Smoking-attributable cancer mortality in NSW, Australia, 1972–2008

Creighton, Nicola; Perez, Donna; Cotter, Trish

doi:10.17061/phrp2531530

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lung cancers were less common among 45 and Up Study participants compared to the NSW population. Since most lung cancers are smoking-related [ 30 ], this likely reflects the lower prevalence of smokers and greater proportion of never smokers in the 45 and Up Study compared to NSW population survey-based estimates at baseline (7.4 and 12% smoking prevalence [ 31 ], 56% [ 32 ] and 40–50% never smokers [ 33 ] in the 45 and Up Study and NSW population respectively). A higher proportion of 45 and Up Study participants were diagnosed with localised bowel cancer compared to the NSW population, which may be related to 45 and Up Study participants having higher rates of bowel screening compared to NSW population estimates [ 31 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-selection in a population-based cohort study: impact on health service use and survival for bowel and lung cancer assessed using data linkage

Creighton

Purdie

Soeberg

et al. 2018

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn contrast to aetiological associations, there is little empirical evidence for generalising health service use associations from cohort studies. We compared the health service use of cohort study participants diagnosed with bowel or lung cancer to the source population of people diagnosed with these cancers in New South Wales (NSW), Australia to assess the representativeness of health service use of the cohort study participants.MethodsPopulation-based cancer registry data for NSW residents aged ≥45 years at diagnosis of bowel or lung cancer were linked to the 45 and Up Study, a NSW population-based cohort study (N~ 267,000). We measured hospitalisation, emergency department (ED) attendance and all-cause survival, and risk factor associations with these outcomes using administrative data for cohort study participants and the source population. We assessed bias in prevalence and risk factor associations using ratios of relative frequency (RRF) and relative odds ratios (ROR), respectively.ResultsPeople from major cities, non-English speaking countries and with comorbidites were under-represented among cohort study participants diagnosed with bowel (n = 1837) or lung (n = 969) cancer by 20–50%. Cohort study participants had similar hospitalisation and ED attendance compared with the source population. One-year survival after major surgical resection was similar, but cohort study participants had up to 25% higher post-diagnosis survival (lung cancer 3-year survival: RRF = 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.12,1.37). Except for area-based socioeconomic position, risk factors associations with health service use measures and survival appeared relatively unbiased.ConclusionsAbsolute measures of health service use and risk factor associations in a non-representative sample showed little evidence of bias. Non-comparability of risk factor measures of cohort study participants and non-participants, such as area-based socioeconomic position, may bias estimates of risk factor associations. Primary and outpatient care outcomes may be more vulnerable to bias.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0537-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-selection in a population-based cohort study: impact on health service use and survival for bowel and lung cancer assessed using data linkage

Creighton

Purdie

Soeberg

et al. 2018

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Smoking is by far the most important cause of cancer that can be modi ed at the individual level. More than one in four male cancer deaths (29%) and one in ve female cancer deaths (20%) could be attributed to smoking in 2008 [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the statistics of the world cancer report [3], in 2012, China accounted for 20% of the world's new malignant tumor cases, 22% of the world's cancer cases and 25% of the world's deaths.Smoking is by far the most important cause of cancer that can be modi ed at the individual level. More than one in four male cancer deaths (29%) and one in ve female cancer deaths (20%) could be attributed to smoking in 2008 [4].Tianjin is one of the largest and most developed cites in China. We have a more sophisticated and reliable system of death registration than most cities in China and other low-and middle-income countries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attributable fraction of tobacco smoking on cancer deaths from 2010 to 2019 using mortality case-control study in Tianjin, China

Xiaodan

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Smoking is by far the most important cause of cancer that can be modified at the individual level. Asia has a high incidence of cancer incidence and death, while China has the highest incidence in Asia, and accounting for 27% of the world's cancer deaths. The purpose of the current study was to perform an evidence-based assessment of the burden of tobacco smoking-related cancers death in the Tianjin, China. Methods: A mortality case-control study to assess the risks of all-cause and major causes of cancer death attributable to smoking from 2010 to 2019. Results: Tobacco smoking was responsible for 23,709 (28.87%) cancer deaths among adult men and 8,648 (13.37%) among adult women in 2010 to 2019 in Tianjin. Lung cancer remains the largest cause of cancer death. In men, 49.06% of lung cancer, 27.55% of upper aerodigestive cancer, 10.11% of liver, 13.56% of kidney and other urinary cancer deaths were attributable to tobacco smoking. In women the proportion of ever-smoking-attributable lung cancer was 31.56%, 10.59% of upper aerodigestive and 10.56% of bladder cancer deaths. By year, smoking-attributable cancer deaths in men increased from 1817 in 2010 to 2695 in 2019; for women, the number remained stable at just over 800 per year. Conclusions: Approximately one in three cancer deaths in men and one in six cancer deaths in women would be potentially preventable through appropriate control of tobacco smoking in Tianjin. Effective control programs against tobacco smoking should be further implemented.

show abstract

“…Lung cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and the first in men for incidence and mortality [1]. Lung cancer is also a major contributor to life lost due to premature mortality in industrialised countries [2], and the first cause of cancer death and of lost productivity due to premature cancer-related mortality [3,4]. Among proven risk factors, cigarette smoking is the most documented, with almost 90% of lung cancers potentially attributable to smoking; smoking concerned nearly a quarter of the world adult population in 2009 [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 !5 mm þ VDT Vol !50 mm3 or VDT <400 d NR, not reported; NA, not applicable; CXR, chest X-ray; PY, pack-years; vol, volume; VDT, volume doubling time. a Access to a smoking cessation programme.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in populations highly exposed to tobacco: A systematic methodological appraisal of published randomised controlled trials

Coureau

Salmi

Étard

et al. 2016

European Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening recommendations for lung cancer are contradictory. The French National Authority for Health commissioned experts to carry a systematic review on the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of lung cancer screening with LDCT in subjects highly exposed to tobacco. We used MEDLINE and Embase databases (2003-2014) and identified 83 publications representing ten randomised control trials. Control arms and methodology varied considerably, precluding a full comparison and questioning reproducibility of the findings. From five trials reporting mortality results, only the National Lung Screening Trial found a significant decrease of disease-specific and all-cause mortality with LDCT screening compared to chest X-ray screening. None of the studies provided all information needed to document the risk-benefit balance. The lack of statistical power and the methodological heterogeneity of European trials question on the possibility of obtaining valid results separately or by pooling. We conclude, in regard to the lack of strong scientific evidence, that LDCT screening should not be recommended in subjects highly exposed to tobacco.

show abstract

Smoking-attributable cancer mortality in NSW, Australia, 1972–2008

Cited by 6 publications

References 16 publications

Self-selection in a population-based cohort study: impact on health service use and survival for bowel and lung cancer assessed using data linkage

Self-selection in a population-based cohort study: impact on health service use and survival for bowel and lung cancer assessed using data linkage

Attributable fraction of tobacco smoking on cancer deaths from 2010 to 2019 using mortality case-control study in Tianjin, China

Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in populations highly exposed to tobacco: A systematic methodological appraisal of published randomised controlled trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About