Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32505184›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2020

Cancer rates not explained by smoking: a county-level analysis.

Douglas J Myers, Polly Hoppin, Molly Jacobs, Richard Clapp, David Kriebel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. If Smoking Were Eliminated, Which US Counties Would Still Have High Rates of Smoking-Related Cancers?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Douglas J MyersDepartment of Community and Environmental Health, College of Health Sciences, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID, 83725, USA. douglasmyers@boisestate.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8620-9005
Polly HoppinLowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA.
Molly JacobsLowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA.
Richard ClappLowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA.
David KriebelLowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA.
University of Massachusetts Lowell · USBoise State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDebates over the importance of "lifestyle" versus "environment" contributions to cancer have been going on for over 40 years. While it is clear that cigarette smoking is the most significant cancer risk factor, the contributions of occupational and environmental carcinogens in air, water and food remain controversial. In practice, most cancer prevention messaging focuses on reducing cigarette smoking and changing other personal behaviors with little mention of environmental chemicals, despite widespread exposure to many known carcinogens. To inform decision-making on cancer prevention priorities, we evaluated the potential impact of smoking cessation on cancer rates.

methodsUsing cancer incidence data from 612 counties in the SEER database, and county-level smoking prevalences, we investigated the impact of smoking cessation on incidence for 12 smoking-related cancer types, 2006-2016. A multilevel mixed-effects regression model quantified the association between county-level smoking prevalence and cancer incidence, adjusting for age, gender and variability over time and among counties. We simulated complete smoking cessation and estimated the effects on county-level cancer rates.

resultsRegression models showed the expected strong association between smoking prevalence and cancer incidence. Simulating complete smoking cessation, the incidence of the 12 smoking-related cancer types fell by 39.8% (54.9% for airways cancers; 28.9% for non-airways cancers). And, while the actual rates of smoking-related cancers from 2006 to 2016 declined (annual percent change (APC) = - 0.8, 95% CI = - 1.0 to - 0.5%), under the scenario of smoking elimination, the trend in cancer incidence at these sites was not declining (APC = - 0.1, 95% CI = - 0.4 to + 0.1%). Not all counties were predicted to benefit equally from smoking elimination, and cancer rates would fall less than 10% in some counties.

conclusionsSmoking prevention has produced dramatic reductions in cancer in the US for 12 major types. However, we estimate that eliminating smoking completely would not affect about 60% of cancer cases of the 12 smoking-related types, leaving no improvement in the incidence trend from 2006 to 2016. We conclude that cancer prevention strategies should focus not only on lifestyle changes but also the likely contributions of the full range of risk factors, including environmental/occupational carcinogens.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPrevalenceRisk FactorsSmokingUnited StatesYoung AdultCancer preventionEpidemiologySmoking cessationSmoking-related cancers

Identifiers

PMID32505184
PMCPMC7276087
OpenAlexW3033176312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.