Aspirin may reduce the risk of cancer at some sites but its effect at the lung is unclear. We prospectively examined associations between aspirin use and risk of lung cancer in 109 348 women in the Nurses' Health study from 1980 to 2004. During this time, 1360 lung cancers were documented in participants 36 -82 years of age. Aspirin use and smoking were assessed every 2 years. Risk of lung cancer was a non-significant 16% lower for regular aspirin users of one or two tablets per week and a significant 55% higher for users of 15 or more tablets per week compared with women who never regularly used aspirin. Results were similar when limited to never smokers. For both the low and high quantity aspirin users, risk of lung cancer did not decline or increase with longer durations of use, and associations attenuated as the latency period between aspirin assessment and lung cancer diagnosis was lengthened. Our findings, together with those from previous clinical trials and prospective studies, do not provide consistent evidence that aspirin influences the development of lung cancer and further investigation is required with adjustment for smoking. British Journal of Cancer (2007) (Benamouzig et al, 2005), most likely through the inhibition of cyclooxygenase enzymes, restoration of normal apoptosis, and reduction of angiogenesis (Zha et al, 2004). However, the influence of aspirin at other tumour sites is less clear. For lung cancer, several meta-analyses with different coverage of published results have offered varying results and interpretations. Of the two that focused solely on lung cancer, aspirin users were found to have a significant 27% lower risk in one (Khuder et al, 2005) and a nonsignificant 9% lower risk in the other (Hernandez-Diaz and Rodriguez, 2007). In two other meta-analyses in which lung cancer was embedded in a wider review of many cancers, the first reported a 16% lower risk for aspirin users that was compatible with no effect or a slightly reduced risk (Gonzalez-Perez et al, 2003), and the other, limited to cohort studies, reported no association (Bosetti et al, 2006). In general, these meta-analyses concluded that a chemopreventive value of aspirin for lung cancer should be interpreted with caution owing to the limitations of the available studies and the heterogeneity of study designs and results. The authors called for larger studies with better exposure characterisation of dose -response measures and detailed adjustment for smoking. In an attempt to resolve these uncertainties, we examined relations between regular aspirin use and risk of invasive lung cancer among women in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) cohort, taking into consideration quantity, frequency, and duration of use and latency between exposure and diagnosis, while controlling for detailed smoking characteristics. We placed our results within a wider context by conducting a literature review focused on clinical trials and prospective studies that, like our study, had a quantitative measure of aspirin use and controlled for smoking i...