The relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Northern Europe and North America. A commentary on differences between the conclusions reached by two recent reviews

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco is an alternative for smokers who want to quit but require nicotine. Reliable evidence on its effects is needed. Boffetta et al. and ourselves recently reviewed the evidence on cancer, based on Scandinavian and US studies. Boffetta et al. claimed a significant 60–80% increase for oropharyngeal, oesophageal and pancreatic cancer, and a non-significant 20% increase for lung cancer, data for other cancers being "too sparse". We found increases less than 15% for oesophageal, pancreatic and lung cancer, and a significant 36% increase for oropharyngeal cancer, which disappeared in recent studies. We found no association with stomach, bladder and all cancers combined, using data as extensive as that for oesophageal, pancreatic and lung cancer. We explain these differences.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For those cancers Boffetta et al. considered, we compared the methods, studies and risk estimates used in the two reviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One major reason for the difference is our more consistent approach in choosing between study-specific never smoker and combined smoker/non-smoker estimates. Another is our use of derived as well as published estimates. We included more studies, and avoided estimates for data subsets. Boffetta et al. also included some clearly biased or not smoking-adjusted estimates. For pancreatic cancer, their review included significantly increased never smoker estimates in one study and combined smoker/non-smoker estimates in another, omitting a combined estimate in the first study and a never smoker estimate in the second showing no increase. For oesophageal cancer, never smoker results from one study showing a marked increase for squamous cell carcinoma were included, but corresponding results for adenocarcinoma and combined smoker/non-smoker results for both cell types showing no increase were excluded. For oropharyngeal cancer, Boffetta et al. included a markedly elevated estimate that was not smoking-adjusted, and overlooked the lack of association in recent studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When conducting meta-analyses, all relevant data should be used, with clear rules governing the choice between alternative estimates. A systematic meta-analysis using pre-defined procedures and all relevant data gives a lower estimate of cancer risk from smokeless tobacco (probably 1–2% of that from smoking) than does the previous review by Boffetta et al.</p

Meta-analysis of the relation between European and American smokeless tobacco and oral cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco is often referred to as a major contributor to oral cancer. In some regions, especially Southeast Asia, the risk is difficult to quantify due to the variety of products, compositions (including non-tobacco ingredients) and usage practices involved. In Western populations, the evidence of an increased risk in smokeless tobacco users seems unclear, previous reviews having reached somewhat differing conclusions. We report a detailed quantitative review of the evidence in American and European smokeless tobacco users, and compare our findings with previous reviews and meta-analyses.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Following literature review a meta-analysis was conducted of 32 epidemiological studies published between 1920 and 2005 including tests for homogeneity and publication bias.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Based on 38 heterogeneous study-specific estimates of the odds ratio or relative risk for smokeless tobacco use, the random-effects estimate was 1.87 (95% confidence interval 1.40–2.48). The increase was mainly evident in studies conducted before 1980. No increase was seen in studies in Scandinavia. Restricting attention to the seven estimates adjusted for smoking and alcohol eliminated both heterogeneity and excess risk (1.02; 0.82–1.28). Estimates also varied by sex (higher in females) and by study design (higher in case-control studies with hospital controls) but more clearly in studies where estimates were unadjusted, even for age. The pattern of estimates suggests some publication bias. Based on limited data specific to never smokers, the random-effects estimate was 1.94 (0.88–4.28), the eight individual estimates being heterogeneous and based on few exposed cases.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco, as used in America or Europe, carries at most a minor increased risk of oral cancer. However, elevated risks in specific populations or from specific products cannot definitely be excluded.</p

Potential for non-combustible nicotine products to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: a systematic review and synthesis of best available evidence

While some experts have emphasised the potential for e-cigarettes to facilitate cessation among smokers with low socioeconomic status (SES), there is limited evidence of their likely equity impact. We assessed the potential for electronic cigarettes and other non-combustible nicotine-containing products (NCNPs) to reduce inequalities in smoking by systematically reviewing evidence on their use by SES in countries at stage IV of the cigarette epidemic

Enteroviral Meningitis: Natural History and Outcome of Pleconaril Therapy

Enteroviral meningitis causes appreciable morbidity in adults, including hospitalization, decreased activity, and headache. Limited data define the natural history of disease. No antiviral therapeutic agent has demonstrated improved outcome in controlled clinical trials. Pleconaril, an inhibitor of enterovirus replication, was tested in two placebo-controlled clinical trials. Of 607 randomized patients in a multicenter, double-blind placebo-controlled study of pleconaril (200 mg three times daily versus an identical-appearing placebo), 240 patients were confirmed to have enterovirus infection. The time to headache resolution was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier survival methodology. A Cox regression model evaluated multivariate factors associated with disease resolution. Resolution of headache in patients with concomitant moderate to severe nausea at baseline occurred at a median of 9.5 days in the absence of therapy and was reduced to 7.0 days for pleconaril recipients (P = 0.009). For a headache score of >5 alone, treated patients resolved headache significantly more rapidly (P = 0.005). Males resolved headache 50% faster than females. Regardless of randomization group, patients with a baseline headache score of 5 or greater resolved headache 50% more slowly than patients with a baseline headache score of 4. No differences in either clinical or laboratory adverse events were noted. Over 50% of untreated patients had a persistent headache that was greater than 1 week in duration. Pleconaril shortened the course of illness compared to placebo recipients, especially in the early disease course. However, the benefit was achieved only modestly in a subgroup analysis of patients with more severe disease after adjusting for confounding variables

Follow-up schedules after treatment for malignant melanoma

Background: Existing follow-up guidelines after treatment for melanoma are based largely on dated literature and historical precedent. This study aimed to calculate recurrence rates and establish prognostic factors for recurrence to help redesign a follow-up schedule. Methods: Data were retrieved from the Sydney Melanoma Unit database for all patients with a single primary melanoma and American joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I-II disease, who had received their first treatment between 1959 and 2002. Recurrence rates, timing and survival were recorded by substage, and predictive factors were analysed. Results: Recurrence occurred in 18.9 per cent (895 of 4748) of patients overall, 5.2 per cent (95 of 1822) of those with stage IA disease, 18.4 per cent (264 of 1436) with IB, 28.7 per cent (215 of 750) with IIA, 40.6 per cent (213 of 524) with IIB and 44.3 per cent (86 of 194) with IIC disease. Overall, the median disease-free survival time was 2.6 years, but there were marked differences between AJCC subgroups. Primary tumour thickness, ulceration and tumour mitotic rate were important predictors of recurrence. Conclusion: A new follow-up schedule was proposed: stage I annually, stage ITA 6-monthly for 2 years and then annually, stage IIB-IIC 4-monthly for 2 years, 6-monthly in the third year and annually thereafter