Dataset Information

Systematic review of the epidemiological evidence comparing lung cancer risk in smokers of mentholated and unmentholated cigarettes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

US mentholated cigarette sales have increased considerably over 50 years. Preference for mentholated cigarettes is markedly higher in Black people. While menthol itself is not genotoxic or carcinogenic, its acute respiratory effects might affect inhalation of cigarette smoke. This possibility seems consistent with the higher lung cancer risk in Black men, despite Black people smoking less and starting smoking later than White people. Despite experimental data suggesting similar carcinogenicity of mentholated and non-mentholated cigarettes, the lack of convincing evidence that mentholation increases puffing, inhalation or smoke uptake, and the similarity of lung cancer rates in Black and White females, a review of cigarette mentholation and lung cancer is timely given current regulatory interest in the topic.

Methods

Epidemiological studies comparing lung cancer risk in mentholated and non-mentholated cigarette smokers were identified from MedLine and other sources. Study details were extracted and strengths and weaknesses assessed. Relative risk estimates were extracted, or derived, for ever mentholated use and for long-term use, overall and by gender, race, and current/ever smoking, and meta-analyses conducted.

Results

Eight generally good quality studies were identified, with valid cases and controls, and appropriate adjustment for age, gender, race and smoking. The studies afforded good power to detect possible effects. However, only one study presented results by histological type, none adjusted for occupation or diet, and some provided no results by length of mentholated cigarette use.The data do not suggest any effect of mentholation on lung cancer risk. Adjusted relative risk estimates for ever use vary from 0.81 to 1.12, giving a combined estimate of 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.84-1.02, n = 8), with no increase in males (1.01, 0.84-1.22, n = 5), females (0.80, 0.67-0.95, n = 5), White people (0.87, 0.75-1.03, n = 4) or Black people (0.90, 0.73-1.10, n = 4). Estimates for current and ever smokers are similar. The combined estimate for long-term use (0.95, 0.80-1.13, n = 4) again suggests no effect of mentholation.

Conclusion

Higher lung cancer rates in Black males cannot be due to their greater preference for mentholated cigarettes. While some study weaknesses exist, the epidemiological evidence is consistent with mentholation having no effect on the lung carcinogenicity of cigarettes.

SUBMITTER: Lee PN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3103484 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of the epidemiological evidence comparing lung cancer risk in smokers of mentholated and unmentholated cigarettes.

Lee Peter N PN

BMC pulmonary medicine 20110418

<h4>Background</h4>US mentholated cigarette sales have increased considerably over 50 years. Preference for mentholated cigarettes is markedly higher in Black people. While menthol itself is not genotoxic or carcinogenic, its acute respiratory effects might affect inhalation of cigarette smoke. This possibility seems consistent with the higher lung cancer risk in Black men, despite Black people smoking less and starting smoking later than White people. Despite experimental data suggesting simila ...[more]

PMID: 21501470

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReduced FEV1 is known to predict increased lung cancer risk, but previous reviews are limited. To quantify this relationship more precisely, and study heterogeneity, we derived estimates of β for the relationship RR(diff) = exp(βdiff), where diff is the reduction in FEV1 expressed as a percentage of predicted (FEV1%P) and RR(diff) the associated relative risk. We used results reported directly as β, and as grouped levels of RR in terms of FEV1%P and of associated measures (e.g. FEV1/FVC).MethodsPapers describing cohort studies involving at least three years follow-up which recorded FEV1 at baseline and presented results relating lung cancer to FEV1 or associated measures were sought from Medline and other sources. Data were recorded on study design and quality and, for each data block identified, on details of the results, including population characteristics, adjustment factors, lung function measure, and analysis type. Regression estimates were converted to β estimates where appropriate. For results reported by grouped levels, we used the NHANES III dataset to estimate mean FEV1%P values for each level, regardless of the measure used, then derived β using regression analysis which accounted for non-independence of the RR estimates. Goodness-of-fit was tested by comparing observed and predicted lung cancer cases for each level. Inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis allowed derivation of overall β estimates and testing for heterogeneity by factors including sex, age, location, timing, duration, study quality, smoking adjustment, measure of FEV1 reported, and inverse-variance weight of β.ResultsThirty-three publications satisfying the inclusion/exclusion criteria were identified, seven being rejected as not allowing estimation of β. The remaining 26 described 22 distinct studies, from which 32 independent β estimates were derived. Goodness-of-fit was satisfactory, and exp(β), the RR increase per one unit FEV1%P decrease, was estimated as 1.019 (95%CI 1.016-1.021). The estimates were quite consistent (I2 =29.6%). Mean age was the only independent source of heterogeneity, exp(β) being higher for age <50 years (1.024, 1.020-1.028).ConclusionsAlthough the source papers present results in various ways, complicating meta-analysis, they are very consistent. A decrease in FEV1%P of 10% is associated with a 20% (95%CI 17%-23%) increase in lung cancer risk.

