Variation in Smoking-Related Lung Cancer Risk Among New Jersey Women

Abstract

A population-based incident lung cancer case-control study was conducted among New Jersey women in 1982-1983. Interviews were completed for 994 cases and 995 controls. The association of lung cancer with cigarette smoking had an overall age-, race-, and respondent type-adjusted odds ratio of 8.5, with risks of 11.1, 62.6, and 3.9 for squamous cell, small cell, and adenocarcinoma, respectively. Analyses for squamous cell carcinoma showed significantly higher odds ratios for self-respondents than for subjects with next of kin respondents; this heterogeneity may be partially explained by misclassification in next of kin reports. Analyses for adenocarcinoma showed a significantly lower smoking-related risk among older women, which may be related to the later age at which these women began smoking. Analyses by histologic subtype showed lower risks for poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma and higher risks for poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. This could be due to misclassification of histologic type and suggests that the actual smoking-related risk for squamous cell carcinoma might be higher than observed, and that for adenocarcinoma might be lower. Comparison of the results in this study with those from a similar study of lung cancer among men showed little difference between men and women in the magnitude of the association with smoking, or in the patterns of risk with intensity and duration.

A 2-year retrospective review of the effect of cigarette smoking status on the histological cell types of lung carcinoma in the Western Cape

“…Our data suggested that patients with ADC in this study population make up a disproportionately higher percentage of non-smokers, and this finding appears to be consistent with other research done in this field. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] There have been suggestions that changes to cigarette design in the last few decades could help explain the rising incidence of ADC. [36] However, this is not enough to explain why non-smokers in our setting developed ADC more frequently than other cell types of lung cancer.…”

“…Non-smokers appear to have a greater proportion of ADC when compared with the other histological types, and this may suggest that other factors (genetic, occupational, environmental) are involved in its aetiology. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] A controversial topic is the relationship between scarring of the lung and the development of lung cancer. [17] Scar carcinoma (SC) of the lung is a clinical entity that was first described by Friedrich [18] and Rossle [19] as a group of lung cancers that originated around peripheral scars in the lung.…”

Integrating Field Analyses with Laboratory Exposures to Assess Ecosystems Health

“…Personal interviews were conducted by trained interviewers, blinded to case/control status, to obtain information from the next of kin on residential, occupational and smoking histories and demographic data. Usual industry, adapted partly from the Standard Industrial Classification system, and usual job title were defined as those in which largest Boffetta (1994) Meta-analysis of Schoenberg et al (1987), Zahm et al (1989), Morabia et al (1992) Roofer and slater [a]pyrene; CI, confidence interval; RDD, random digit dialling number of years were spent. After exclusions, most of whom were non-respondents (response rate, 96% in cases and 94% in controls), the effective numbers of cases and controls were 335 and 332, respectively.…”

“…The odds ratio (adjusted for the matching variables) for coke-oven worker in the steel industry as the longest job held was 1.2 (95% CI, 0.2-6.9; based on two cases and two controls in that job). Schoenberg et al (1987) conducted a case-control study among 763 white male cases of lung cancer who were identified in 1980-81 in New Jersey (USA) municipalities that have high mortality from lung cancer and 900 population controls matched to cases by race, age, area of residence and closest date of death (for deceased persons). Occupational histories were obtained from the subjects or their next of kin.…”

“…[The Working Group noted that the control group included some cancer sites that are possibly related to exposure to PAHs, and thereby the odds ratio is potentially understimated. ]Partanen and Boffetta (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of the results of Schoenberg et al (1987), Zahm et al (1989) and Morabia et al (1992) for roofers and slaters. The overall relative risk was 1.88 (95% CI, 1.23-2.76; based on 26 exposed cases).…”