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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>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.</p

The Toxic Effects of Cigarette Additives. Philip Morris' Project Mix Reconsidered: An Analysis of Documents Released through Litigation

Stanton Glantz and colleagues analyzed previously secret tobacco industry documents and peer-reviewed published results of Philip Morris' Project MIX about research on cigarette additives, and show that this research on the use of cigarette additives cannot be taken at face value

Scientific assessment of the use of sugars as cigarette tobacco ingredients: A review of published and other publicly available studies

Sugars, such as sucrose or invert sugar, have been used as tobacco ingredients in American-blend cigarettes to replenish the sugars lost during curing of the Burley component of the blended tobacco in order to maintain a balanced flavor. Chemical-analytical studies of the mainstream smoke of research cigarettes with various sugar application levels revealed that most of the smoke constituents determined did not show any sugar-related changes in yields (per mg nicotine), while ten constituents were found to either increase (formaldehyde, acrolein, 2-butanone, isoprene, benzene, toluene, benzo[k]fluoranthene) or decrease (4-aminobiphenyl, N-nitrosodimethylamine, N-nitrosonornicotine) in a statistically significant manner with increasing sugar application levels. Such constituent yields were modeled into constituent uptake distributions using simulations of nicotine uptake distributions generated on the basis of published nicotine biomonitoring data, which were multiplied by the constituent/nicotine ratios determined in the current analysis. These simulations revealed extensive overlaps for the constituent uptake distributions with and without sugar application. Moreover, the differences in smoke composition did not lead to relevant changes in the activity in in vitro or in vivo assays. The potential impact of using sugars as tobacco ingredients was further assessed in an indirect manner by comparing published data from markets with predominantly American-blend or Virginia-type (no added sugars) cigarettes. No relevant difference was found between these markets for smoking prevalence, intensity, some markers of dependence, nicotine uptake, or mortality from smoking-related lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In conclusion, thorough examination of the data available suggests that the use of sugars as ingredients in cigarette tobacco does not increase the inherent risk and harm of cigarette smoking