Project description:Background: Some evidence suggests environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) might cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We reviewed available epidemiological data in never smokers. Methods: We identified epidemiological studies providing estimates of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for various ETS exposure indices. Confounder-adjusted RRs for COPD were extracted, or derived using standard methods. Meta-analyses were conducted for each exposure index, with tests for heterogeneity and publication bias. For the main index (spouse ever smoked or nearest equivalent), analyses investigated variation in RR by location, publication period, study type, sex, diagnosis, study size, confounder adjustment, never smoker definition, and exposure index definition. Results: Twenty-eight relevant studies were identified; nine European or Middle Eastern, nine Asian, eight American and two from multiple countries. Five were prospective, seven case-control and 16 cross-sectional. The COPD definition involved death or hospitalisation in seven studies, GOLD stage 1+ criteria in twelve, and other definitions in nine. For the main index, random-effects meta-analysis of 33 heterogeneous (p<0.001) estimates gave a RR of 1.20 (95%CI 1.08-1.34). Higher estimates for females (1.59,1.16-2.19, n=11) than males (1.29,0.94-1.76, n=7) or sexes combined (1.10,0.99-1.22, n=15 where sex-specific not available), and lower estimates for studies of 150+ cases (1.08,0.97-1.20, n=13) partly explained the heterogeneity. Estimates were higher for Asian studies (1.34,1.08-1.67, n=10), case-control studies (1.55,1.04-2.32, n=8), and COPD mortality or hospitalisation (1.40,1.12-1.74, n=11). Some increase was seen for severer COPD (1.29,1.10-1.52, n=7). Dose-response evidence was heterogeneous. Evidence for childhood (0.88,0.72-1.07, n=2) and workplace (1.12,0.77-1.64, n=4) exposure was limited, but an increase was seen for overall adulthood exposure (1.20,1.03-1.39, n=17). We discuss study weaknesses that may bias estimation of the association of COPD with ETS. Conclusions: Although the evidence suggests ETS increases COPD, study weaknesses and absence of well-designed large studies precludes reliable inference of causality. More definitive evidence is required.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are widely promoted as harm-reduction products for smokers, and smokers commonly perceive them as less harmful than combustible cigarettes. One of the key questions regarding public health consequences of e-cigarettes is the magnitude of harm reduction achievable by smokers who switch from combustible cigarettes to e-cigarettes. We conducted a systematic literature review of epidemiological studies that estimated odds of respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes among former smokers who use e-cigarettes compared to current smokers.MethodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases in September 2020 to identify epidemiological studies that compared odds of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes among former smokers who transitioned to e-cigarettes relative to odds among current smokers not using e-cigarettes (current exclusive smokers). We included studies that provided direct estimates of relevant odds ratios (ORs). We also included studies where indirect estimates of relevant ORs could be calculated based on published results. Two reviewers independently extracted data and conducted quality appraisals.ResultsSix population-based studies with sample sizes ranging from 19,475 to 161,529 respondents met review inclusion criteria, five of which were cross-sectional and one longitudinal. Three studies reported respiratory outcomes and three reported cardiovascular outcomes. ORs of respiratory outcomes (including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, and wheezing) in former smokers who transitioned to e-cigarettes versus current exclusive smokers were below 1.0, ranging from 0.58 (95%CI 0.36-0.94) to 0.66 (95%CI 0.50-0.87; all p < 0.05). All ORs for cardiovascular outcomes (including stroke, myocardial infarction, and coronary heart disease) did not differ significantly from 1.0.ConclusionThough our review included a small number of studies, it provided consistent results. Former smokers who transitioned to e-cigarettes showed ~ 40% lower odds of respiratory outcomes compared to current exclusive smokers. Switching from smoking to e-cigarette does not appear to significantly lower odds of cardiovascular outcomes. Since the utility of cross-sectional studies for causal inference remains limited, both randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies are needed to better evaluate contributions of e-cigarettes as harm reduction tools for smokers.