Intraoral Cancer and the Use of Chewing Tobacco*

Moore, George E.; Bissinger, Lester L.; Proehl, Elsa C.

doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1953.tb06265.x

Cited by 43 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While reference is made to ST in the title of one or more papers relating to six of the nine cohort studies (NHANES I, CPS-I, CPS-II, Norway Cohorts, Swedish Construction Workers and Uppsala County), the same is true for only 15 of the 80 case-control studies. For many of the other studies [39,42,59,61,66,70,89,91,102,104,108,109,111,113,114], the reports only provide limited information about ST use in the text, simply giving percentages of users in the cases and controls or even saying there was an association or no association, but without giving supportive data. Many papers consider ST independently of smoking, with no attempt to adjust ST effect estimates for smoking, even though for many of the cancers considered smoking is known to be a cause, and often a major cause.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America

Hamling

2009

BMC Med

160

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInterest 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsEighty-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.ConclusionAn 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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moore et al . [39], in a study conducted in 1953, report a crude estimate of 2.41 (1.09–5.35) for cancer of the face, again an endpoint not considered by others. Roosaar et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America

Hamling

2009

BMC Med

160

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We must also consider the possibility that tobacco, in any form, will not produce hamster-pouch tumors at all. Moore and associates 8 have also failed to produce to¬ bacco tumors in this pouch; we cannot find evidence of any other such work. However, we are planning to try other methods.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 69%

Effect of Cigarette Smoke Tar on the Hamster Pouch

Moore¹,

Miller²

1958

Arch Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This study sought to investigate all of those factors that at one time or another had been suspected to be associated with cancer of the oral cavity (Table I). With the exception of data on tobacco and syphilis, however, none of the factors had hitherto been based upon statistical analysis of data (Martin et al, 1940;Moore, Bissinger, and Proehl, 1953;Sadowsky, Gilliam, and Cornfield, 1953;Sanghvi, Rao, and Khanolkar, 1955).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%