Evaluation of certain risk factors for lung cancer in Cracow (Poland)--a case-control study

Health effects associated with smoking: a Burden of Proof study

As a leading behavioral risk factor for numerous health outcomes, smoking is a major ongoing public health challenge. Although evidence on the health effects of smoking has been widely reported, few attempts have evaluated the dose-response relationship between smoking and a diverse range of health outcomes systematically and comprehensively. In the present study, we re-estimated the dose-response relationships between current smoking and 36 health outcomes by conducting systematic reviews up to 31 May 2022, employing a meta-analytic method that incorporates between-study heterogeneity into estimates of uncertainty. Among the 36 selected outcomes, 8 had strong-to-very-strong evidence of an association with smoking, 21 had weak-to-moderate evidence of association and 7 had no evidence of association. By overcoming many of the limitations of traditional meta-analyses, our approach provides comprehensive, up-to-date and easy-to-use estimates of the evidence on the health effects of smoking. These estimates provide important information for tobacco control advocates, policy makers, researchers, physicians, smokers and the public.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a known lung cancer cause, but no detailed quantitative systematic review exists. We summarize evidence for various indices.

METHODS

Papers published before 2000 describing epidemiological studies involving 100+ lung cancer cases were obtained from Medline and other sources. Studies were classified as principal, or subsidiary where cases overlapped with principal studies. Data were extracted on design, exposures, histological types and confounder adjustment. RRs/ORs and 95% CIs were extracted for ever, current and ex smoking of cigarettes, pipes and cigars and indices of cigarette type and dose-response. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions investigated how relationships varied by study and RR characteristics, mainly for outcomes exactly or closely equivalent to all lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma ("squamous") and adenocarcinoma ("adeno").

RESULTS

287 studies (20 subsidiary) were identified. Although RR estimates were markedly heterogeneous, the meta-analyses demonstrated a relationship of smoking with lung cancer risk, clearly seen for ever smoking (random-effects RR 5.50, CI 5.07-5.96) current smoking (8.43, 7.63-9.31), ex smoking (4.30, 3.93-4.71) and pipe/cigar only smoking (2.92, 2.38-3.57). It was stronger for squamous (current smoking RR 16.91, 13.14-21.76) than adeno (4.21, 3.32-5.34), and evident in both sexes (RRs somewhat higher in males), all continents (RRs highest for North America and lowest for Asia, particularly China), and both study types (RRs higher for prospective studies). Relationships were somewhat stronger in later starting and larger studies. RR estimates were similar in cigarette only and mixed smokers, and similar in smokers of pipes/cigars only, pipes only and cigars only. Exceptionally no increase in adeno risk was seen for pipe/cigar only smokers (0.93, 0.62-1.40). RRs were unrelated to mentholation, and higher for non-filter and handrolled cigarettes. RRs increased with amount smoked, duration, earlier starting age, tar level and fraction smoked and decreased with time quit. Relationships were strongest for small and squamous cell, intermediate for large cell and weakest for adenocarcinoma. Covariate-adjustment little affected RR estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of lung cancer with smoking is strong, evident for all lung cancer types, dose-related and insensitive to covariate-adjustment. This emphasises the causal nature of the relationship. Our results quantify the relationships more precisely than previously.

A systematic review of the relation between long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and chronic diseases

We conducted a systematic review of all studies published between 1950 and 2007 of associations between long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and the risks in adults of nonaccidental mortality and the incidence and mortality from cancer and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. We searched bibliographic databases for cohort and case-control studies, abstracted characteristics of their design and conduct, and synthesized the quantitative findings in tabular and graphic form. We assessed heterogeneity, estimated pooled effects for specific pollutants, and conducted sensitivity analyses according to selected characteristics of the studies. Our analysis showed that long-term exposure to PM2.5 increases the risk of nonaccidental mortality by 6% per a 10 microg/m3 increase, independent of age, gender, and geographic region. Exposure to PM2.5 was also associated with an increased risk of mortality from lung cancer (range: 15% to 21% per a 10 microg/m3 increase) and total cardiovascular mortality (range: 12% to 14% per a 10 microg/m3 increase). In addition, living close to busy traffic appears to be associated with elevated risks of these three outcomes. Suggestive evidence was found that exposure to PM2.5 is positively associated with mortality from coronary heart diseases and exposure to SO2 increases mortality from lung cancer. For the other pollutants and health outcomes, the data were insufficient data to make solid conclusions.

