BackgroundSmoking is a known lung cancer cause, but no detailed quantitative systematic review exists. We summarize evidence for various indices.MethodsPapers published before 2000 describing epidemiological studies involving 100+ lung cancer cases were obtained from Medline and other sources. Studies were classified as principal, or subsidiary where cases overlapped with principal studies. Data were extracted on design, exposures, histological types and confounder adjustment. RRs/ORs and 95% CIs were extracted for ever, current and ex smoking of cigarettes, pipes and cigars and indices of cigarette type and dose–response. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions investigated how relationships varied by study and RR characteristics, mainly for outcomes exactly or closely equivalent to all lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma (“squamous”) and adenocarcinoma (“adeno”).Results287 studies (20 subsidiary) were identified. Although RR estimates were markedly heterogeneous, the meta-analyses demonstrated a relationship of smoking with lung cancer risk, clearly seen for ever smoking (random-effects RR 5.50, CI 5.07-5.96) current smoking (8.43, 7.63-9.31), ex smoking (4.30, 3.93-4.71) and pipe/cigar only smoking (2.92, 2.38-3.57). It was stronger for squamous (current smoking RR 16.91, 13.14-21.76) than adeno (4.21, 3.32-5.34), and evident in both sexes (RRs somewhat higher in males), all continents (RRs highest for North America and lowest for Asia, particularly China), and both study types (RRs higher for prospective studies). Relationships were somewhat stronger in later starting and larger studies. RR estimates were similar in cigarette only and mixed smokers, and similar in smokers of pipes/cigars only, pipes only and cigars only. Exceptionally no increase in adeno risk was seen for pipe/cigar only smokers (0.93, 0.62-1.40). RRs were unrelated to mentholation, and higher for non-filter and handrolled cigarettes. RRs increased with amount smoked, duration, earlier starting age, tar level and fraction smoked and decreased with time quit. Relationships were strongest for small and squamous cell, intermediate for large cell and weakest for adenocarcinoma. Covariate-adjustment little affected RR estimates.ConclusionsThe association of lung cancer with smoking is strong, evident for all lung cancer types, dose-related and insensitive to covariate-adjustment. This emphasises the causal nature of the relationship. Our results quantify the relationships more precisely than previously.

The excess lung cancer risk from smoking declines with time quit, but the shape of the decline has never been precisely modelled, or meta-analyzed. From a database of studies of at least 100 cases, we extracted 106 blocks of RRs (from 85 studies) comparing current smokers, former smokers (by time quit) and never smokers. Corresponding pseudo-numbers of cases and controls (or at-risk) formed the data for fitting the negative exponential model. We estimated the half-life (H, time in years when the excess risk becomes half that for a continuing smoker) for each block, investigated model fit, and studied heterogeneity in H. We also conducted sensitivity analyses allowing for reverse causation, either ignoring short-term quitters (S1) or considering them smokers (S2). Model fit was poor ignoring reverse causation, but much improved for both sensitivity analyses. Estimates of H were similar for all three analyses. For the best-fitting analysis (S1), H was 9.93 (95% CI 9.31-10.60), but varied by sex (females 7.92, males 10.71), and age (<50years 6.98, 70+years 12.99). Given that reverse causation is taken account of, the model adequately describes the decline in excess risk. However, estimates of H may be biased by factors including misclassification of smoking status.

A higher concentration of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in ex-smokers than smokers has consistently been observed. Better evidence of quitting effects comes from within-subject changes. We extend an earlier meta-analysis to quantify the reduction, and investigate variation by time quit and other factors. We conducted Medline and Cochrane searches for studies measuring HDL-C in subjects while still smoking and later having quit. Using unweighted and inverse-variance weighted regression analysis, we related changes (in mmol/l) to intra-measurement period, and estimated time quit, and to study type, location and start year, age, sex, product smoked, validation of quitting, baseline HDL-C, baseline and change in weight/BMI, and any study constraints on diet or exercise. Forty-five studies were identified (17 Europe, 16 North America, 11 Asia, 1 Australia). Thirteen were observational, giving changes over at least 12 months, with most involving >1000 subjects. Others were smoking cessation trials, 12 randomized and 20 non-randomized. These were often small (18 of <100 subjects) and short (14 of <10 weeks, the longest a year). Thirty studies provided results for only one time interval. From 94 estimates of HDL-C change, the unweighted mean was 0.107 (95% CI 0.085-0.128). The weighted mean 0.060 (0.044 to 0.075) was lower, due to smaller estimates in longer term studies. Weighted means varied by time quit (0.083, 0.112, 0.111, 0.072, 0.058 and 0.040 for <3, 3 to <6, 6 to <13, 13 to <27, 27 to <52 and 52+ weeks, p=0.006). After adjustment for time quit, estimates varied by study constraint on diet/exercise (p=0.003), being higher in studies requiring subjects to maintain their pre-quitting habits, but no other clear differences were seen, with significant (p<0.05) increases following quitting being evident in all subgroups studied, except where data were very limited. For both continuing and never smokers, the data are (except for two large studies atypically showing significant HDL-C declines in both groups, and a smaller decline in quitters) consistent with no change, and contrast markedly with the data for quitters. We conclude that quitting smoking increases HDL-C, and that this increase occurs rapidly after quitting, with no clear pattern of change thereafter.

