Carcinogenic Effects of Cigarette Smoke on the Respiratory Tract*

Peterson, Lisa A.; Urban, A.; Hecht, Suzanne

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-046884-6.00919-2

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 239 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reaction of carcinogens with DNA can cause mutations and, if unrepaired, can lead to the activation of oncogenes or the inactivation of tumor suppressors. Epigenetic changes may also occur from exposure to tobacco carcinogens, leading to a change in gene expression [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Genotoxic Effect in Buccal Exfoliated Cells between Cigarette and Waterpipe Smokers

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aim: Cytogenetic biomarkers such as micronuclei (MN) are used for the evaluation of exposure to carcinogens and genotoxic effects in oral epithelial cells. Tobacco is one of the strongest carcinogens responsible for the development of cancer in oral mucosa. The aim of this study was to compare the genotoxic effect of waterpipe smoking with that of cigarette smoking. Methods: This case-control study was performed on 30 waterpipe smokers, 30 cigarette smokers, and 30 nonsmokers. Buccal exfoliated cells were prepared using cytobrushes and stained with the Papanicolaou technique. The cytologic slides were examined under a light microscope for counting the number of MN and the number of cells with MN per 1,000 epithelial cells. Results: The mean number ± standard deviation (SD) of MN in waterpipe smokers, cigarette smokers, and nonsmokers was 7.55 ± 5.530, 4.95 ± 5.633, and 2.00 ± 2.406, respectively. The mean number ± SD of cells with MN in waterpipe smokers, cigarette smokers, and nonsmokers was 6.20 ± 4.830, 3.50 ± 3.832, and 1.45 ± 1.701, respectively. Numbers of cells with MN differed significantly between waterpipe smokers and cigarette smokers (p = 0.04) and between waterpipe smokers and nonsmokers (p < 0.001). Numbers of MN differed significantly between waterpipe smokers and nonsmokers (p < 0.001). Numbers of MN did not differ significantly between waterpipe smokers and cigarette smokers (p = 0.10). Numbers of MN and of cells with MN did not differ significantly between cigarette smokers and nonsmokers (p = 0.06 and p = 0.052, respectively). Conclusions: Waterpipe smoking is associated with a significantly higher frequency of MN, and it seems that waterpipe smoking has a greater genotoxic effect than cigarette smoking.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Genotoxic Effect in Buccal Exfoliated Cells between Cigarette and Waterpipe Smokers

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both MSS and SSS contain more than 4000 chemical compounds, with more than 60 known carcinogens including the important respiratory carcinogens PAHs and the tobacco-specific nitrosamine. 17 Previous research has shown that smaller particles can adsorb greater quantities of pollutants, 18 and since the surface areas of UFPs are huge, the above carcinogens could be more easily adsorbed on UFP surfaces. SSS accounts for 80% of the total cigarette smoke, and particles in it are usually smaller in size and contain more pollutants than MSS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrafine particle emissions from a smouldering cigarette in a residence and its associated lung cancer risk

Zhang

et al. 2019

Indoor and Built Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After smoking bans were enforced in most public spaces, residences became the major places for exposure to secondhand smoke. Since cigarette smoke contains mainly submicron and ultrafine particles (UFPs), the harmful effects of the particles in cigarette smoke might be correlated more with number and surface area concentrations of UFPs instead of their mass concentration. To assess these harmful effects, we investigated the size distribution of particles (20 nm to 600 nm) released from sidestream smoke. An experiment was carried out in a two-zone house which was divided into smoking and non-smoking areas. Particle concentrations were measured in both zones and the exposure doses of people in both zones were calculated. The lung cancer risk of UFPs was then analysed by a modified surface area-based risk assessment scheme, which was found to be much closer to the incidence rate of lung cancer. In most of the studied scenarios, the excess lifetime cancer risks to non-smoker occupants exceeded an acceptable level. Although closing a door separating the two zones is a common isolation measure, adequate protection for the non-smokers cannot be achieved unless sufficient ventilation in the smoking zone is provided.

show abstract