ets exposure, lung cancer - Legacy Tobacco Documents Library
ets exposure, lung cancer - Legacy Tobacco Documents Library
ets exposure, lung cancer - Legacy Tobacco Documents Library
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
of the study, inereased risk of hmg <strong>cancer</strong><br />
from adult ETS <strong>exposure</strong> was stronger<br />
for adenocsrcinoma of the <strong>lung</strong> than for<br />
al7 cell types combined? That ffnding is no<br />
longer apparent with the additional cases<br />
of each cell type . Although the estimates<br />
of RR for pulmonary adenocarcinoma are<br />
not different from tHose for other cell<br />
types, adenocarcinoma of the <strong>lung</strong> is by<br />
far the predominant cell type diagnosed<br />
in women with <strong>lung</strong> <strong>cancer</strong> who are lifetime<br />
nonsmokers, and oo the ef5ects of<br />
ETS <strong>exposure</strong> may be particularly rel•<br />
evant for this histopathologic cell type .'<br />
More than 75% of the cases in this study<br />
were diagnosed with prim.v-yy pulmonary<br />
a.denecarcinoma, twice the proportion of<br />
adenocareinoma of the <strong>lung</strong> diagnosed in<br />
all US women without regard to smoking<br />
history: 37% among female <strong>lung</strong> <strong>cancer</strong><br />
cases in the SEER program .° In other<br />
studies of E'I5 in female nonsmokers in<br />
which histopathology was reported, adwnlocstrcinoma<br />
comprised 60 K or more of<br />
nll cases in six of nine studies .L'"'6' ' In<br />
the other three studies, the proportion of<br />
udenocarcinotna cases ranged from 43%<br />
Ro 549E ." 1' Differences in the physical and<br />
themical properties of sidestream smoke<br />
compared with mainstream smoke, including<br />
the distnbution of the vapor and particulate<br />
phases and the concentration of<br />
Imov.-n or suspected carcinogens!' combined<br />
uith ditferences in inhalation, nasal<br />
vs oral, may yield a higher proportion of<br />
peripheral adenoatranomas .u<br />
Ddisclassification of disease status was<br />
minimized in this study by the eligibility<br />
rriteria (microscopic diagnosis required)<br />
and an independent review of diagnostic<br />
ataterial that was completed for 85% of<br />
the cases . The amall proportion of cases<br />
found ineligtble by independent review<br />
may result from the populat.ion•based tumor<br />
registry affiliation of four of the five<br />
study cent.ers. The consistency of the findings<br />
w-ith and without nonreviewed cases<br />
supports the contention that the study<br />
results were not measurably altered by<br />
incluaion of ineligible caees .<br />
Misclassification of eversmoker6 as lifetime<br />
never smokers is more problematic .<br />
'I11e objective of this study was to evalu•<br />
ate the risk of <strong>lung</strong> <strong>cancer</strong> in women who<br />
had never smoked . At present there is no<br />
known biomarker of lifetime tobacco use .<br />
Cotinine, the major metabolite of nicotine,<br />
is the most widely accepted biomarker<br />
of current (I to 2 days) tobacco<br />
<strong>exposure</strong> and is useful for distinguishing<br />
current active 6wrukers from current nonainokers<br />
.'"' The proportion of reported<br />
nartsntokersin the present study with a<br />
cotininelcreatinine concentration above<br />
100 nghng was 1 .9%, the same proportion<br />