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundE-cigarettes are currently being debated regarding their possible role in smoking cessation and as they are becoming increasingly popular, the research to date requires investigation.ObjectivesTo investigate whether the use of e-cigarettes is associated with smoking cessation or reduction, and whether there is any difference in efficacy of e-cigarettes with and without nicotine on smoking cessation.Data sourcesA systematic review of articles with no limit on publication date was conducted by searching PubMed, Web of Knowledge and Scopus databases.MethodsPublished studies, those reported smoking abstinence or reduction in cigarette consumption after the use of e-cigarettes, were included. Studies were systematically reviewed, and meta-analyses were conducted using Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect and random-effects models. Degree of heterogeneity among studies and quality of the selected studies were evaluated.ResultsSix studies were included involving 7,551 participants. Meta-analyses included 1,242 participants who had complete data on smoking cessation. Nicotine filled e-cigarettes were more effective for cessation than those without nicotine (pooled Risk Ratio 2.29, 95%CI 1.05-4.97). Amongst 1,242 smokers, 224 (18%) reported smoking cessation after using nicotine-enriched e-cigarettes for a minimum period of six months. Use of such e-cigarettes was positively associated with smoking cessation with a pooled Effect Size of 0.20 (95%CI 0.11-0.28). Use of e-cigarettes was also associated with a reduction in the number of cigarettes used.LimitationsIncluded studies were heterogeneous, due to different study designs and gender variation. Whilst we were able to comment on the efficacy of nicotine vs. non-nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, we were unable to comment on the efficacy of e-cigarettes vs. other interventions for cessation, given the lack of comparator groups in the studies included in this meta-analysis.ConclusionsUse of e-cigarettes is associated with smoking cessation and reduction. More randomised controlled trials are needed to assess effectiveness against other cessation methods.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Smoking is a global public health problem. For this reason, experts have called smoking dependence a global epidemic. Over the past 5 years, sales of electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, have been growing strongly in many countries. Yet there is only partial evidence that e-cigarettes are beneficial for smoking cessation. In particular, although it has been proven that nicotine replacement devices may help individuals stop smoking and tolerate withdrawal symptoms, e-cigarettes' power to increase the quitting success rate is still limited, ranging from 5% to 20% dependent on smokers' baseline conditions as shown by a recent Cochrane review. Consequently, it is urgent to know if e-cigarettes may have a higher success rate than other nicotine replacement methods and under what conditions. Furthermore, the effects of the therapeutic setting and the relationship between individual characteristics and the success rate have not been tested. This protocol is particularly innovative, because it aims to test the effectiveness of electronic devices in a screening program (the COSMOS II lung cancer prevention program at the European Institute of Oncology), where tobacco reduction is needed to lower individuals' lung cancer risks. OBJECTIVE:This protocol was designed with the primary aim of investigating the role of tobacco-free cigarettes in helping smokers improve lung health and either quit smoking or reduce their tobacco consumption. In particular, we aim to investigate the impact of a 3-month e-cigarettes program to reduce smoking-related respiratory symptoms (eg, dry cough, shortness of breath, mouth irritation, and phlegm) through reduced consumption of tobacco cigarettes. Furthermore, we evaluate the behavioral and psychological (eg, well-being, mood, and quality of life) effects of the treatment. METHODS:This is a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-parallel group study. The study is organized as a nested randomized controlled study with 3 branches: a nicotine e-cigarettes group, a nicotine-free e-cigarettes group, and a control group. The study is nested in a screening program for early lung cancer detection in heavy smokers. RESULTS:The study is open and is still recruiting. CONCLUSIONS:Stopping or reducing tobacco consumption should be a main goal of any health organization. However, traditional antismoking programs are expensive and not always effective. Therefore, favoring a partial or complete shift to e-cigarettes in heavy smokers (eg, persons at high risk for a number of diseases) could be considered a moral imperative. However, before following this path, sound and reliable data on large samples and in a variety of contexts are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02422914; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02422914 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6etwz1bPL).

Dataset Information

Systematic review of the epidemiological evidence comparing lung cancer risk in smokers of mentholated and unmentholated cigarettes.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Systematic review of the epidemiological evidence comparing lung cancer risk in smokers of mentholated and unmentholated cigarettes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets