m}$f
VV, RPG, and CLC (sensible indicator)	—	—	1.05 (0.99, 1.11)	0.06	—	1.07 (1.01, 1.13)	0.01	—	0.88 (0.72, 1.08)	0.90
Only VV and RPG (specific indicator)	—	—	1.06 (0.98, 1.15)	0.06	—	1.10 (1.01, 1.18)	0.01	—	0.80 (0.59, 1.09)	0.93
Weighted density of vines within $\mathrm{1,000}\mathrm{m}$g
VV, RPG, and CLC (sensible indicator)	—	—	1.04 (0.99,1.10)	0.07	—	1.07 (1.00,1.13)	0.02	—	0.87 (0.70, 1.07)	0.90
Only VV and RPG (specific indicator)	—	—	1.05 (0.98, 1.13)	0.07	—	1.08 (1.01, 1.16)	0.01	—	0.80 (0.60, 1.08)	0.93

Note: —, no data; CI, confidence interval; CLC, Corine Land Cover; OR, odds ratio; Ref, reference; RPG, Graphic Parcel Register; UU, urban unit; VV, vegetation layer of the BD Topo database.

^a OR and 95% CI estimated by unconditional logistic regression adjusted for age.

^b One-sided $p$-values for the slope parameter in the quantitative analyses with the density of vines within $\mathrm{1,000}\mathrm{m}$.

^c At least one plot identified by RPG, VV, or CLC with a crop different from viticulture.

^d The presence of viticulture was considered “possible” if at least one vine plot was identified by CLC, but no vine plot was identified with RPG or VV.

^e The presence of viticulture was considered “probable” if at least one vine plot was identified by RPG or VV.

^f OR associated with a 10% increase in viticulture density within $\mathrm{1,000}\mathrm{m}$.

^g OR associated with an increase equal to 10% of the maximum weighted density.