Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 317–328 | Cite as

Analysis of lung cancer incidence in the nurses’ health and the health professionals’ follow-up studies using a multistage carcinogenesis model

  • Rafael Meza
  • William D. Hazelton
  • Graham A. Colditz
  • Suresh H. Moolgavkar
Original Paper

Abstract

We analyzed lung cancer incidence among non-smokers, continuing smokers, and ex-smokers in the Nurses Health Study (NHS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) using the two-stage clonal expansion (TSCE) model. Age-specific lung cancer incidence rates among non-smokers are identical in the two cohorts. Within the framework of the model, the main effect of cigarette smoke is on the promotion of partially altered cells on the pathway to cancer. Smoking-related promotion is somewhat higher among women, whereas smoking-related malignant conversion is somewhat lower. In both cohorts the relative risk for a given daily level of smoking is strongly modified by duration. Among smokers, the incidence in NHS relative to that in HPFS depends both on smoking intensity and duration. The age-adjusted risk is somewhat larger in NHS, but not significantly so. After smokers quit, the risk decreases over a period of many years and the temporal pattern of the decline is similar to that reported in other recent studies. Among ex-smokers, the incidence in NHS relative to that in HPFS depends both on previous levels of smoking and on time since quitting. The age-adjusted risk among ex-smokers is somewhat higher in NHS, possibly due to differences in the age-distribution between the two cohorts.

Keywords

Lung cancer epidemiology Lung cancer age-specific incidence Never smokers lung cancer risk Smokers relative risk Ex-smokers relative risk Multistage carcinogenesis Two-stage clonal expansion model 

Supplementary material

10552_2007_9094_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (9 kb)
Two-stage clonal expansion model (10 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Risch HA, Howe GR, Jain M, Burch JD, Holowaty EJ, Miller AB (1993) Are female smokers at higher risk for lung cancer than male smokers? A case–control analysis by histologic type. Am J Epidemiol 138(5):281–293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zang EA, Wynder EL (1996) Differences in lung cancer risk between men and women: examination of the evidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 88(3–4):183–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perneger TV (2001) Sex, smoking, and cancer: a reappraisal. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(21):1600–1602PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bain C, Feskanich D, Speizer FE, Thun M, Hertzmark E, Rosner BA, et al (2004) Lung cancer rates in men and women with comparable histories of smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(11):826–834PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blot WJ, McLaughlin JK (2004) Are women more susceptible to lung cancer? J Natl Cancer Inst 96(11):812–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patel JD, Bach PB, Kris MG (2004) Lung cancer in US women: a contemporary epidemic. JAMA 291(14):1763–1768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moolgavkar SH, Venzon DJ (1979) Two-event models for carcinogenesis: incidence curves for childhood and adult tumors. Math Biosci 47(1):55–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moolgavkar SH, Knudson AG (1981) Mutation and cancer: a model for human carcinogenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst 66(6):1037–1052PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hazelton WD, Luebeck EG, Heidenreich WF, Moolgavkar SH (2001) Analysis of a historical cohort of Chinese tin miners with arsenic, radon, cigarette smoke, and pipe smoke exposures using the biologically based two-stage clonal expansion model. Radiat Res 156(1):78–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hazelton WD, Clements MS, Moolgavkar SH (2005) Multistage carcinogenesis and lung cancer mortality in three cohorts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14(5):1171–1181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heidenreich WF, Luebeck EG, Moolgavkar SH (1997) Some properties of the hazard function of the two-mutation clonal expansion model. Risk Anal 17(3):391–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    US Decennial Life Tables for 1989–91. vol 1. Hyattsville, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health and Statistics; 1997Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ (eds) (1996) Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. Interdisciplinary Statistics. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bain C, Feskanich D, Speizer FE, Thun M, Hertzmark E, Rosner BA, et al (2004) Erratum. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(23):1796–1797Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wakelee HA, Chang ET, Gomez SL, Keegan TH, Feskanich D, Clarke CA, et al (2007) Lung cancer incidence in never smokers. J Clin Oncol 25(5):472–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rachet B, Siemiatycki J, Abrahamowicz M, Leffondre K (2004) A flexible modeling approach to estimating the component effects of smoking behavior on lung cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 57(10):1076–1085PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luebeck EG, Heidenreich WF, Hazelton WD, Paretzke HG, Moolgavkar SH (1999) Biologically based analysis of the data for the Colorado uranium miners cohort: age, dose and dose-rate effects. Radiat Res 152(4):339–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heidenreich WF, Wellmann J, Jacob P, Wichmann HE (2002) Mechanistic modelling in large case–control studies of lung cancer risk from smoking. Stat Med 21(20):3055–3070PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schollnberger H, Manuguerra M, Bijwaard H, Boshuizen H, Altenburg HP, Rispens SM, et al (2006) Analysis of epidemiological cohort data on smoking effects and lung cancer with a multi-stage cancer model. Carcinogenesis 27(7):1432–1444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burns DM, Shanks TG, Choi W, Thun MJ, Heath CW, Garfinkel L (1997) The American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study I: 12-year followup of 1 million men and women. In: Burns DM, Garfinkel L, Samet JM (eds) Changes in cigarette-related disease risks and their implications for prevention and control. Smoking and Tobacco Control, Monograph 8, NIH Publ No 97–4213, pp 113–304Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shriver SP, Bourdeau HA, Gubish CT, Tirpak DL, Davis AL, Luketich JD, et al (2000) Sex-specific expression of gastrin-releasing peptide receptor: relationship to smoking history and risk of lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(1):24–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Siegfried JM, DeMichele MA, Hunt JD, Davis AG, Vohra KP, Pilewski JM (1997) Expression of mRNA for gastrin-releasing peptide receptor by human bronchial epithelial cells. Association with prolonged tobacco exposure and responsiveness to bombesin-like peptides. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 156(2 Pt 1):358–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Rosenberg P, Wellmann J, Kreienbrock L (2000) The use of sliding time windows for the exploratory analysis of temporal effects of smoking histories on lung cancer risk. Stat Med 19(16):2185–2194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leffondre K, Abrahamowicz M, Siemiatycki J, Rachet B (2002) Modeling smoking history: a comparison of different approaches. Am J Epidemiol 156(9):813–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peto R, Darby S, Deo H, Silcocks P, Whitley E, Doll R (2000) Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the UK since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case–control studies. BMJ 321(7257):323–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bach PB, Kattan MW, Thornquist MD, Kris MG, Tate RC, Barnett MJ, et al (2003) Variations in lung cancer risk among smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(6):470–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael Meza
    • 1
  • William D. Hazelton
    • 1
  • Graham A. Colditz
    • 2
    • 3
  • Suresh H. Moolgavkar
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Public Health SciencesFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Channing LaboratoryBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.Siteman Cancer CenterWashington University Medical SchoolSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations