A Reid1, N H de Klerk, G L Ambrosini, G Berry, A W Musk. 1. Occupational & Environmental Epidemiology Group, School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. alisonr@dph.uwa.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine if the risk of lung cancer declines with increasing time since ceasing exposure to asbestos and quitting smoking, and to determine the relative asbestos effect between non-smokers and current smokers. METHODS: A cohort study of 2935 former workers of the crocidolite mine and mill at Wittenoom, who responded to a questionnaire on smoking first issued in 1979 and on whom quantitative estimates of asbestos exposure are known. Conditional logistic regression was used to relate asbestos exposure, smoking category, and risk of lung cancer. RESULTS: Eighteen per cent of the cohort reported never smoking; 66% of cases and 50% of non-cases were current smokers. Past smokers who ceased smoking within six years of the survey (OR = 22.1, 95% CI 5.6 to 87.0), those who ceased smoking 20 or more years before the survey (OR = 1.9, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.2), and current smokers (<20 cigarettes per day (OR = 6.8, 95% CI 2.0 to 22.7) or >20 cigarettes per day (OR = 13.2, 95% CI 4.1 to 42.5)) had higher risks of lung cancer compared to never smokers after adjusting for asbestos exposure and age. The asbestos effect between non-smokers and current smokers was 1.23 (95% CI 0.35 to 4.32). CONCLUSION: Persons exposed to asbestos and tobacco but who subsequently quit, remain at an increased risk for lung cancer up to 20 years after smoking cessation, compared to never smokers. Although the relative risk of lung cancer appears higher in never and ex-smokers than in current smokers, those who both smoke and have been exposed to asbestos have the highest risk; this study emphasises the importance of smoking prevention and smoking cessation programmes within this high risk cohort.
OBJECTIVES: To examine if the risk of lung cancer declines with increasing time since ceasing exposure to asbestos and quitting smoking, and to determine the relative asbestos effect between non-smokers and current smokers. METHODS: A cohort study of 2935 former workers of the crocidolite mine and mill at Wittenoom, who responded to a questionnaire on smoking first issued in 1979 and on whom quantitative estimates of asbestos exposure are known. Conditional logistic regression was used to relate asbestos exposure, smoking category, and risk of lung cancer. RESULTS: Eighteen per cent of the cohort reported never smoking; 66% of cases and 50% of non-cases were current smokers. Past smokers who ceased smoking within six years of the survey (OR = 22.1, 95% CI 5.6 to 87.0), those who ceased smoking 20 or more years before the survey (OR = 1.9, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.2), and current smokers (<20 cigarettes per day (OR = 6.8, 95% CI 2.0 to 22.7) or >20 cigarettes per day (OR = 13.2, 95% CI 4.1 to 42.5)) had higher risks of lung cancer compared to never smokers after adjusting for asbestos exposure and age. The asbestos effect between non-smokers and current smokers was 1.23 (95% CI 0.35 to 4.32). CONCLUSION:Persons exposed to asbestos and tobacco but who subsequently quit, remain at an increased risk for lung cancer up to 20 years after smoking cessation, compared to never smokers. Although the relative risk of lung cancer appears higher in never and ex-smokers than in current smokers, those who both smoke and have been exposed to asbestos have the highest risk; this study emphasises the importance of smoking prevention and smoking cessation programmes within this high risk cohort.
Authors: L Simonato; A Agudo; W Ahrens; E Benhamou; S Benhamou; P Boffetta; P Brennan; S C Darby; F Forastiere; C Fortes; V Gaborieau; M Gerken; C A Gonzales; K H Jöckel; M Kreuzer; F Merletti; F Nyberg; G Pershagen; H Pohlabeln; F Rösch; E Whitley; H E Wichmann; P Zambon Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: G Berry; N H de Klerk; A Reid; G L Ambrosini; L Fritschi; N J Olsen; E Merler; A W Musk Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Douglas E Wood; Ella A Kazerooni; Scott L Baum; George A Eapen; David S Ettinger; Lifang Hou; David M Jackman; Donald Klippenstein; Rohit Kumar; Rudy P Lackner; Lorriana E Leard; Inga T Lennes; Ann N C Leung; Samir S Makani; Pierre P Massion; Peter Mazzone; Robert E Merritt; Bryan F Meyers; David E Midthun; Sudhakar Pipavath; Christie Pratt; Chakravarthy Reddy; Mary E Reid; Arnold J Rotter; Peter B Sachs; Matthew B Schabath; Mark L Schiebler; Betty C Tong; William D Travis; Benjamin Wei; Stephen C Yang; Kristina M Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Walter C Willett; JoAnn E Manson; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Markus G Manz; Robert Theiler; Kilian Braendle; Bruno Vellas; René Rizzoli; Reto W Kressig; Hannes B Staehelin; José A P Da Silva; Gabriele Armbrecht; Andreas Egli; John A Kanis; Endel J Orav; Stephanie Gaengler Journal: Front Aging Date: 2022-04-25
Authors: Michael Lake; Christine S Shusted; Hee-Soon Juon; Russell K McIntire; Charnita Zeigler-Johnson; Nathaniel R Evans; Gregory C Kane; Julie A Barta Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 4.430