Fruit and vegetables in cancer prevention

Our aim was to review the epidemiological literature on possible cancer-preventive effects of the consumption of fruits and vegetables in humans, to quantify the effect of high versus low consumption of fruits and vegetables, and to give an overall assessment of the existing evidence. We based our work on an expert meeting conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2003. A qualitative reading and evaluation of relevant articles on the cancer-preventive effect of the consumption of fruits and vegetables was made followed by the calculation of the mean relative risk and range for cohort and case-control studies separately. The possible population-preventable fraction for modifying diet in relation to fruit and vegetable consumption was calculated as well as an overall statement about the degree of evidence for the cancer-preventive effect of fruit and vegetable consumption for each cancer site. There is limited evidence for a cancer-preventive effect of the consumption of fruits and vegetables for cancer of the mouth and pharynx, esophagus, stomach, colon-rectum, larynx, lung, ovary (vegetables only), bladder (fruit only), and kidney. There is inadequate evidence for a cancer-preventive effect of the consumption of fruits and vegetables for all other sites. Applying this range of risk difference to the range of prevalence of low intake, the preventable fraction for low fruit and vegetable intake would fall into the range of 5-12%. It is important to recognize that this is only a crude range of estimates and that the proportion of cancers that might be preventable by increasing fruit and vegetable intake may vary beyond this range for specific cancer sites and across different regions of the world.

Epidemiology of environmental and occupational cancer

Environmental carcinogens, in a strict sense, include outdoor and indoor air pollutants, as well as soil and drinking water contaminants. An increased risk of mesothelioma has consistently been detected among individuals experiencing residential exposure to asbestos, while results for lung cancer are less consistent. Several good-quality studies have investigated lung cancer risk from outdoor air pollution based on measurement of specific agents. Their results tend to show an increased risk in the categories at highest exposure, with relative risks in the range 1.5. A causal association has been established between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer, with a relative risk in the order of 1.2. Radon is another carcinogen present in indoor air, with a relative risk in the order of 1.06 for exposure at 100 Bq/m3. In several Asian populations, an increased risk of lung cancer results among women from indoor pollution from cooking and heating. There is strong evidence of an increased risk of bladder, skin and lung cancers following consumption of water with high arsenic contamination; results for other drinking water contaminants, including chlorination by-products, are inconclusive. A total of 29 occupational agents are established human carcinogens, and another 30 agents are suspected carcinogens. In addition, at least 12 exposure circumstances entail exposure to carcinogens. Exposure is still widespread for many important occupational carcinogens, such as asbestos, coal tar, arsenic and silica, in particular in developing countries. Although estimates of the global burden of occupational and environmental cancer result in figures in the order of 2% and less than 1%, respectively, these cancers concentrate in subgroups of the population; furthermore, exposure is involuntary and can, to a large extent, be avoided.

Environmental exposure to carcinogens causing lung cancer: epidemiological evidence from the medical literature

OBJECTIVE

In 2000 there were 1.1 million lung or bronchial cancer deaths worldwide, with relatively limited evidence of causation other than for smoking. We aimed to search and appraise the literature regarding evidence for a causal relationship between air pollution and lung cancer according to the 10 Bradford Hill criteria for causality.

METHODOLOGY

A MEDLINE search was performed using the following key words: 'lung neoplasm', 'epidemiology', 'human', 'air pollution'and 'not molec*'. The criteria for inclusion was: cited original research that described the study population, measured environmental factors, was of case control or cohort design, and was undertaken after 1982.

RESULTS

Fourteen papers (10 case control, four cohort studies) fulfilled the search criteria, with a sample size ranging from 101 cases and 89 controls, to a cohort of 552 cases and 138 controls. Of the 14 papers that fulfilled the search criteria the number of papers addressing each of the Bradford Hill criteria were as follows: Strength of association: eight studies demonstrated significant positive associations between environmental exposure and lung cancer with a relative risk range of 1.14-5.2. One study found a negative association with relative risk 0.28. Consistency: eight of 14 studies found significant positive associations and one of 14 a significant negative association. Specificity: tobacco smoking and occupational exposure were addressed in all studies (often crudely with misclassification). Temporality: exposure prior to diagnosis was demonstrated in nine studies. Dose-response relationship: evident in three studies. Coherence, analogy: not addressed in any study.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for causality is modest, with intermediate consistency of findings, limited dose-response evidence and crude adjustment for important potential confounders. Large studies with comprehensive risk factor quantification are required to clarify the potentially small effect of air pollution given the relatively large effects of tobacco smoking and occupational carcinogen exposure.

