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

PN Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd, Surrey, UK.
BMC Cancer (Impact Factor: 3.32). 08/2009; 9:256. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-9-256
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
For those cancers Boffetta et al. considered, we compared the methods, studies and risk estimates used in the two reviews.
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.
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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examined whether use of snus influenced cognitions in terms of smoking expectancies and smoking prototype perceptions in a direction that could promote smoking initiation, thus highlighting potential causal mechanisms between the use of snus and smoking behavior. A telephone-based longitudinal survey among Norwegian adolescents was conducted with two points of measurement during a 1-year period in 2006-2007. The respondents were divided into four groups: Group 1: snus initiators during the period (N = 54), Group 2: regular snus users (N = 160), Group 3: non-users of snus and cigarettes (N = 376), and Group 4: regular smokers (N = 306). Wilcoxon tests were applied to determine any changes in smoking cognitions from 2006 to 2007. The group of snus initiators (Group 1) reported a significantly higher level of expectancies of smoking to promote negative affect reduction at follow-up, while all other cognitions remained stable. The group of smokers (Group 4) reported on average positive smoking cognitions, and significant changes were observed during the period. However, among regular snus users (Group 2) and non-users (Group 3), there were no significant changes in any of the smoking cognitions. The uptake of snus might influence expectancies of cigarettes to reduce negative affect in a direction facilitating smoking initiation, but the use of snus does not appear to influence the majority of cognitions known to promote smoking initiation among adolescents.
    Addiction Research and Theory 12/2012; 20(6):447-455. DOI:10.3109/16066359.2012.665521 · 1.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Selected toxicant concentrations and other chemical measures have been determined for 43 U.S. smokeless tobacco products sold in 2006 and 2007. Products evaluated included moist snuff, dry snuff, loose leaf, plug, dissolvable and snus tobacco brands. Reference products available for scientific research purposes and eleven Swedish products were also evaluated and compared to the commercial products studied. Chemical endpoints determined included benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P), N′-nitrosonornicotine (NNN), N′-nitrosoanatabine (NAT), N′-nitrosoanabasine (NAB), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), nitrite, cadmium, lead, arsenic, nickel, chromium, chloride, water, pH and nicotine. Different toxicant profiles were observed for the products studied, with snus tobacco brands generally containing relatively low concentrations of B[a]P and tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) compared to other moist snuffs. Smokeless tobacco reference product toxicant profiles were similar to corresponding commercial products, with the exception of the TSNA content of the dry snuff reference material. TSNA concentrations observed for all commercial products were lower than historically reported values, likely reflecting changes in product shelf life, tobacco curing practices and, possibly, product blend formulations during the last 20–30 years. The survey results summarized provide a temporal point of comparison with future data anticipated from FDA “harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products” reporting.
    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 12/2012; 64(3):367–387. DOI:10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.09.003 · 2.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Oropharyngeal carcinomas, contrary to other head and neck carcinomas are of increasing frequency, mostly due to a frequent association with human papillomavirus infection. Pluridisciplinary management is necessary. New techniques as transoral surgery or intensity-modulated radiation therapy have the potential to reduce toxicities and morbidity while offering equivalent local control rates. Early stages may be treated with single modality treatment (surgery or radiotherapy) with five-year overall survival rate exceeding 80%. Advanced stages need therapeutic associations and five-years survival rates are inferior to 40%.
    Bulletin du cancer 05/2014; 101(5):429-437. DOI:10.1684/bdc.2014.1957 · 0.64 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014