A retrospective study of etiological factors in cancer of the mouth, pharynx, and larynx

Vogler, William R.; Lloyd, J. William; Milmore, Benno K.

doi:10.1002/1097-0142(196203/04)15:2<246::aid-cncr2820150206>3.0.co;2-5

Cited by 95 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the suggested associations with categories of production workers also confirmed the results of previous reports. Oral and pharyngeal cancer risk has been associated with work in the textile and apparel manufacturing industry (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24), even if other reports (25,26) did not confirm the finding. Machinists and metal working machine operators (18,27), miners (24), workers in the building industry (24), painters (18), plumbers (27), printers (15,28), electronics manufacturing workers (26,29) and electricity production workers (30), and different categories of railway workers (13,15) have previously been suggested to be at increased risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupation and cancer of the oral cavity or oropharynx in Turin, Italy.

Merletti¹,

Boffetta²,

Ferro³

et al. 1991

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TERRACINI B. Occupation and cancer of the oral cavity or oropharynx in Turin, Italy. Scand J Work Environ Health 1991;17:248-54. In a population-based case-referent study, the occupational experience of 86 men with oral or oropharyngeal cancer and 373 referents was analyzed with respect to employment in 41 occupations and 40 industries, as well as to exposure to 16 chemicals, as estimated via a job-exposure matrix. Among the occupations and industries at higher risk were machinery operator (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; 95 % confidence interval [95 0/0 CI] 1.0-4.0), plumber (OR 5.0,95 % CI 1.2-21.5), building industry (OR 2.5; 95 % CI 1.3-4.5), textile industry (OR 2.5; 95 % CI 0.6-4.6), and electricity production (OR 2.8; 95 OTo CI 0.7-12.1) . All the OR estimates were adjusted for age, education, area of birth, tobacco smoking, and alcohol consumption. An association between formaldehyde exposure and oral cancer was suggested (OR for any exposure 1.6, 95 OTo CI 0.9-2.8; OR for probable or definite exposure 1.8,. No other chemical included in the matrix showed any risk pattern. The evidence of an association between formaldehyde exposure and oral or oropharyngeal cancer is strengthened by the results of this study .

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupation and cancer of the oral cavity or oropharynx in Turin, Italy.

Merletti¹,

Boffetta²,

Ferro³

et al. 1991

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nomenclature was not particularly consistent even for oral cancer, seemingly a well-defined entity. For example, although most studies used the same subsites to comprise oral cancer, four included the lips and/or major salivary glands (Vogler et al, 1962;Martinez, 1969;Wynder and Stellman, 1977;Schildt et al, 1998). Furthermore, four studies (Winn et al, 1981;Maden et al, 1992;Muscat et al, 1996;Schwartz et al, 1998) specified oral cancer in their titles, but the entity actually studied was cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx combined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Smokeless Tobacco and Oral Cancer: A Review of the Risks and Determinants

Rodu

Jansson

2004

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

182

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Smokeless tobacco has been associated with oral cancer for many decades. The purpose of this article is to review research relevant to this association, including epidemiologic studies, studies of putative carcinogens such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) and other contaminants, and possible cancer inhibitors. Epidemiologic studies addressing this issue primarily consist of case-control studies. They show that the use of chewing tobacco and moist snuff is associated with very low risks for cancers of the oral cavity and related structures (relative risks [RR] from 0.6 to 1.7). The use of dry snuff is associated with higher RRs, ranging from 4 to 13, while the RRs from smokeless tobacco, unspecified as to type, are intermediate (RR = 1.5 to 2.8). With regard to TSNAs, historical levels in American moist snuff products were higher than those in their Swedish counterparts, but levels in contemporary products are uniformly low. TSNA levels in chewing tobacco have always been low, but levels in dry snuff have been higher, including some very high levels in current products. In general, smokeless tobacco users are not exposed to significant levels of cadmium, lead, benzo(a)pyrene, polonium-210, and formaldehyde, when compared with concentrations of these compounds in foods. Finally, low oral cancer risk from smokeless tobacco use may be influenced by the presence of cancer inhibitors, mainly anti-oxidants, in smokeless tobacco products.

