Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Oesophageal cancer; individual effect (relative risk/odds ratio) estimates

From: Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America

  ST use    RR/OR
Sourcea Typeb Exposurec Smoking Sexd Id. Casese Estimate (95%CI)d Adjustment factorsf
Cohort studies         
Lutheran Brotherhood: IARC Monograph 37 1985 [14] ST Ever Any M 1 NA 2.6 (not significant) age, res
US Veterans: Winn et al. 1982 [19] ST Ever Never Mg 2 1 2.28 (NA) age
Norway cohorts: Boffetta et al. 2005 [26] Snuff Current Any M 3 4 1.06 (0.35–3.23) age, smok
   Former   M 4 5 1.90 (0.69–5.27)  
   Ever   M 5 9 1.40 (0.61–3.24)  
Swedish construction workers: Zendehdel et al. 2008 [34] Snuff Ever Any M 6 77 1.00 (0.79–1.27)h age, bmi, smok
    Never   7 11 1.92 (1.00–3.68)i age, bmi
Case-control studies         
Wynder et al. 1957 [40] Chew Ever Any M 8 NA no associationj none
Wynder and Bross 1961 [44] Chew Ever Any M 9 21 2.39 (1.23–4.64)k none
Martinez et al. 1969 [49] Chew Use Never M 10 3 1.18 (0.28–4.90)k none
     F 11 7 2.69 (0.92–7.87)k  
Bjelke et al. 1974 USA [52] Chew Use NA NA 12 NA associationl NA
Williams and Horm 1977 [55] ST Ever Any M 13 2 0.55 (0.13–2.31) none
Wynder and Stellman 1977 [56] Chew Ever Any M 14 20 1.23 (0.76–1.99)k none
  Snuff     15 8 1.65 (0.78–3.49)k  
  ST     16 28 1.35 (0.89–2.06)m  
Pottern et al. 1981 [60] Chew Ever Any M 17 4 no associationn none
  Snuff     18 2 no associationn  
Morris Brown et al. 1988 [76] ST Ever Never M 19 1 1.20 (0.10–13.30) alc, incm
Lewin et al. 1998 [102] Snuff Current Any M 20 10 1.10 (0.50–2.40) age, alc, res, smok
   Former    21 9 1.30 (0.60–3.10)  
   Ever    22 19 1.20 (0.70–2.20)  
Lagergren et al. 2000 [108] Snuff Ever Any M+F 23 68 1.31 (0.89–1.92)k age, alc, bmi, diet, edu, exer, rflx, sex, smok
  1. a Fuller details of the studies are given in Tables 1 and 2.
  2. b ST implies smokeless tobacco unspecified, or combined snuff use or chewing.
  3. c Ever, former and current ST use were compared with never ST. Use indicates timing not given and comparison is with non-use.
  4. d NA = not available.
  5. e 'Id.' is the RR/OR identification number used in Table 6, and 'Cases' is the number of cases in ST users as defined. NA = not available.
  6. f Abbreviations used: alc = alcohol, bmi = body mass index, edu = education, exer = exercise, incm = incidence or mortality, res = area of residence, rflx = reflux symptoms, smok = smoking, NA = not available.
  7. g The population included < 0.5% females.
  8. h RRs for adenocarcinoma (1.0, 95% CI 0.6–1.5) and squamous cell carcinoma (1.0, 0.8–1.4) combined.
  9. i RRs for adenocarcinoma (0.2, 95% CI 0.0–1.9) and squamous cell carcinoma (3.5, 1.6–7.6) combined.
  10. j The average ridit duration of chewing was non-significantly lower in the oesophageal cancer cases.
  11. k RR/OR and/or 95% CI estimated from data provided in the source.
  12. l The abstract noted a "synergistic effect of tobacco chewing and alcohol".
  13. m RR/OR and/or 95% CI estimated from data provided in the source assuming that no one both chewed and used snuff.
  14. n The authors noted the percentage of ever users was "slightly higher" in the controls than in the cases for chewing but not for snuff.
  15. CI = confidence interval; ST = smokeless tobacco; OR = odds ratio; RR = relative risk.