67
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America

      research-article
      1 , , 1
      BMC Medicine
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Interest is rising in smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to smoking, but published reviews on smokeless tobacco and cancer are limited. We review North American and European studies and compare effects of smokeless tobacco and smoking.

          Methods

          We obtained papers from MEDLINE searches, published reviews and secondary references describing epidemiological cohort and case-control studies relating any form of cancer to smokeless tobacco use. For each study, details were abstracted on design, smokeless tobacco exposure, cancers studied, analysis methods and adjustment for smoking and other factors. For each cancer, relative risks or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were tabulated. Overall, and also for USA and Scandinavia separately, meta-analyses were conducted using all available estimates, smoking-adjusted estimates, or estimates for never smokers. For seven cancers, smoking-attributable deaths in US men in 2005 were compared with deaths attributable to introducing smokeless tobacco into a population of never-smoking men.

          Results

          Eighty-nine studies were identified; 62 US and 18 Scandinavian. Forty-six (52%) controlled for smoking. Random-effects meta-analysis estimates for most sites showed little association. Smoking-adjusted estimates were only significant for oropharyngeal cancer (1.36, CI 1.04–1.77, n = 19) and prostate cancer (1.29, 1.07–1.55, n = 4). The oropharyngeal association disappeared for estimates published since 1990 (1.00, 0.83–1.20, n = 14), for Scandinavia (0.97, 0.68–1.37, n = 7), and for alcohol-adjusted estimates (1.07, 0.84–1.37, n = 10). Any effect of current US products or Scandinavian snuff seems very limited. The prostate cancer data are inadequate for a clear conclusion.

          Some meta-analyses suggest a possible effect for oesophagus, pancreas, larynx and kidney cancer, but other cancers show no effect of smokeless tobacco. Any possible effects are not evident in Scandinavia. Of 142,205 smoking-related male US cancer deaths in 2005, 104,737 are smoking-attributable. Smokeless tobacco-attributable deaths would be 1,102 (1.1%) if as many used smokeless tobacco as had smoked, and 2,081 (2.0%) if everyone used smokeless tobacco.

          Conclusion

          An increased risk of oropharyngeal cancer is evident most clearly for past smokeless tobacco use in the USA, but not for Scandinavian snuff. Effects of smokeless tobacco use on other cancers are not clearly demonstrated. Risk from modern products is much less than for smoking.

          Related collections

          Most cited references110

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Smoking and drinking in relation to oral and pharyngeal cancer.

          A case-control study of oral and pharyngeal cancer conducted in four areas of the United States provided information on the tobacco and alcohol use of 1114 patients and 1268 population-based controls. Because of the large study size, it could be shown that the risks of these cancers among nondrinkers increased with amount smoked, and conversely that the risks among nonsmokers increased with the level of alcohol intake. Among consumers of both products, risks of oropharyngeal cancer tended to combine more in a multiplicative than additive fashion and were increased more than 35-fold among those who consumed two or more packs of cigarettes and more than four alcoholic drinks/day. Cigarette, cigar, and pipe smoking were separately implicated, although it was shown for the first time that risk was not as high among male lifelong filter cigarette smokers. Cessation of smoking was associated with a sharply reduced risk of this cancer, with no excess detected among those having quit for 10 or more years, suggesting that smoking affects primarily a late stage in the process of oropharyngeal carcinogenesis. The risks varied by type of alcoholic beverage, being higher among those consuming hard liquor or beer than wine. The relative risk patterns were generally similar among whites and blacks, and among males and females, and showed little difference when oral and pharyngeal cancers were analyzed separately. From calculations of attributable risk, we estimate that tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking combine to account for approximately three-fourths of all oral and pharyngeal cancers in the United States.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Facilitating meta-analyses by deriving relative effect and precision estimates for alternative comparisons from a set of estimates presented by exposure level or disease category.

            Epidemiological studies relating a particular exposure to a specified disease may present their results in a variety of ways. Often, results are presented as estimated odds ratios (or relative risks) and confidence intervals (CIs) for a number of categories of exposure, for example, by duration or level of exposure, compared with a single reference category, often the unexposed. For systematic literature review, and particularly meta-analysis, estimates for an alternative comparison of the categories, such as any exposure versus none, may be required. Obtaining these alternative comparisons is not straightforward, as the initial set of estimates is correlated. This paper describes a method for estimating these alternative comparisons based on the ideas originally put forward by Greenland and Longnecker, and provides implementations of the method, developed using Microsoft Excel and SAS. Examples of the method based on studies of smoking and cancer are given. The method also deals with results given by categories of disease (such as histological types of a cancer). The method allows the use of a more consistent comparison when summarizing published evidence, thus potentially improving the reliability of a meta-analysis. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Smokeless tobacco and cancer.

              Use of smokeless tobacco products is common worldwide, with increasing consumption in many countries. Although epidemiological data from the USA and Asia show a raised risk of oral cancer (overall relative risk 2.6 [95% CI 1.3-5.2]), these are not confirmed in northern European studies (1.0 [0.7-1.3]). Risks of oesophageal cancer (1.6 [1.1-2.3]) and pancreatic cancer (1.6 [1.1-2.2]) have also increased, as shown in northern European studies. Results on lung cancer have been inconsistent, with northern European studies suggesting no excess risk. In India and Sudan, more than 50% of oral cancers are attributable to smokeless tobacco products used in those countries, as are about 4% of oral cancers in US men and 20% of oesophageal and pancreatic cancers in Swedish men. Smokeless tobacco products are a major source of carcinogenic nitrosamines; biomarkers of exposure have been developed to quantify exposure as a framework for a carcinogenesis model in people. Animal carcinogenicity studies strongly support clinical results. Cancer risk of smokeless tobacco users is probably lower than that of smokers, but higher than that of non-tobacco users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Med
                BMC Medicine
                BioMed Central
                1741-7015
                2009
                29 July 2009
                : 7
                : 36
                Affiliations
                [1 ]PN Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd, Surrey, UK
                Article
                1741-7015-7-36
                10.1186/1741-7015-7-36
                2744672
                19638245
                e490f428-e394-4a63-ba45-69febba03231
                Copyright ©2009 Lee and Hamling; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 9 June 2009
                : 29 July 2009
                Categories
                Research article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article