The role of histopathology in the evaluation of risk of lung cancer from environmental tobacco smoke

Improving the conduct of meta-analyses of observational studies

The author, who has published numerous meta-analyses of epidemiological studies, particularly on tobacco, comments on various aspects of their content. While such meta-analyses, even when well conducted, are more difficult to draw inferences from than are meta-analyses of clinical trials, they allow greater insight into an association than do simple qualitative reviews. This editorial starts with a discussion of some problems relating to hypothesis definition. These include the definition of the outcome, the exposure and the population to be considered, as well as the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. Under literature searching, the author argues against restriction to studies published in peer-reviewed journals, emphasising the fact that relevant data may be available from other sources. Problems of identifying studies and double counting are discussed, as are various issues in regard to data entry. The need to check published effect estimates is emphasised, and techniques to calculate estimates from material provided in the source publication are described. Once the data have been collected and an overall effect estimate obtained, tests for heterogeneity should be conducted in relation to different study characteristics. Though some meta-analysts recommend classifying studies by an overall index of study quality, the author prefers to separately investigate heterogeneity by those factors which contribute to the assessment of quality. Reasons why an association may not actually reflect a true causal relationship are also discussed, with the editorial describing techniques for investigating the relevance of confounding, and referring to problems resulting from misclassification of key variables. Misclassification of disease, exposure and confounding variables can all produce a spurious association, as can misclassification of the variable used to determine whether an individual can enter the study, and the author points to techniques to adjust for this. Issues relating to publication bias and the interpretation of “statistically significant” results are also discussed. The editorial should give the reader insight into the difficulties of producing a good meta-analysis.

Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and lung cancer: A systematic review

AIM: To review evidence relating passive smoking to lung cancer risk in never smokers, considering various major sources of bias.

METHODS: Epidemiological prospective or case-control studies were identified which provide estimates of relative risk (RR) and 95%CI for never smokers for one or more of seven different indices of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS): The spouse; household; workplace; childhood; travel; social and other; and total. A wide range of study details were entered into a database, and the RRs for each study, including descriptions of the comparisons made, were entered into a linked database. RRs were derived where necessary. Results were entered, where available, for all lung cancer, and for squamous cell cancer and adenocarcinoma. “Most adjusted” results were entered based on results available, adjusted for the greatest number of potential confounding variables. “Least adjusted” results were also entered, with a preference for results adjusted at least for age for prospective studies. A pre-planned series of fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Overall analyses and analyses by continent were run for each exposure index, with results for spousal smoking given by sex, and results for childhood exposure given by source of ETS exposure. For spousal exposure, more extensive analyses provide results by various aspects of study design and definition of the RR. For smoking by the husband (or nearest equivalent), additional analyses were carried out both for overall risk, and for risk per 10 cigarettes per day smoked by the husband. These adjusted for uncontrolled confounding by four factors (fruit, vegetable and dietary fat consumption, and education), and corrected for misclassification of smoking status of the wife. For the confounding adjustment, estimates for never smoking women were derived from publications on the relationship of the four factors to both lung cancer risk and at home ETS exposure, and on the correlations between the factors. The bias due to misclassification was calculated on the basis that the proportion of ever smokers denying smoking is 10% in Asian studies and 2.5% elsewhere, and that those who deny smoking have the same risk as those who admit it. This approach, justified in previous work, balances higher true denial rates and lower risk in deniers compared to non-deniers.