show abstract

“…Kabat et al (1994) reported a crude OR of 34% (95% CI 8.5, 140.1) for using snuff among female never smokers. An early hospital-based case-control study by Vogler et al (1962) also found an increased risk of oral cancer associated with snuff use among both urban women (Crude OR = 60.8) and rural women (crude OR = 22.9). Spitz et al (1988) also reported a significantly increased risk of oral cancer associated with snuff dipping among males (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.0, 10.9).…”

Section: Oral Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…While the IARC has concluded that 'there is sufficient evidence that oral use of snuff of the types commonly used in North America and western Europe is carcinogenic to humans' (International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1985), the relationship between smokeless tobacco use and oral cancer risk is not as consistent as what was observed for tobacco smoking from different populations, ranging from no increased risk from studies in Sweden (Axell et al, 1978;Lewin et al, 1997;Schildt et al, 1998) to an estimated 23-fold (rural women) and 61-fold (urban women) excess in risk associated with snuff use in Atlanta (Vogler et al, 1962).…”

Section: Oral Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2014

Oral Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AcknowledgementsThe International Prevention Research Institute was awarded an unrestricted research grant from Johnson & Johnson, who make one type of mouthwash, to study the effects of mouthwash in general on several aspects of dental health including plaque, gingivitis and tooth decay. Two Synthesis Meetings were held and information presented on a wide range of issues surrounding use of mouthwash. The funders had no role in formulating the study design, methodology or hypotheses investigated, nor in the interpretation of the results or conclusions. The participants gave a raft of important insights. The authors of the work are themselves alone in bearing responsibility for the integrity of the work and not all participants may agree with all statements made in the Report. Confl icts of interestNo author received any honorarium in connection with this project. Causes and prevention of periodontal disease 1.5 List of Participants in Synthesis MeetingsToothbrushing and fl ossing: frontline against dental plaque 1.6 Mouthwash Chapter 2 A systematic review with meta-analysis of mouthwash use for the prevention of supra-gingival plaques and gingivitis: Objective, methods, data retrieval and trial characteristics Chapter 3A systematic review with meta-analysis of mouthwash use for the prevention of dental plaques Chapter 4A systematic review with meta-analysis of mouthwash use for the prevention of gingivitis Chapter 5A systematic review with meta-analysis of mouthwash use for the prevention of dental caries 5.1Fluoride mouthwashes 5.2Combination of topical fl uoride compared to single topical fl uoride for preventing dental caries 5.3Materials and Methods for the combination of topical fl uoride compared to single topical fl uoride for preventing dental caries 5.4Findings for the combination of topical fl uoride compared to single topical fl uoride for preventing dental caries 5.5Fluoridation of salt Chapter 6Oral malignancy 6.1 Background 6.2 Tobacco smoking 6.3Tobacco and alcohol interaction 6.4Oral cancer and mouthwash 6.5Mechanisms of carcinogenesis of alcohol relevant to oral cancer References Appendices Executive SummaryCareful quantitative assessment of data regarding use of mouthwash and risk of common oral conditions reveals that there is a clear evidence of benefi t from use in terms of reducing the risk of dental plaque, gingivitis, dental caries and that there are no major adverse effects including no evidence of an increased risk of oral cancer among users of mouthwash containing alcohol.Despite limitations in the quality of many studies conducted, there is a signifi cant reduction of both dental plaque and gingivitis associated with use of mouthwash preparations containing chlorhexidine or essential oils as an adjunct to standard care. The effect of mouthwash containing essential oils on both plaque and gingivitis is less than chlorhexidine in studies of less than 3 months duration but improves with increasing duration of use and equals or exceeds the effect of chlorhexidine when use is 6 months of ...

show abstract

A retrospective study of etiological factors in cancer of the mouth, pharynx, and larynx

Cited by 95 publications

References 16 publications

Occupation and cancer of the oral cavity or oropharynx in Turin, Italy.

Occupation and cancer of the oral cavity or oropharynx in Turin, Italy.

Smokeless Tobacco and Oral Cancer: A Review of the Risks and Determinants

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About