vrith a concentration above 100 nghng<br />
obeerved in a 10-country, multicenter<br />
study of self-reported ETS eupo6ure"<br />
.lAMN, Jwte 8, 1 ;W-VO( 271, No 22<br />
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wyk81f00/pdf<br />
TaM. 7--Aauoaanon gfiww Rrk 0t Lunq C .nar sna AdAawod S+rwk.-Y ..n d Expu>r. Amx,q<br />
/lonunoWnO wom.n•<br />
~~<br />
~ cn,a. oa aeWs+ .e on<br />
c., .. oo araft tts+. Co (ss+ cu<br />
aJ1 t.,Rq C.rtMnww (Aw IL.poneenb)<br />
0 ,6 tte 100<br />
1•11 74 299 076(050-116i<br />
122e 136 307 111 (0755163)<br />
29-47 163 3W 12 .(0eA . 1 921<br />
a+6 163 265 1 $10 .03•2 .23)1<br />
Adenoc+rdnae . (AM OLepen6r++tt)<br />
Tnntl fi . 0001<br />
0 36 11e 1 .00 . .<br />
1•11 6. 239 0 7< (o 46L1 19)<br />
1226 1io K7 1 .17(076•1 e1)<br />
20.r7 112 304 121 (07'6•166)<br />
n46 130 M 1 .61 (1 .0b217)1<br />
TnM A. 0002<br />
()Hu . N/lqoiopkal Typ.s (N( /I+spondvrtn)<br />
0 12 118 100 _ 100<br />
100<br />
062(052•1 .29)<br />
112(o7S17o)<br />
135(oe420a)<br />
1 .74 (1 14-2 65)1<br />
Trtntl P. 0001<br />
1,00<br />
074 (0 .•u .1 23)<br />
1 .15 (o 73-1 tJt<br />
119(0e1•20a)<br />
1 77 (112•2 6011<br />
Tnrd H. 0001<br />
20 239 0e2(039-174) 117(052•262)<br />
122e 26 307 090(o4t-162) 1001oA621e ;<br />
24-a7 41 304 1,33(067•261) 1 .58(076331)<br />
:i6 13 265 1 .Y.!(061•216) 1 .76(063.375)<br />
Teur.tl P. 12 TrmO W 05<br />
Aut u" C«otr,a>re ".w~onse(w or+ly)<br />
0 30 11e 1,00 1 .00<br />
;.11 53 238 00E(051•15A) 079(0W 42)<br />
12•2e 103 306 1 .32 (06t•210) 1 20 (0'A•1 94)<br />
2D-~ 7 110 304 112(09ti223) 14+(ot4231)<br />
:a6 105 265 1,56 (0,9cS•2 47) 1 .67 (1 B3•2 70tt<br />
0<br />
1•11<br />
122e<br />
29-47<br />
:i6<br />
AA.norarcMm .n . (s.n+wva,Wa o„H)<br />
TMr+tl P . 002 Tnrb h 0006<br />
23 11e 100 . . 100<br />
A1 236 0 66 (o 5} 1") 0 D 1(0 46,1 , 37)<br />
a6 306 1 46 (o 99•2 45) 1 31 (0 77•2 22)<br />
62 304 1,36(0f.1230) 139 to624 361<br />
91 265 1 76 (1 .06-2 02)1 115 (7 0P3 15)1<br />
Tnnd Fr,001 7rOrd 0. 0005<br />
om« rrwo1optu( Tw« (aas4. .PONOOP" onM)<br />
0 7 116 100 . . . 1 00<br />
1•11 12 236 0a5(031222) 0 91 (0 3A•2 .5)<br />
12•2e ls ao6 o 93 (0 .33•2 06) 062(031•216)<br />
29~7 ~ 304 1 55 (o 66•3 65) 1Ft (0674 03)<br />
14 2a5 0 69 (0 .35•226) 1 12 (o 42r2 96)<br />
TrMO R 49 Twntl P= 32<br />
'Atltuttod br p! . fTp* autly .rN *dY'.11qn. hUR{ . vpartbltt . >/Rtl uuryp+rmfnW VumA r1Wx bftay<br />
dw4surd, s.mry trstory d Mq umr, .nC .mpay*r»m n r,pn-rwK aoa.prba>t OFi rdcws oilos reeo . CI .<br />
oon6cs.np rr .naW<br />
tp< .os<br />
A higher proportion of controle than<br />
cases was exc]uded from the study s6 a<br />
result of elevated ooncentrations of urinary<br />
cotinineJcreatinine, 2.3% vs 0 .6% .<br />
(',ases were klenti4ed at ho6pitals, and<br />
aaeedng of medical records and physieLUU<br />
about the patient's current and past<br />
use of tobaxo preceded the screening by<br />
telephone and at the interview for all 6Ux1yy<br />
subjecw .'Itiia procedure may have eliminated<br />
some curnent amokers from the case<br />
series who would have been inclined to<br />
self-report as nonamokers in an interview<br />
format. Alternatively, some cases who<br />
would miareport smoking status may be<br />
less likely, because of health status, to be<br />
actively antddng and less &ceh• to be revealed<br />
than healthy, free-living controls .<br />
Other data suggest that <strong>lung</strong> <strong>cancer</strong> aa