RESULTS: One hundred and two studies were identified for inclusion, published in 1981 onwards, 45 in Asia, 31 in North America, 21 in Europe, and five elsewhere. Eighty-five were of case-control design and 17 were prospective. Significant (P < 0.05) associations were noted, with random-effects of (RR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.14-1.31, n = 93) for smoking by the husband (RR = 1.14, 95%CI: 1.01-1.29, n = 45) for smoking by the wife (RR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.15-1.30, n = 47) for workplace exposure (RR = 1.15, 95%CI: 1.02-1.29, n = 41) for childhood exposure, and (RR = 1.31, 95%CI: 1.19-1.45, n = 48) for total exposure. No significant association was seen for ETS exposure in travel (RR = 1.34, 95%CI: 0.94-1.93, n = 8) or in social situations (RR = 1.01, 95%CI: 0.82-1.24, n = 15). A significant negative association (RR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.64-0.94, n = 8) was seen for ETS exposure in childhood, specifically from the parents. Significant associations were also seen for spousal smoking for both squamous cell carcinoma (RR = 1.44, 95%CI: 1.15-1.80, n = 24) and adenocarcinoma (RR = 1.33, 95%CI: 1.17-1.51, n = 30). Results generally showed marked heterogeneity between studies. For smoking by either the husband or wife, where 119 RR estimates gave an overall estimate of (RR = 1.21, 95%CI: 1.14-1.29), the heterogeneity was highly significant (P < 0.001), with evidence that the largest RRs were seen in studies published in 1981-89, in small studies (1-49 cases), and for estimates unadjusted by age. For smoking by the husband, the additional analyses showed that adjustment for the four factors reduced the overall (RR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.14-1.31) based on 93 estimates to (RR = 1.14, 95%CI: 1.06-1.22), implying bias due to uncontrolled confounding of 7%. Further correction for misclassification reduced the estimate to a marginally non-significant (RR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.999-1.16). In the fully adjusted and corrected analyses, there was evidence of an increase in Asia (RR = 1.18, 95%CI: 1.07-1.30, n = 44), but not in other regions (RR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.86-1.07, n = 49). Studies published in the 1980’s, studies providing dose-response data, and studies only providing results unadjusted for age showed elevated RRs, but later published studies, studies not providing dose-response data, and studies adjusting for age did not. The pattern of results for RRs per 10 cigs/d was similar, with no significant association in the adjusted and corrected results (RR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.994-1.07).

CONCLUSION: Most, if not all, of the ETS/lung cancer association can be explained by confounding adjustment and misclassification correction. Any causal relationship is not convincingly demonstrated.

Difficulties in assessing the relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer

Since 1981, numerous epidemiological studies have investigated the relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer in nonsmokers. The overall evidence, predominantly relating to women, indicates a weak association with the husband's smoking and many reviewers have concluded that this demonstrates a causal effect of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Interpreting weak associations is notoriously difficult, however, and this paper reviews problems specific to the ETS-lung cancer relationship. After describing how to select relevant studies and appropriate data, the methods for combining evidence together ('meta-analysis') are discussed, and the need to investigate sources of heterogeneity is emphasized. Separate consideration is given to various forms of bias that may affect overall relative risk estimates, including misclassification of active smoking status, confounding, systematic case-control differences, recall bias, diagnostic bias and publication bias. Sections on dose-response, multiple ETS exposure sources and other issues follow. The problems are illustrated from the available literature. It is shown there is no significant association of lung cancer with workplace, childhood or social ETS exposure or with smoking by the wife. Though statistically significant, the association with husband's smoking is weak and heterogeneous and varies widely according to various study characteristics. The association is markedly weakened by the adjustment for smoking misclassification bias and is likely to be affected by confounding and other sources of bias. While the precise extent of all the biases remains unclear, it seems impossible to conclude with any certainty that ETS causes lung cancer.

Previous cancer and radiotherapy as risk factors for lung cancer in lifetime nonsmokers

A history of previous primary cancer and of radiotherapy were investigated as risk factors for lung cancer in lifetime nonsmokers in a hospital-based case-control study. By design, subjects with a previous tobacco-related primary (of the lung, larynx, oropharynx, esophagus, kidney, bladder, or pancreas) were excluded. Information was available on 30 male and 47 female lung cancer cases and 87 male and 132 female controls, all lifetime nonsmokers, interviewed in hospitals in four United States cities between 1985 and 1990. In males, neither a history of a previous primary nor a history of radiotherapy was associated significantly with lung cancer; however, the numbers of exposed cases were small. In females, after adjustment for age, education, hospital, lifetime environmental tobacco-smoke exposure, and body mass index, both a history of a reproductive primary and a history of radiotherapy were associated significantly with lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 4.9, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-17.7, and OR = 4.4, CI = 1.3-15.1, respectively). Due to a high correlation between a history of a reproductive primary and a history of radiotherapy in the cases, it was not possible to estimate the effect of one exposure independent of the other. These results are consistent with the possibility that endocrine factors may play a role in some lung cancers in women.