4.5 Article

Effect of cigarette smoking on major histological types of lung cancer: a meta-analysis

Journal

LUNG CANCER
Volume 31, Issue 2-3, Pages 139-148

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5002(00)00181-1

Keywords

smoking; lung cancer; meta-analysis; histology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although cigarette smoking is an established risk factor for lung cancer, the strength of association with different histologic types is not well understood. This meta-analyses of peer-reviewed studies was conducted to assess the effect of cigarette smoking on major histologic types of lung cancer. Studies were identified through MEDLINE and CANCERLIT starches. A total of 48 studies published between 1970 and 1999 were identified. Combined estimates of relative risks (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed and random effect models. Separate analyses were conducted by study design and gender. A linear dose-response was fit to studies reporting data on intensity and duration of smoking. All histologic types of lung cancer were significantly associated with cigarette smoking. The association was stronger with squamous cell carcinoma (SQC) and small cell carcinoma (SCLC) than with large cell cancer (LGC) and adenocarcinoma (ADC). The combined OR for heaviest smoking intensity (30 + cigarettes per day ranged from 4.10 (CI 3.16-5.31) for ADC to 18.3 (CI 9.26-36.4) for SCLC. The combined OR for longest duration of smoking (40 + years) ranged from 3.80 (CI 2.35-6.16) For ADC to 38.6 (CI 11.9-125) fur SCLC. in women. the combined OR for SQC and SCLC were higher than those in men. The dose response curve for intensity of smoking was steeper in women. The findings of this study provide additional evidence fur a causal relationship between smoking and all histologic types: of lung cancer. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available