4.3 Article

No association between moist oral snuff (snus) use and oral cancer: pooled analysis of nine prospective observational studies

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 49, Issue 8, Pages 833-840

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1403494820919572

Keywords

Oral cancer; incidence; smokeless tobacco; snus

Funding

  1. Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Through analyzing individual data from the Swedish Collaboration on Health Effects of Snus Use, it was found that Swedish snus use does not appear to be implicated in the development of oral cancer in men, even lower intensity use was associated with reduced risk.
Aims: Worldwide, smokeless-tobacco use is a major risk factor for oral cancer. Evidence regarding the particular association between Swedish snus use and oral cancer is, however, less clear. We used pooled individual data from the Swedish Collaboration on Health Effects of Snus Use to assess the association between snus use and oral cancer. Methods: A total of 418,369 male participants from nine cohort studies were followed up for oral cancer incidence through linkage to health registers. We used shared frailty models with random effects at the study level, to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for confounding factors. Results: During 9,201,647 person-years of observation, 628 men developed oral cancer. Compared to never-snus use, ever-snus use was not associated with oral cancer (adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.09). There were no clear trends in risk with duration or intensity of snus use, although lower intensity use (<= 4 cans/week) was associated with a reduced risk (HR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45, 0.94). Snus use was not associated with oral cancer among never smokers (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.32). Conclusions: Swedish snus use does not appear to be implicated in the development of oral cancer in men.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available