Fruits, vegetables and lung cancer: a pooled analysis of cohort studies

Inverse associations between fruit and vegetable consumption and lung cancer risk have been consistently reported. However, identifying the specific fruits and vegetables associated with lung cancer is difficult because the food groups and foods evaluated have varied across studies. We analyzed fruit and vegetable groups using standardized exposure and covariate definitions in 8 prospective studies. We combined study-specific relative risks (RRs) using a random effects model. In the pooled database, 3,206 incident lung cancer cases occurred among 430,281 women and men followed for up to 6-16 years across studies. Controlling for smoking habits and other lung cancer risk factors, a 16-23% reduction in lung cancer risk was observed for quintiles 2 through 5 vs. the lowest quintile of consumption for total fruits (RR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.67-0.87 for quintile 5; p-value, test for trend < 0.001) and for total fruits and vegetables (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.69-0.90; p-value, test for trend = 0.001). For the same comparison, the association was weaker for total vegetable consumption (RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.78-1.00; p-value, test for trend = 0.12). Associations were similar between never, past, and current smokers. These results suggest that elevated fruit and vegetable consumption is associated with a modest reduction in lung cancer risk, which is mostly attributable to fruit, not vegetable, intake. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that our results are due to residual confounding by smoking. The primary focus for reducing lung cancer incidence should continue to be smoking prevention and cessation.

Epidemiologic evidence of the protective effect of fruit and vegetables on cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Diets rich in fruit and vegetables have been recommended for preventing cancer. The evidence supporting this recommendation is based on observational studies, although results of several prospective studies have cast some doubts on whether fruit and vegetables are associated with cancer risk reduction.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to summarize evidence from case-control and prospective studies on fruit and vegetable intake and cancer risk with a meta-analytic approach.

DESIGN

Published case-control and cohort studies that reported on total vegetable and fruit intake and risk of cancer of several sites were included. Relative risks were estimated by using linear logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Case-control studies overall support a significant reduction in the risks of cancers of the esophagus, lung, stomach, and colorectum associated with both fruit and vegetables; breast cancer is associated with vegetables but not with fruit; and bladder cancer is associated with fruit but not with vegetables. The overall relative risk estimates from cohort studies suggest a protective effect of both fruit and vegetables for most cancer sites considered, but the risk reduction is significant only for cancers of the lung and bladder and only for fruit.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective studies provide weaker evidence than do case-control studies of the association of fruit and vegetable consumption with reduced cancer risk. The discrepancies may be related to recall and selection biases in case-control studies. In contrast, the association may have been underestimated in prospective studies because of the combined effects of imprecise dietary measurements and limited variability of dietary intakes within each cohort.

Contribution of environmental factors to cancer risk

Environmental carcinogens, in a strict sense, include outdoor and indoor air pollutants, as well as soil and drinking water contaminants. An increased risk of mesothelioma has consistently been detected among individuals experiencing residential exposure to asbestos, whereas results for lung cancer are less consistent. At least 14 good-quality studies have investigated lung cancer risk from outdoor air pollution based on measurement of specific agents. Their results tend to show an increased risk in the categories at highest exposure, with relative risks in the range 1.5-2.0, which is not attributable to confounders. Results for other cancers are sparse. A causal association has been established between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer, with a relative risk in the order of 1.2. Radon is another carcinogen present in indoor air which may be responsible for 1% of all lung cancers. In several Asian populations, an increased risk of lung cancer is present in women from indoor pollution from cooking and heating. There is strong evidence of an increased risk of bladder, skin and lung cancers following consumption of water with high arsenic contamination; results for other drinking water contaminants, including chlorination by-products, are inconclusive. A precise quantification of the burden of human cancer attributable to environmental exposure is problematic. However, despite the relatively small relative risks of cancer following exposure to environmental carcinogens, the number of cases that might be caused, assuming a causal relationship, is relatively large, as a result of the high prevalence of exposure.