Content uploaded by John Wiencke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Wiencke on Apr 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Re: Early Age at Smoking
Initiation and Tobacco
Carcinogen DNA Damage in
the Lung
It is clear from the analysis by
Wiencke et al. (1) that an earlier age at
smoking initiation is associated with a
greater frequency of DNA damage. It
should also be clear that children of par-
ents who smoke are more likely to begin
smoking at a younger age than are chil-
dren of nonsmoking parents. This con-
clusion suggests the possibility that a
portion of the susceptibility to DNA ad-
duct formation observed in those with
the youngest age at initiation of smoking
might have been inherited from their
parents’ damaged DNA. Should not the
parents’ smoking history be included as
one of the factors in the multivariate
analysis?
JOHN H. GLASER
REFERENCE
(1) Wiencke JK, Thurston SW, Kelsey KT,
Varkonyi A, Wain JC, Mark EJ, et al. Early
age at smoking initiation and tobacco carcino-
gen DNA damage in the lung. J Natl Cancer
Inst 1999;91:614–9.
NOTE
Correspondence to: John H. Glaser, 4 Wood-
park Circle, Lexington, MA 02421 (e-mail:
GlaserJ@polaroid.com).
RESPONSE
Dr. Glaser raises the complex and
thorny issue of the role of parental
smoking in lung cancer risk among their
offspring and suggests the possibility
that genetic transmission of “tobacco-
damaged DNA” through the germline
may play a part in this risk. It is clear
that children whose parents smoke are
more likely to become regular smokers
themselves. Recent studies show that the
negative impact of parental smoking
may operate long before the teen years,
so that preventing experimentation and
initiation of smoking requires interven-
tion throughout childhood.
Leaving aside the possible infrequent
occurrence of constitutional (germline)
lung cancer genes, the association be-
tween smoking and lung cancer within
families is likely due to acquired smok-
ing behaviors that are shared by family
members rather than to germline
DNA damage. The strong evidence link-
ing maternal smoking with low birth
weight and respiratory problems, includ-
ing SIDs (sudden infant deaths), is
evidence of in utero toxicity from expo-
sure to tobacco smoke constituents that
is not heritable. In addition, transplacen-
tal transmission of potent tobacco
carcinogens has been documented.
For example, the urine of infants born
to smoking mothers has been shown
to contain metabolites of tobacco-
specific nitrosamines (1). Consequently,
among the most sensitive indicators
of the possible influence of parental
smoking in familial cancer is the occur-
rence of cancers in children whose
parents smoke. Despite intensive
study, maternal smoking has not been
established as a risk factor for childhood
cancers (2–4). On the other hand,
chromosomal abnormalities (5) and
DNA damage in sperm have been docu-
mented among smokers, and increased
risks for certain childhood cancers have
been associated with paternal smoking
(6). Further study is needed, however,
and it will remain a very difficult prob-
lem to determine whether associations
are due to germline transmission of
smoking-induced mutations rather than
to in utero or postnatal exposures to to-
bacco smoke. The question of lung can-
cer and parental exposure, because of
the later age of onset, is even more com-
plicated.
In our study of ex-smokers with lung
cancer (7), we reported that the DNA
damage levels in lungs were greater in
patients who reported an early age of
smoking initiation. We did not attempt
to factor in parental smoking, nor do we
think it would be informative, in part for
the reasons cited above, but also for the
practical reason that our patients, whose
mean age was 66 years, would not be
able to consistently provide their par-
ents’ smoking habits before their own
birth. Most of the parents of our case
subjects were deceased or unable to pro-
vide first-hand histories. The studies al-
luded to above on childhood cancers do
not suffer from these limitations. Hence,
although more research is needed on the
mechanisms of tobacco damage in germ
cells, we recognize that the dominant in-
fluence of parental smoking on lung
cancer occurrence is in the uptake of the
smoking habit. In addressing the respon-
sibility of parents, the potential for
blame and guilt must be minimized and
each of us should be reminded of the
strong addictive properties of nicotine.
JOHN K. WIENCKE
REFERENCES
(1) Lackmann GM, Salzberger U, Tollner U,
Chen M, Carmella SG, Hecht SS. Metabolites
of a tobacco-specific carcinogen in urine from
newborns. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:459–65.
(2) Brondum J, Shu XO, Steinbuch M, Severson
RK, Potter JD, Robison LL. Parental cigarette
smoking and the risk of acute leukemia in chil-
dren. Cancer 1999;85:1380–8.
(3) Klebanoff MA, Clemens JD, Read JS. Mater-
nal smoking during pregnancy and childhood
cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:1028–33.
(4) Norman MA, Holly EA, Ahn DK, Preston-
Martin S, Mueller BA, Bracci PM. Prenatal
exposure to tobacco smoke and childhood
brain tumors: results from the United States
West Coast childhood brain tumor study. Can-
cer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1996;5:
127–33.
(5) Rubes J, Lowe X, Moore D 2nd, Perreault S,
Slott V, Evenson D, et al. Smoking cigarettes
is associated with increased sperm disomy in
teenage men. Fertil Steril 1998;70:715–23.
(6) Ji BT, Shu XO, Linet MS, Zheng W, Wa-
cholder S, Gao YT, et al. Paternal cigarette
smoking and the risk of childhood cancer
among offspring of nonsmoking mothers. J
Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:238–44.
(7) Wiencke JK, Thurston SW, Kelsey KT,
Varkonyi A, Wain JC, Mark EJ, et al. Early
age at smoking initiation and tobacco carcino-
gen DNA damage in the lung. J Natl Cancer
Inst 1999;91:614–9.
NOTE
Correspondence to: John K. Wiencke, Ph.D.,
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics,
School of Medicine, University of California San
Francisco, 500 Parnassus Ave., MU-W 420, San
Francisco, CA 94143-0560 (e-mail: wiencke@
itsa.ucsf.edu).
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 91, No. 16, August 18, 1999 CORRESPONDENCE 1423
by guest on April 13, 2012http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from