Study links smoking with most male cancer deaths

Jan 21, 2009

The association between tobacco smoke and cancer deaths — beyond lung cancer deaths — has been strengthened by a recent study from a UC Davis researcher, suggesting that increased tobacco control efforts could save more lives than previously estimated.

The epidemiological analysis, published online in BMC Cancer, linked smoking to more than 70 percent of the cancer death burden among Massachusetts men in 2003. This percentage is much higher than the previous estimate of 34 percent in 2001.

"This study provides support for the growing understanding among researchers that smoking is a cause of many more cancer deaths besides lung cancer," said lead author Bruce Leistikow, a UC Davis associate adjunct professor of public health sciences. "The full impacts of tobacco smoke, including secondhand smoke, have been overlooked in the rush to examine such potential cancer factors as diet and environmental contaminants. As it turns out, much of the answer was probably smoking all along."

Leistikow used National Center for Health Statistics data to compare death rates from lung cancer to death rates from all other cancers among Massachusetts males. The assessment revealed that the two rates changed in tandem year-by-year from 1979 to 2003, with the strongest association among males aged 30-to-74 years.

Smoking is a known cause of most lung cancers, and the study authors concluded that the very close relationship over twenty-five years between lung and other cancer death rates suggests a single cause for both: tobacco smoke.

Leistikow, whose research is dedicated to uncovering the causes of premature mortality, said, "The fact that lung and non-lung cancer death rates are almost perfectly associated means that smokers and nonsmokers alike should do what they can to avoid tobacco smoke. It also suggests that increased attention should be paid to smoking prevention in health care reforms and health promotion campaigns."

The current study can be downloaded at www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/8/341 .

Source: University of California - Davis

Explore further: Research may explain how foremost anticancer 'guardian' protein learned to switch sides

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

MEMS nanoinjector for genetic modification of cells

May 13, 2014

The ability to transfer a gene or DNA sequence from one animal into the genome of another plays a critical role in a wide range of medical research—including cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and diabetes.

India admits 'Delhi as polluted as Beijing' (Update)

May 08, 2014

India's state air monitoring centre made a rare admission Thursday that pollution in New Delhi was comparable with Beijing, but disputed a WHO finding that the Indian capital had the dirtiest atmosphere in ...

US cancer death rate drops again in 2006

May 27, 2009

(AP) -- The U.S. cancer death rate fell again in 2006, a new analysis shows, continuing a slow downward trend that experts attribute to declines in smoking, earlier detection and better treatment.

Recommended for you

Cancer: Tumors absorb sugar for mobility

11 hours ago

Cancer cells are gluttons. We have long known that they monopolize large amounts of sugar. More recently, it became clear that some tumor cells are also characterized by a series of features such as mobility or unlikeliness ...

Early hormone therapy may be safe for women's hearts

20 hours ago

(HealthDay)—Healthy women at low risk of cardiovascular disease may be able to take hormone replacement therapy soon after menopause for a short time without harming their hearts, according to a new study.

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SgntZim
not rated yet Jan 21, 2009
So tell us something we don't know,LoL. That's from a smoker.
E_L_Earnhardt
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2009
HOW? The old "saw": "Blame The Patient", does not excuse total failure to discover the MECHANISM!I suspect "electron acceleration and spin". Trace it to "cause and effect" and then explain "non-smoker" and "No Exposure" deaths or shut up!
kevinf
not rated yet Aug 31, 2009
Pretty good article if you ask me. With over 4000 known chemicals in cigarettes the "mechanism" you seek could be any one of 4000^4000 combinations of chemicals and that doesn't even cover other combinations that could be present from elsewhere that complete the deed. You can wait for the exact mechanism to be discovered but that makes about as much sense as drinking and driving since there isn't a defined mechanism that states that it will kill you for certain.

The article is also newsworthy because although everyone knows that smoking elevates risk, the risk has been largely underestimated and primarily focuses on lung and oral cancer.

As for blame the patient...well, if you break your leg while skateboarding, who else is there to blame?