OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of cigarette filter on the incidence risk of oral squamous cell cancer among male smokers in a Chinese population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A multicentric hospital-based case-control study was applied. Three hundred and nineteen male cases and 428 male controls matching for age ( ± 3 years) were identified from January 2008 to December 2010. Detailed smoking histories were obtained by interviews. Logistic regression model was used to compare the influence of filter and non-filter cigarettes on oral cancer risk. RESULTS: The adjusted odd ratios (ORs) for oral cancer were 1.30 (95% CI 1.15, 1.48) of filter cigarette smokers, 2.06 (95% CI 1.17, 3.62) of non-filter cigarette smokers, and 1.73 (95% CI 1.33, 2.25) of mixed smokers, as compared with non-smokers. When classified current smokers according to smoking pack year, the ORs of mixed smokers were 2.27 (95% CI 1.06, 4.85) in <20 pack year, 0.81 (95% CI 0.57, 1.14) in 20-39 pack year, and 0.86 (95% CI 0.57, 1.29) in ≥ 40 pack year, as compared to filter cigarette smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The protective effect against oral cancer of cigarette filter was limited, restricted to smokers of small amount of smoking accumulation. For most smokers, the difference was non-significant between filter and non-filter cigarettes on the risk of developing oral cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of cigarette filter on the incidence risk of oral squamous cell cancer among male smokers in a Chinese population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A multicentric hospital-based case-control study was applied. Three hundred and nineteen male cases and 428 male controls matching for age ( ± 3 years) were identified from January 2008 to December 2010. Detailed smoking histories were obtained by interviews. Logistic regression model was used to compare the influence of filter and non-filter cigarettes on oral cancer risk. RESULTS: The adjusted odd ratios (ORs) for oral cancer were 1.30 (95% CI 1.15, 1.48) of filter cigarette smokers, 2.06 (95% CI 1.17, 3.62) of non-filter cigarette smokers, and 1.73 (95% CI 1.33, 2.25) of mixed smokers, as compared with non-smokers. When classified current smokers according to smoking pack year, the ORs of mixed smokers were 2.27 (95% CI 1.06, 4.85) in <20 pack year, 0.81 (95% CI 0.57, 1.14) in 20-39 pack year, and 0.86 (95% CI 0.57, 1.29) in ≥ 40 pack year, as compared to filter cigarette smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The protective effect against oral cancer of cigarette filter was limited, restricted to smokers of small amount of smoking accumulation. For most smokers, the difference was non-significant between filter and non-filter cigarettes on the risk of developing oral cancer.