Background: Compared to cigarette smoking, e-cigarette use is likely to present a reduced risk of smoking-related disease (SRD). However, several studies have shown that vaping predicts smoking initiation and might provide a gateway into smoking for those who otherwise would never have smoked. This paper considers various aspects of the gateway issue in youths. Methods: Here, we reviewed studies (N=15) of the gateway effect examining how extensively they accounted for confounders associated with smoking initiation in youths. We estimated how omitting a confounder, or misclassifying it, might bias the association between vaping and smoking initiation. We assessed how smoking prevalence might be affected by any true gateway effect, and examined trends in youth smoking and e-cigarette use from national surveys. Results: The list of smoking predictors adjusted for in studies reporting a significant gateway effect is not comprehensive, rarely considering internalising/externalising disorders, outcome expectancies, school performance, anxiety, parental smoking and peer attitudes. Furthermore, no study adjusted for residual confounding from inaccurately measured predictors. Better adjustment may substantially reduce the estimated gateway effect. Calculations showed that as any true gateway effects increase, there are much smaller increases in smoking prevalence, and that gateway effects increase only if initiating vaping is more frequent than initiating smoking. These effects on prevalence also depend on the relative odds of quitting vs. initiation. Data from five surveys in US/UK youths all show that, regardless of sex and age, smoking prevalence in 2014–2016 declined faster than predicted by the preceding trend, suggesting the absence of a substantial gateway effect. We also present arguments suggesting that even with some true gateway effect, introducing e-cigarettes likely reduces SRD risk. Conclusions: A true gateway effect in youths has not yet been demonstrated. Even if it were, e-cigarette introduction may well have had a beneficial population health impact.

The increasing proportion of lung cancers classified as adenocarcinoma has been a topic of interest and research. The main objective of the analyses reported here is to summarize how the proportion of adenocarcinoma varies in never smokers by time, sex and region based on published evidence on the distribution of lung cancer types available from epidemiological studies. Based on 219 sex- and period-specific blocks of data drawn from 157 publications, there appears to be a clear time-related increase in the proportion of lung cancers in never smokers that are adenocarcinoma, which is evident in both sexes, and not specific to any region. It is seen whether the denominator of the proportion is made up of adenocarcinoma plus squamous cell carcinoma cases, cases of the four major types combined, or all lung cancer cases. The ratio of adenocarcinoma to squamous cell carcinoma rose continuously from 1950 to 69 to be almost 4 times higher for the data from 2000 onwards. We discuss factors that may have contributed to the observed findings, including changes in lung cancer classification. Our findings argue against the hypothesis that increases in the ratio arise from changes in cigarette design and composition.

To present up-to-date meta-analyses of evidence from Japan Background: relating smoking to major smoking-related diseases.We restricted attention to lung cancer, chronic obstructive Methods: pulmonary disease (COPD), ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke, considering relative risks (RRs) for current and ex-smokers relative to never smokers. Evidence by amount smoked and time quit was also considered. For IHD and stroke only, studies had to provide age-adjusted RRs, with age-specific results considered. For each disease we extended earlier published databases to include more recent studies. Meta-analyses were conducted, with random-effects RRs and tests of heterogeneity presented.Of 40 studies, 26 reported results for lung cancer and 7 to 9 for each Results: other disease. For current smoking, RRs (95%CIs) were lung cancer 3.59 (3.25-3.96), COPD 3.57 (2.72-4.70), IHD 2.21 (1.96-2.50) and stroke 1.40 (1.25-1.57). Ex-smoking RRs were lower. Data for lung cancer and IHD showed a clear tendency for RRs to rise with increasing amount smoked and decrease with increasing time quit. Dose-response data were unavailable for COPD and unclear for stroke, where the association was weaker.Compared to studies in other Asian and Western countries, Conclusions: current smoking RRs were quite similar for IHD and stroke. The comparison is not clear for COPD, where the Japanese data, mainly from cross-sectional studies, is limited. For lung cancer, the RRs are similar to those in other Asian countries, but substantially lower than in Western countries. Explanations for this are unclear, but less accurate reporting of smoking by Japanese may contribute to the difference.

Some evidence suggests environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) Background: might cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We reviewed available epidemiological data in never smokers.We identified epidemiological studies providing estimates of relative Methods: risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for various ETS exposure indices. Confounder-adjusted RRs for COPD were extracted, or derived using standard methods. Meta-analyses were conducted for each exposure index, with tests for heterogeneity and publication bias. For the main index (spouse ever smoked or nearest equivalent), analyses investigated variation in RR by location, publication period, study type, sex, diagnosis, study size, confounder adjustment, never smoker definition, and exposure index definition.: Twenty-eight relevant studies were identified; nine European or Results Middle Eastern, nine Asian, eight American and two from multiple countries. Five were prospective, seven case-control and 16 cross-sectional. The COPD definition involved death or hospitalisation in seven studies, GOLD stage 1+ criteria in twelve, and other definitions in nine. For the main index, random-effects meta-analysis of 33 heterogeneous (p<0.001) estimates gave a RR of 1.20 (95%CI 1.08-1.34). Higher estimates for females (1.59,1.16-2.19, n=11) than males (1.29,0.94-1.76, n=7) or sexes combined (1.10,0.99-1.22, n=15 where sex-specific not available), and lower estimates for studies of 150+ cases (1.08,0.97-1.20, n=13) partly explained the heterogeneity. Estimates were higher for Asian studies (1.34,1.08-1.67, n=10), case-control studies (1.55,1.04-2.32, n=8), and COPD mortality or hospitalisation (1.40,1.12-1.74, n=11). Some increase was seen for severer COPD (1.29,1.10-1.52, n=7). Dose-response evidence was heterogeneous. Evidence for childhood (0.88,0.72-1.07, n=2) and workplace (1.12,0.77-1.64, n=4) exposure was limited, but an increase was seen for overall adulthood exposure (1.20,1.03-1.39, n=17). We discuss study weaknesses that may bias estimation of the association of COPD with ETS.: Although the evidence suggests ETS increases COPD, study Conclusions

No abstract