Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021 Oct;30(10):1978. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0794

Smoking and Estrogen-Related Cancer – Reply

John A Baron 1,2,3, Hazel B Nichols 2, Stephen Safe 4
PMCID: PMC8500477  NIHMSID: NIHMS1731482  PMID: 34607881

We thank Dr. Olsen and colleagues for their comments on our recent paper (1). We also have been intrigued by the association of smoking with melanoma and basal cell keratinocyte carcinoma, but wonder if he associations of smoking with these cancers differs by sex. This possibility has not been assessed in detail, but some studies of both cutaneous melanoma (2,3) and basal cell keratinocyte carcinoma (3,4) report inverse associations in men but absent or substantially weaker associations in women. In this context, it is relevant that in marked contrast to melanoma and basal cell carcinoma, cigarette smoking is associated with an increased risk of squamous cell keratinocyte carcinoma (3,5), probably with no sex difference (3). Given these findings, it is difficult to assign a mechanism for smoking’s impact on UV-related carcinogenesis.

Olsen et al are concerned about the absence of clear dose-response patterns with regard to smoking duration and amount. For the hormonal, metabolic, and anti-inflammatory mechanisms that might underlay any inverse association with cancer incidence, it is not clear what patterns should be expected. The effects of these mechanisms are likely to dissipate once smoking stops. If their impact is simply to suppress on-going carcinogenesis, then cancer risk might well not depend on smoking duration, only current or recent status. In addition, these biological mechanisms might require only a modest amount of exposure to achieve a close-to-maximal effect. All this would contrast with what would be expected with the carcinogenic impact of smoking, for which cumulative doses and long latency are likely to pertain. These considerations also complicate the interpretation of Mendelian randomization analyses.

We agree with Dr. Olsen and colleagues that causality is often difficult to establish using epidemiological data alone. For that reason, preclinical data bearing on the associations of interest as well as related human data will remain important in understanding the true effects of most carcinogenic and anti-carcinogenic exposures.

Financial support:

Dr. Safe was supported by P30-ES029067 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Footnotes

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Baron JA, Nichols HB, Anderson C, Safe S. Cigarette Smoking and Estrogen-Related Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2021. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sondermeijer L, Lamboo LGE, de Waal AC, Galesloot TE, Kiemeney L, van Rossum M, et al. Cigarette Smoking and the Risk of Cutaneous Melanoma: A Case-Control Study. Dermatology 2020;236(3):228–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Song F, Qureshi AA, Gao X, Li T, Han J. Smoking and risk of skin cancer: a prospective analysis and a meta-analysis. International journal of epidemiology 2012;41(6):1694. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Milan T, Verkasalo PK, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M. Lifestyle differences in twin pairs discordant for basal cell carcinoma oi 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2003.05352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pirie K, Beral V, Heath AK, Green J, Reeves GK, Peto R, et al. Heterogeneous relationships of squamous and basal cell carcinomas of the skin with smoking: the UK Million Women Study and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Br J Cancer 2018;119(1):114–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES