| Literature DB >> 16729889 |
Renato B Fagundes1, Christian C Abnet, Paul T Strickland, Farin Kamangar, Mark J Roth, Philip R Taylor, Sanford M Dawsey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The highest rates of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in Brazil occur in Rio Grande do Sul, the most southern state, which has incidence rates of 20.4/100,000/year for men and 6.5/100,000/year for women. Exposure to carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) through tobacco smoke and other sources may increase the risk of ESCC. The aims of the current study were to investigate the degree and sources of PAH exposure of the inhabitants of this region of southern Brazil.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16729889 PMCID: PMC1539013 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-6-139
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Characteristics and univariate comparisons of urine 1-hydroxypyrene glucuronide (1-OHPG) concentration in 199 healthy subjects from Rio Grande de Sul
| Age quartile 1 | <= 35 | 52 (26%) | 1.90 (0.23–3.55) | 0.027 |
| Age quartile 2 | >35 | 49 (25%) | 1.90 (0.76–5.58) | |
| Age quartile 3 | >45 | 52 (26%) | 3.65 (1.36–7.58) | |
| Age quartile 4 | >58 | 46 (23%) | 1.55 (0.22–5.01) | |
| Sex, N (%) | Males | 98 (49%) | 2.19 (1.02–4.95) | 0.52 |
| Females | 101 (51%) | 2.03 (0.06–7.23) | ||
| Residence, N (%) | Rural | 35 (18%) | 1.97 (0.76–7.49) | 0.91 |
| Urban | 160 (82%) | 2.16 (0.48–5.30) | ||
| Ever drink maté, N (%) | No | 45 (23%) | 1.02 (0.05–2.03) | 0.0004 |
| Yes | 154 (77%) | 2.70 (0.89–6.92) | ||
| Maté quartile 1 | <100 mls/day | 53 (27%) | 1.01 (0.05–2.16) | 0.0001 |
| Maté quartile 2 | >100 mls/day | 66 (33%) | 1.97 (0.33–5.58) | |
| Maté quartile 3 | >500 mls/day | 38 (19%) | 3.24 (1.40–8.15) | |
| Maté quartile 4 | >1000 mls/day | 42 (21%) | 4.06 (1.21–8.50) | |
| Current tobacco smoker, N (%) | No | 103 (52%) | 1.14 (0.05–3.17) | <0.0001 |
| Yes | 96 (48%) | 3.76 (1.52–8.57) | ||
| Ever regular tobacco smoker, N (%) | No | 71 (36%) | 1.14 (0.05–2.35) | <0.0001 |
| Yes | 128 (64%) | 3.41 (1.09–7.88) | ||
| Urine cotinine, N (%) | 0 (<1–10 ng/mL) | 49 (25%) | 0.89 (0.05–2.35) | <0.0001 |
| 1 (10–30) | 41 (21%) | 1.52 (0.05–4.00) | ||
| 2,3,4 (30–500) | 39 (20%) | 1.40 (0.29–3.68) | ||
| 5 (500–2000) | 36 (18%) | 4.89 (1.74–8.69) | ||
| 6 (>2000) | 34 (17%) | 7.36 (2.66–7.36) | ||
| Smoke Exposure2 | No | 85 (43%) | 1.14 (0.051–3.17) | <0.0001 |
| Yes | 114 (57%) | 3.30 (1.40–8.15) | ||
| Ever prepare BBQ, N (%) | No | 107 (54%) | 2.03 (0.08–5.58) | 0.31 |
| Yes | 92 (46%) | 2.136 (0.92–6.22) | ||
| Prepared BBQ in the last week, N (%) | No | 148 (74%) | 2.09 (0.31–5.60) | 0.63 |
| Yes | 51 (26%) | 2.09 (0.76–6.60) | ||
| Prepare BBQ at least once a week, N (%) | No | 145 (73%) | 2.22 (0.33–5.84) | 0.88 |
| Yes | 54 (27%) | 1.94 (0.95–5.90) | ||
| Ever eat BBQ well done, N (%) | No | 56 (28%) | 2.09 (0.24–7.52) | 0.82 |
| Yes | 143 (72%) | 2.09 (0.57–5.58) | ||
| Ever drink beer, N (%) | No | 126 (63%) | 2.44 (0.30–6.92) | 0.92 |
| Yes | 73 (37%) | 2.03 (1.02–4.63) | ||
| Ever drink wine, N (%) | No | 168 (84%) | 2.22 (0.05–6.66) | 0.62 |
| Yes | 31 (16%) | 1.97 (1.27–3.30) | ||
| Ever drink cachaca, N (%) | No | 165 (83%) | 1.97 (0.33–5.39) | 0.03 |
| Yes | 34 (17%) | 3.46 (1.52–8.19) | ||
[1] All P-values come from the Wilcoxon rank sum test and the two-sided normal approximation P, except cotinine and mate quartile p-values which came from the Kruskal-Wallis test.
[2] We defined smoke exposed subjects as subjects who are current tobacco smokers or have a cotinine value greater than category 1 (> 30 ng/mL).
Multivariate associations1 between characteristics and urine 1-hydroxypyrene glucuronide (1-OHPG) concentration in the healthy subjects from Rio Grande de Sul
| Intercept | -0.74 | -1.56, 0.079 | 0.076 |
| Male | -0.048 | -0.31, 0.22 | 0.72 |
| Urban residence | 0.028 | -0.28, 0.33 | 0.86 |
| Ever drink cachaHa | 0.20 | -0.13, 0.54 | 0.23 |
| Age quartile 1 | Reference | ||
| Age quartile 2 | 0.097 | -0.23, 0.42 | 0.56 |
| Age quartile 3 | 0.40 | 0.082, 0.72 | 0.014 |
| Age quartile 4 | 0.17 | -0.17, 0.50 | 0.33 |
| Smoke Exposure4 | 0.98 | 0.045, 1.52 | 0.0004 |
| Maté | 0.53 | 0.16, 0.90 | 0.0053 |
| Interaction (Smoke * Maté) | -0.51 | -1.05, 0.10 | 0.11 |
| Prepare barbeque weekly | 0.21 | -0.20, 0.62 | 0.32 |
| Interaction (Smoke * BBQ) | -0.48 | -1.026, 0.015 | 0.057 |
[1] All estimates come from a single multivariate linear regression model. The total model r2 was 0.21
[2] The model was fit using log10 transformed urine 1-OHPG concentrations.
[3] All P-values come from F-tests.
[4] Subjects reporting current smoking or a cotinine value greater then 1 were considered smoke exposed.
Figure 1Urine 1-hydroxypyrene glucuronide concentration plotted by maté consumption and tobacco smoke exposure. We divided subjects into four groups by whether they ever consumed maté and whether they were smoke exposed (currently smoked tobacco or had a urine cotinine greater than category 1). Urine 1-OHPG concentration is plotted on the log scale. From left to right, the median for each group is indicated by the horizontal bar and the values are 0.3, 2.0, 2.4, and 3.4, respectively. From left to right, the number of subjects in each group is 28, 57, 17, and 97, respectively.
Figure 2Urine 1-hydroxypyrene glucuronide concentration plotted by frequency of barbeque preparation and tobacco smoke exposure. We divided subjects into four groups by whether they prepared barbeque at least once a week and whether they were smoke exposed (currently smoked tobacco or had a urine cotinine greater than category 1). Urine 1-OHPG concentration is plotted on the log scale. From left to right, the median for each group is indicated by the horizontal bar and the values are 0.8, 1.7, 3.1, and 3.7, respectively. From left to right, the number of subjects in each group is 60, 25, 85, and 29, respectively.