Claudia I Henschke1, Olli S Miettinen. 1. Department of Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 East 68th Street, New York, NY, USA. chensch@med.cornell.edu
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess lung cancer risk of smoking women relative to that of equally smoking men. METHODS: The study base was constituted by baseline CT screenings for lung cancer on 1202 women and 1288 men, at least 40 years of age and with at least 10 pack-years of cigarette smoking. The prevalence-odds (incidence-density) ratio contrasting women with men was calculated. Confoundings by age and the particulars of smoking history were controlled in logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: For the prevalence-odds ratio contrasting women with men, upon control of age and smoking history, the point estimate was 2.7 and the 95% interval estimate 1.6-4.7. The diagnosed cancers were of equally 'aggressive' types between the two genders. CONCLUSIONS: At variance with evidence from cohort studies, this evidence from a screening experience calls for further consideration of the hypothesis that women are more susceptible to tobacco carcinogens than are men.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess lung cancer risk of smoking women relative to that of equally smoking men. METHODS: The study base was constituted by baseline CT screenings for lung cancer on 1202 women and 1288 men, at least 40 years of age and with at least 10 pack-years of cigarette smoking. The prevalence-odds (incidence-density) ratio contrasting women with men was calculated. Confoundings by age and the particulars of smoking history were controlled in logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: For the prevalence-odds ratio contrasting women with men, upon control of age and smoking history, the point estimate was 2.7 and the 95% interval estimate 1.6-4.7. The diagnosed cancers were of equally 'aggressive' types between the two genders. CONCLUSIONS: At variance with evidence from cohort studies, this evidence from a screening experience calls for further consideration of the hypothesis that women are more susceptible to tobacco carcinogens than are men.
Authors: Vei Mah; Diana Marquez; Mohammad Alavi; Erin L Maresh; Li Zhang; Nam Yoon; Steve Horvath; Lora Bagryanova; Michael C Fishbein; David Chia; Richard Pietras; Lee Goodglick Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Jonathan M Samet; Erika Avila-Tang; Paolo Boffetta; Lindsay M Hannan; Susan Olivo-Marston; Michael J Thun; Charles M Rudin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jay H Lubin; Joshua Muscat; Mia M Gaudet; Andrew F Olshan; Maria Paula Curado; Luigino Dal Maso; Victor Wünsch-Filho; Erich M Sturgis; Neonilia Szeszenia-Dabrowska; Xavier Castellsague; Zuo-Feng Zhang; Elaine Smith; Leticia Fernandez; Elena Matos; Silvia Franceschi; Eleonora Fabianova; Peter Rudnai; Mark P Purdue; Dana Mates; Qingyi Wei; Rolando Herrero; Karl Kelsey; Hal Morgenstern; Oxana Shangina; Sergio Koifman; Jolanta Lissowska; Fabio Levi; Alexander W Daudt; Jose Eluf Neto; Chu Chen; Philip Lazarus; Deborah M Winn; Stephen M Schwartz; Paolo Boffetta; Paul Brennan; Ana Menezes; Carlo La Vecchia; Michael McClean; Renato Talamini; Thangarajan Rajkumar; Richard B Hayes; Mia Hashibe Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2011-07-09 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Suchita Pakkala; Zhengjia Chen; David Rimland; Taofeek K Owonikoko; Clifford Gunthel; Johann R Brandes; Nabil R Saba; Dong M Shin; Walter J Curran; Fadlo R Khuri; Suresh S Ramalingam Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anne M Traynor; Joan H Schiller; Laura P Stabile; Jill M Kolesar; Jens C Eickhoff; Sanja Dacic; Tien Hoang; Sarita Dubey; Sarah M Marcotte; Jill M Siegfried Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2008-08-12 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: R Taylor Ripley; Robert R McMillan; Camelia S Sima; Saad M Hasan; Usman Ahmad; Feiran Lou; David R Jones; Valerie W Rusch; Nabil P Rizk; James Huang Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 4.330