Variation in smoking-related lung cancer risk factors by cell type among men in Argentina: a case-control study

Smoking cessation sharply reduced lung cancer mortality in a historical cohort of 3185 Chinese silicotic workers from 1981 to 2014

BACKGROUND

Population-based studies showed an over 50% decrease in lung cancer risk after quitting smoking for 5-6 years, but the beneficial effect in silicotics remains unknown. We aimed to rectify this knowledge gap using a large historical cohort of 3185 Chinese silicotics since 1981 and followed-up till 2014.

METHODS

Baseline information on workers' socio-demographics, smoking habits, occupational history, and medical history was collected. Smoking status was reassessed during follow-up. Multiple Cox proportional hazards model was performed to evaluate the impact of smoking cessation on lung cancer mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 1942 deaths occurred and 188 lung cancer deaths were identified. Compared with never quitters, silicotics who were new quitters had almost halved their lung cancer risk [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.34-0.76], while persistent quitters had a 53% risk reduction (HR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.33-0.66). Lung cancer mortality approximately halved after quitting smoking for 10 years. While the risk kept decreasing with years since cessation, it did not reverse back to that of never smokers. Persistent quitters with small opacities tended to have higher beneficial effects than those with large opacities.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation for 10 years halved lung cancer mortality among silicotics, while the beneficial effect was prominent for patients with small opacities.

Using the Negative Exponential Model to Describe Changes in Risk of Smoking-Related Diseases following Changes in Exposure to Tobacco

Recently published analyses for four smoking-related diseases show that the declining excess relative risk by time quit is well fitted by the negative exponential model. These analyses estimated the half-life of this excess, that is, the time after quitting when the excess relative risk reaches half that for continuing smokers. We describe extensions of the simple model. One quantifies the decline following an exposure reduction. We show that this extension satisfactorily predicts results from studies investigating the effect of reducing cigarette consumption. It may also be relevant to exposure reductions following product-switching. Another extension predicts changes in excess relative risk occurring following multiple exposure changes over time. Suitable published epidemiological data are unavailable to test this, and we recommend its validity to be investigated using large studies with data recorded on smoking habits at multiple time points in life. The basic formulae described assume that the excess relative risk for a continuing smoker is linearly related to exposure and that the half-life is invariant of age. We describe model adaptations to allow for nonlinear dose-response and for age-dependence of the half-life. The negative exponential model, though relatively simple, appears to have many potential uses in epidemiological research for summarizing variations in risk with exposure changes.

Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and lung cancer by histological type: a pooled analysis of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO)

While the association between exposure to secondhand smoke and lung cancer risk is well established, few studies with sufficient power have examined the association by histological type. In this study, we evaluated the secondhand smoke-lung cancer relationship by histological type based on pooled data from 18 case-control studies in the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO), including 2,504 cases and 7,276 control who were never smokers and 10,184 cases and 7,176 controls who were ever smokers. We used multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking status, pack-years of smoking, and study. Among never smokers, the odds ratios (OR) comparing those ever exposed to secondhand smoke with those never exposed were 1.31 (95% CI: 1.17-1.45) for all histological types combined, 1.26 (95% CI: 1.10-1.44) for adenocarcinoma, 1.41 (95% CI: 0.99-1.99) for squamous cell carcinoma, 1.48 (95% CI: 0.89-2.45) for large cell lung cancer, and 3.09 (95% CI: 1.62-5.89) for small cell lung cancer. The estimated association with secondhand smoke exposure was greater for small cell lung cancer than for nonsmall cell lung cancers (OR=2.11, 95% CI: 1.11-4.04). This analysis is the largest to date investigating the relation between exposure to secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Our study provides more precise estimates of the impact of secondhand smoke on the major histological types of lung cancer, indicates the association with secondhand smoke is stronger for small cell lung cancer than for the other histological types, and suggests the importance of intervention against exposure to secondhand smoke in lung cancer prevention.

Cigarette tar yields in relation to mortality from lung cancer in the cancer prevention study II prospective cohort, 1982-8

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of lung cancer in smokers of medium tar filter cigarettes compared with smokers of low tar and very low tar filter cigarettes.

DESIGN

Analysis of the association between the tar rating of the brand of cigarette smoked in 1982 and mortality from lung cancer over the next six years. Multivariate proportional hazards analyses used to assess hazard ratios, with adjustment for age at enrollment, race, educational level, marital status, blue collar employment, occupational exposure to asbestos, intake of vegetables, citrus fruits, and vitamins, and, in analyses of current and former smokers, for age when they started to smoke and number of cigarettes smoked per day.

SETTING

Cancer prevention study II (CPS-II).

PARTICIPANTS

364 239 men and 576 535 women, aged > or = 30 years, who had either never smoked, were former smokers, or were currently smoking a specific brand of cigarette when they were enrolled in the cancer prevention study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Death from primary cancer of the lung among participants who had never smoked, former smokers, smokers of very low tar (< or = 7 mg tar/cigarette) filter, low tar (8-14 mg) filter, high tar (> or = 22 mg) non-filter brands and medium tar conventional filter brands (15-21 mg).

RESULTS

Irrespective of the tar level of their current brand, all current smokers had a far greater risk of lung cancer than people who had stopped smoking or had never smoked. Compared with smokers of medium tar (15-21 mg) filter cigarettes, risk was higher among men and women who smoked high tar (> or = 22 mg) non-filter brands (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.20 to 1.73, and 1.64, 1.26 to 2.15, respectively). There was no difference in risk among men who smoked brands rated as very low tar (1.17, 0.95 to 1.45) or low tar (1.02, 0.90 to 1.16) compared with those who smoked medium tar brands. The same was seen for women (0.98, 0.80 to 1.21, and 0.95, 0.82 to 1.11, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The increase in lung cancer risk is similar in people who smoke medium tar cigarettes (15-21 mg), low tar cigarettes (8-14 mg), or very low tar cigarettes (< or = 7 mg). Men and women who smoke non-filtered cigarettes with tar ratings > or = 22 mg have an even higher risk of lung cancer.

Health impact of "reduced yield" cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence

Cigarettes with lower machine measured "tar" and nicotine yields have been marketed as "safer" than high tar products over the last four decades, but there is conflicting evidence about the impact of these products on the disease burden caused by smoking. This paper critically examines the epidemiological evidence relevant to the health consequences of "reduced yield" cigarettes. Some epidemiological studies have found attenuated risk of lung cancer but not other diseases, among people who smoke "reduced yield" cigarettes compared to smokers of unfiltered, high yield products. These studies probably overestimate the magnitude of any association with lung cancer by over adjusting for the number of cigarettes smoked per day (one aspect of compensatory smoking), and by not fully considering other differences between smokers of "high yield" and "low yield" cigarettes. Selected cohort studies in the USA and UK show that lung cancer risk continued to increase among older smokers from the 1950s to the 1980s, despite the widespread adoption of lower yield cigarettes. The change to filter tip products did not prevent a progressive increase in lung cancer risk among male smokers who began smoking during and after the second world war compared to the first world war era smokers. National trends in vital statistics data show declining lung cancer death rates in young adults, especially males, in many countries, but the extent to which this is attributable to "reduced yield" cigarettes remains unclear. No studies have adequately assessed whether health claims used to market "reduced yield" cigarettes delay cessation among smokers who might otherwise quit, or increase initiation among non-smokers. There is no convincing evidence that past changes in cigarette design have resulted in an important health benefit to either smokers or the whole population. Tobacco control policies should not allow changes in cigarette design to subvert or distract from interventions proven to reduce the prevalence, intensity, and duration of smoking.