Lee Peter N, Hamling Jan
PN Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd, Surrey, UK.
BMC Med. 2009 Jul 29;7:36. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-7-36.
Interest is rising in smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to smoking, but published reviews on smokeless tobacco and cancer are limited. We review North American and European studies and compare effects of smokeless tobacco and smoking.
We obtained papers from MEDLINE searches, published reviews and secondary references describing epidemiological cohort and case-control studies relating any form of cancer to smokeless tobacco use. For each study, details were abstracted on design, smokeless tobacco exposure, cancers studied, analysis methods and adjustment for smoking and other factors. For each cancer, relative risks or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were tabulated. Overall, and also for USA and Scandinavia separately, meta-analyses were conducted using all available estimates, smoking-adjusted estimates, or estimates for never smokers. For seven cancers, smoking-attributable deaths in US men in 2005 were compared with deaths attributable to introducing smokeless tobacco into a population of never-smoking men.
Eighty-nine studies were identified; 62 US and 18 Scandinavian. Forty-six (52%) controlled for smoking. Random-effects meta-analysis estimates for most sites showed little association. Smoking-adjusted estimates were only significant for oropharyngeal cancer (1.36, CI 1.04-1.77, n = 19) and prostate cancer (1.29, 1.07-1.55, n = 4). The oropharyngeal association disappeared for estimates published since 1990 (1.00, 0.83-1.20, n = 14), for Scandinavia (0.97, 0.68-1.37, n = 7), and for alcohol-adjusted estimates (1.07, 0.84-1.37, n = 10). Any effect of current US products or Scandinavian snuff seems very limited. The prostate cancer data are inadequate for a clear conclusion.Some meta-analyses suggest a possible effect for oesophagus, pancreas, larynx and kidney cancer, but other cancers show no effect of smokeless tobacco. Any possible effects are not evident in Scandinavia. Of 142,205 smoking-related male US cancer deaths in 2005, 104,737 are smoking-attributable. Smokeless tobacco-attributable deaths would be 1,102 (1.1%) if as many used smokeless tobacco as had smoked, and 2,081 (2.0%) if everyone used smokeless tobacco.
An increased risk of oropharyngeal cancer is evident most clearly for past smokeless tobacco use in the USA, but not for Scandinavian snuff. Effects of smokeless tobacco use on other cancers are not clearly demonstrated. Risk from modern products is much less than for smoking.
无烟烟草作为一种比吸烟更安全的替代品,其受关注程度正在上升,但关于无烟烟草与癌症的已发表综述有限。我们回顾了北美和欧洲的研究,并比较了无烟烟草和吸烟的影响。
我们从医学文献数据库检索、已发表综述及二级参考文献中获取论文,这些文献描述了将任何形式的癌症与无烟烟草使用相关联的流行病学队列研究和病例对照研究。对于每项研究,提取了关于设计、无烟烟草暴露、所研究的癌症、分析方法以及对吸烟和其他因素的调整等详细信息。对于每种癌症,列出了相对风险或比值比及其95%置信区间。总体而言,以及分别针对美国和斯堪的纳维亚地区,使用所有可用估计值、经吸烟调整的估计值或从不吸烟者的估计值进行了荟萃分析。对于七种癌症,比较了2005年美国男性中归因于吸烟的死亡人数与将无烟烟草引入从不吸烟男性人群中归因于无烟烟草的死亡人数。
共识别出89项研究;其中62项来自美国,18项来自斯堪的纳维亚地区。46项(52%)研究对吸烟进行了控制。大多数部位的随机效应荟萃分析估计显示关联不大。经吸烟调整的估计值仅在口咽癌(1.36,置信区间1.04 - 1.77,n = 19)和前列腺癌(1.29,1.07 - 1.55,n = 4)方面具有显著性。自1990年以来发表的估计值(1.00,0.83 - 1.20,n = 14)、斯堪的纳维亚地区的估计值(0.97,0.68 - 1.37,n = 7)以及经酒精调整的估计值(1.07,0.84 - 1.37,n = 10)中,口咽癌的关联消失。美国当前产品或斯堪的纳维亚鼻烟的任何影响似乎都非常有限。前列腺癌的数据不足以得出明确结论。一些荟萃分析表明,无烟烟草可能对食管癌、胰腺癌、喉癌和肾癌有影响,但其他癌症未显示无烟烟草的影响。在斯堪的纳维亚地区,任何可能的影响都不明显。在2005年美国142,205例与吸烟相关的男性癌症死亡病例中,104,737例归因于吸烟。如果使用无烟烟草的人数与吸烟人数相同,归因于无烟烟草的死亡人数将为1,102例(1.1%);如果每个人都使用无烟烟草,归因于无烟烟草的死亡人数将为2,081例(2.0%)。
在美国,过去使用无烟烟草最明显的是口咽癌风险增加,但斯堪的纳维亚鼻烟并非如此。无烟烟草使用对其他癌症的影响未得到明确证实。现代产品的风险远低于吸烟。