Dear sir,
“No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer”—this was the title of a news article published in the December, 2013 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI).1 It was reported in the article that investigators from Stanford and other institutions examined data from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI-OS) and observed no association between passive smoking and lung cancer in an unpublished analysis. The only level of exposure with some indication of increased risk for lung cancer was living with a smoker for at least 30 years, with a hazard ratio of 1.61 and a confidence interval (CI) including the null. However, the analysis clearly lacked statistical power to detect an association even if one existed. Of the approximately 40,000 women who had never smoked, only about 10% reported no exposure to secondhand smoke and only 152 women developed lung cancer during follow-up. Therefore, as Dr. Heather Wakelee pointed out, “It’s hard to say anything conclusive with such small numbers.”1
Limited sample size is a common problem among studies on the association between passive smoking and lung cancer, because it is difficult to identify nonsmoking lung cancer patients. Therefore, it is useful to increase statistical power by combining data from multiple sources. A recent study by researchers of the International Lung Cancer Consortium using pooled data on more than 2,500 never-smoking cases showed a clear association between passive smoking and lung cancer, with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 1.31 (95% CI: 1.17–1.47).2 Although some may question the validity of case–control studies due to recall bias, meta-analyses of case–control studies on the risk of lung cancer among nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke from their spouses produced results very similar to those of cohort studies, with summary risk ratios of 1.20 (95% CI: 1.11–1.29) and 1.29 (95% CI: 1.125–1.49), respectively.3 Furthermore, in our unpublished analysis of 458 lung cancer cases and 1,065 controls of never-smoking Chinese women pooled from two studies,4,5 the OR for the association between passive smoking at home for at least 30 years and lung cancer was 1.74 (95% CI: 1.32–2.29) after adjusting for age, income, education, and study site. The point estimate from our analysis is comparable to that of the analysis reported in the JNCI article,1 but with greater statistical power.
Dr. Gerard Silvestri was quoted in the article as saying, “With regard to passive smoke, it’s only the heaviest exposure that produces the risk.” However, in our unpublished study, women exposed at home for 1–29 years and those exposed at a low intensity also experienced an increased risk of lung cancer, with adjusted ORs of 1.45 (95% CI: 1.08–1.95) and 1.39 (95% CI: 1.03–1.88), respectively. The adjusted OR obtained when treating years of passive smoking at home as a continuous variable was 1.012 (95% CI: 1.005–1.018) with a p-value of 0.0003. In addition, some gene-environment studies suggest individuals differ in their susceptibility to secondhand-smoke-related lung cancer.6–8 Therefore, even low-level exposures may increase the risk in individuals with genetic susceptibility. Given the vast volume of literature demonstrating the effects of passive smoking, the public health message regarding this topic should be that there is a clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer and there is no safe level of exposure.
Yours sincerely,
Claire H. Kim
Lina Mu
Ming Wu
Jin-Kou Zhao
Zuo-Feng Zhang
References
- 1.Peres J. No clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1844–6. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kim CH, Lee YC, Hung RJ, et al. Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and lung cancer by histological type: a pooled analysis of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO) Int J Cancer. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28835. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: a report of the surgeon general. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; Atlanta, GA: 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mu L, Liu L, Niu R, et al. Indoor air pollution and risk of lung cancer among Chinese female non-smokers. Cancer Causes Control. 2013;24:439–50. doi: 10.1007/s10552-012-0130-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Jin ZY, Wu M, Han RQ, et al. Raw garlic consumption as a protective factor for lung cancer, a population-based case-control study in a Chinese population. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2013;6:711–8. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bennett WP, Alavanja MC, Blomeke B, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke, genetic susceptibility, and risk of lung cancer in never-smoking women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:2009–14. doi: 10.1093/jnci/91.23.2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kiyohara C, Wakai K, Mikami H, et al. Risk modification by CYP1A1 and GSTM1 polymorphisms in the association of environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: a case-control study in Japanese nonsmoking women. Int J Cancer. 2003;107:139–44. doi: 10.1002/ijc.11355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gorlova OY, Weng SF, Zhang Y, et al. DNA repair capacity and lung cancer risk in never smokers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:1322–8. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]