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

Is There Any Association between Use of Smokeless Tobacco Products and Coronary Heart Disease in Bangladesh?

BACKGROUND: Most epidemiological studies exploring the association between smokeless tobacco (SLT) use and coronary heart disease (CHD) have been in Western populations, and have focused on SLT products used in those countries. Few studies come from South Asian countries. Our objective was to determine the association between SLT use and CHD among non-smoking adults in Bangladesh. METHODS: A matched case-control study of non-smoking Bangladeshi adults aged 40–75 years was conducted in 2010. Incident cases of CHD were selected from two cardiac hospitals. Community controls, matched to CHD cases, were selected from neighbourhoods, and hospital controls were selected from outpatient departments of the same hospitals. The Rose Angina Questionnaire (RAQ) was also used to re-classify cases and controls. RESULTS: The study enrolled 302 cases, 1,208 community controls and 302 hospital controls. Current use was higher among community controls (38%) compared to cases (33%) and hospital controls (32%). Current use of SLT was not significantly associated with an increased risk of CHD when community controls were used (adjusted OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63–1.19), or when hospital controls were used (adjusted OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63–1.60), or when both control groups were combined (adjusted OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74–1.34). Risk of CHD did not increase with use of individual types except gul, frequency, duration, past use of SLT products, or using the RAQ to re-classify cases and controls. There was a significant association between gul use and CHD when both controls were combined (adjusted OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.28–6.70). CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant association between SLT use in general and CHD among non-smoking adults in Bangladesh. Further research on the association between gul use and CHD in Bangladesh along with SLT use and CHD in other parts of the subcontinent will guide public health policy and interventions that focus on SLT-related diseases.Muhammad Azia Rahman, Nicola Spurrier, Mohammad Afzal Mahmood, Mahmudur Rahman, Soehl Reza Choudhury and Stephen Leede

Association between tobacco use and body mass index in urban Indian population: implications for public health in India

BACKGROUND: Body mass index [BMI, weight (kg)/height (m(2))], a measure of relative weight, is a good overall indicator of nutritional status and predictor of overall health. As in many developing countries, the high prevalence of very low BMIs in India represents an important public health risk. Tobacco, smoked in the form of cigarettes or bidis (handmade by rolling a dried rectangular piece of temburni leaf with 0.15–0.25 g of tobacco) or chewed, is another important determinant of health. Tobacco use also may exert a strong influence on BMI. METHODS: The relationship between very low BMI (< 18.5 kg/m(2)) and tobacco use was examined using data from a representative cross-sectional survey of 99,598 adults (40,071 men and 59,527 women) carried out in the city of Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) in western India. Participants were men and women aged ≥ 35 years who were residents of the main city of Mumbai. RESULTS: All forms of tobacco use were associated with low BMI. The prevalence of low BMI was highest in bidi-smokers (32% compared to 13% in non-users). For smokers, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were OR = 1.80(1.65 to 1.96) for men and OR = 1.59(1.09 to 2.32) for women, respectively, relative to non-users. For smokeless tobacco and mixed habits (smoking and smokeless tobacco), OR = 1.28(1.19 to 1.38) and OR = 1.83(1.67 to 2.00) for men and OR = 1.50(1.43 to 1.59) and OR = 2.19(1.90 to 3.41) for women, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tobacco use appears to be an independent risk factor for low BMI in this population. We conclude that in such populations tobacco control research and interventions will need to be conducted in concert with nutrition research and interventions in order to improve the overall health status of the population

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

Impact of sentinel node status and other risk factors on the clinical outcome of head and neck melanoma patients

Objective: To determine the impact of sentinel lymph node (SLN) status and other risk factors on recurrence and overall survival in head and neck melanoma patients. Design: The SLN Working Group, based in San Francisco, Calif, with its 11 member centers, the John Wayne Cancer Institute, and The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center pooled data on 629 primary head and neck melanoma patients who had selective sentinel lymphadenectomy. A total of 614 subjects were analyzable. All centers obtained internal review board approval and adhered to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 regulations. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify factors associated with overall and disease-free survival. Setting: Tertiary care medical centers. Main Outcome Measure: Clinical outcome of head and neck melanoma patients undergoing selective sentinel lymphadenectomy. Results: Overall, 10.1% (n=62) of the subjects had at least 1 positive node. Subjects with positive SLN status had significantly thicker tumors (mean thickness, 2.8 vs 2.1 mm; P Conclusion: In this multicenter study, SLN status and other risk factors have an effect on recurrence and/or overall survival