ArticleHarm reduction journal2025
Estimating lung cancer risk from e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products: applications of a tool based on biomarkers of exposure and of potential harm.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Lipidomic signatures in lung adenocarcinoma and spontaneous pneumothorax tissues associated with heated tobacco use: a pilot study.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Health effects of black and blond tobacco: a comparative analysis on smoking-related diseases with emphasis on bronchitis and COPD.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Scoping of Policy Impacts for Regulating E-cigarettes (SPIRE): findings from a data and decision analytic model mapping project.NIHR open research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable epidemiological data are limited on the lung cancer risk of groups using e-cigarettes (ECIGs) and groups using heated tobacco products (HTPs).
aimWe describe a methodology to estimate the lung cancer risk of these groups according to their levels of biomarkers of exposure (BOEs) and of potential harm (BOPHs).
methodsUsing 28 search terms for BOEs and 82 for BOPHs we sought publications reporting biomarker-specific data from North America and Europe comparing individuals who smoke cigarettes and individuals who use other established products (ETPs; cigars, pipes, smokeless tobacco (ST) and/or snuff/snus). Publications were selected using defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Additionally using lung cancer relative risk (RR) estimates for users of specific ETPs derived from recent meta-analyses of epidemiological studies in these regions, we derived a regression model predicting the lung cancer RR by level of each specific biomarker. Separately for groups using ECIGs and using HTPs the lung cancer risk was then estimated by combining RR estimates for selected biomarkers. Our primary estimates only considered biomarkers statistically significantly (p < 0.01) related to lung cancer risk which showed no significant (p < 0.01) misfit to the RR of 1.0 for non-users-those with no use of ETPs, ECIGs or HTPs.
resultsBased on 38 available publications, we extracted biomarker-specific data for ETPs for 56 BOEs within 21 of the 28 search terms considered and for 54 BOPHs within 29 of the 82. The regression slope fitted to the lung cancer risk was significant (p < 0.01) for 22 BOEs and six BOPHs. However, the predicted RR for non-users significantly (p < 0.01) differed from 1.0 for 16 of these biomarkers. We estimated the lung cancer RR for using ECIGs, derived from 30 estimates for 10 biomarkers, as 1.88 (95% CI 1.60-2.22), the excess risk (ER = RR - 1) being 6.8% of that for smokers of cigarettes. The RR estimate varied little in most sensitivity analyses conducted, but increased markedly after removing the restriction to significant model fit. We estimated the lung cancer RR for using HTPs, combining estimates for four BOEs, as 1.44 (0.41-5.08), the ER being 3.4% of that for smokers of cigarettes.
conclusionsDespite some methodological limitations, our approach estimates risk when reliable epidemiological data are unavailable. Using the biomarkers considered here, the model indicates that the lung cancer risk for individuals using ECIGs is much lower than for smokers of cigarettes, and suggests that the risk for those using HTPs is also low. Research using additional data could add precision to these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.