Smoking Status of Parents, Siblings and Friends: Predictors of Regular Smoking? Findings from a Longitudinal Twin-family Study

Vink, Jacqueline M.; Willemsen, Gonneke; Engels, Rutger C. M. E.; Boomsma, Dorret I.

doi:10.1375/136905203765693861

Cited by 45 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The existence of genetic susceptibility to lung cancer is suggested in a number of familial aggregation studies [4][5][6]8,[15][16][17][18][19] as well as in segregation analyses [20][21][22][23][24] and in a linkage study 25 Familial risks may reflect not only genetic predisposition, but also shared exposures, such as smoking habits, [27][28][29] or exposure to cooking fumes. 7,30 To address this issue, we (i) included only relatives of never-smoking probands; (ii) took into account smoking habits of the relatives, both by controlling for smoking status and by conducting analyses stratified by smoking status.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggregation of cancer among relatives of never‐smoking lung cancer patients

Gorlova

Weng

Zhang

et al. 2007

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors evaluated the familial aggregation of lung and other cancers in first-degree relatives of lung cancer patients selfreported to be lifetime never smokers. The data, derived from a large lung cancer case-control study, included 2,465 first-degree relatives of 316 never smoker lung cancer cases and 2,441 firstdegree relatives of 318 never smoker controls, frequency matched to the cases on age, gender and ethnicity. The median age of the cases and the controls was 61 years, about 2/3 were women, and about 80% were Caucasian. Overall, there was a 25% excess risk [95% CI (1.05-1.50)] of any type of cancer among the first-degree relatives of cases, and case offspring exhibited a 2-fold excess cancer risk (1.03-4.10) compared with control offspring. There was also a 44% excess risk ( Key words: lung cancer; familial aggregation; never smokers Lifetime never smokers with lung cancer likely represent a genetically susceptible subgroup distinct from ever smokers with lung cancer. 1 Familial aggregation may provide indirect evidence for a role of genetic factors in lung cancer susceptibility. The majority of studies that have evaluated familial aggregation in never-smoking lung cancer patients reported increased but not statistically significant lung cancer risk. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Several recent studies that analyzed aggregation of lung cancer in relatives of lung cancer patients reported no increased risk in first-degree relatives of never-smoking lung cancer cases. 8,9 However, one study suggested a significant 6-fold increased lung cancer risk in relatives of younger (40-59 years old) nonsmoking lung cancer patients, yet based on a small number of individuals (47 lung cancer cases and 50 controls). 3 Only a few studies have evaluated occurrence of other specific cancers in relatives of never-smoking lung cancer patients. 7,10,11 We estimated the risk of lung cancer and other cancers in firstdegree relatives of never-smoking lung cancer cases compared with first-degree relatives of matched controls, using self-reported data on family history derived from an ongoing lung cancer casecontrol study, controlling for relatives' smoking status as reported by the proband. Material and methods Subject recruitmentFrom September 1995 through December 2003, patients with lung cancer were accrued for an ongoing and previously described molecular epidemiological study on susceptibility markers for lung cancer from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. 8,12,13 There were no age, gender, ethnic or stage restrictions. There were 316 patients with histologically confirmed lung cancer, who reported themselves to be lifetime never smokers (defined as those who had smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime). The response rate for cases was about 80%. The reasons for refusal to participate included patient too ill, patient referred only for second opinion to M. D. Anderson Cancer Center or patient unwilling to donate blood for the study and complete the interview. Healthy controls who were also lifeti...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggregation of cancer among relatives of never‐smoking lung cancer patients

Gorlova

Weng

Zhang

et al. 2007

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…10 Similar smoking patterns among family members can be partly explained through shared genes. 11 Adolescent cessation programmes including a parental approach have reported good results. 12 This emphasises the importance of family influences in adolescent smoking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The smoking habit of a close friend or family member—how deep is the impact? A cross-sectional study

Saari

Kentala²,

Mattila

2014

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess the risk of becoming a smoker in adulthood associated with parental smoking as well as the smoking of siblings and close friends.DesignA cross-sectional study.Setting4 oral healthcare centres in Finland and a follow-up.ParticipantsAn age cohort born in 1979 (n=2586) and living in four Finnish towns. Of those reached by the 2008 follow-up, 46.9% (n=1020) responded.Primary and secondary outcome measuresSmoking behaviour at the age of 29. Smoking behaviour at the age of 13 and smoking behaviour of family members and close friends.ResultsSmoking of a current close friend was strongly associated with participants’ own smoking (OR 5.6, 95% CI 3.6 to 8.8). The smoking of a close friend during schooldays was similarly associated (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.5). Smoking among men was associated with the smoking behaviour of mothers and siblings while that among females was not.ConclusionsThe impact of a smoker as a close friend is greater than that of a smoking parent or sibling in school age when it comes to smoking behaviour in adulthood. This should be taken into consideration when attempting to prevent smoking initiation or continuation.Trial registrationAt clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01348646).

show abstract

“…We will concentrate on general demographic (education), lifestyle variables (smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, coffee-and tea-consumption, religious practice) and personality/ mental health (body mass index, burnout, problem behavior, neuroticism). These variables are familial, that is family members resemble each other for those characteristics [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Therefore, data from nonrespondents will be correlated with the data from the respondents and data from responding family members thus will offer information on the non-respondents.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Non-Response Bias in Family Studies: Application to Mental Health and Lifestyle

et al. 2003

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Non-response to mailed surveys reduces the effective sample size and may introduce bias. Nonresponse has been studied by (1) comparison to available data in population based registers, (2) directly contacting non-respondents by telephone or single-item reply cards, and (3) longitudinal repetition of the survey. The goal of this paper was to propose an additional method to study non-response bias: when the variable of interest has a familial component, data from respondents can be used as proxy for the data from their non-responding family members. This approach was used with data on smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, coffee-and tea-use, education, body mass index, religion, burnout, life events, personality and mental health in large number of siblings and DZ twins registered with the Netherlands Twin Register. In addition, for smoking behavior, we also used the second strategy by sending a reply card. Results show that scores of members from less cooperative families or incomplete twin pairs tended to be more unfavorable than the scores from highly cooperative families or complete twin pairs. For example, family members from less cooperative families cycled less often and scored higher on anxious depression and neuroticism. For smoking, both the results of the reply card and the results of the additional method suggested a higher percentage smokers among the non-respondents but this was only significant with reply card method. In general, differences between highly/less cooperative families and complete/incomplete DZ twins were small. Results suggest that, even for studies with moderate response rates, data collected on health, personality and lifestyle are relatively unbiased.

show abstract

Smoking Status of Parents, Siblings and Friends: Predictors of Regular Smoking? Findings from a Longitudinal Twin-family Study

Cited by 45 publications

References 40 publications

Aggregation of cancer among relatives of never‐smoking lung cancer patients

Aggregation of cancer among relatives of never‐smoking lung cancer patients

The smoking habit of a close friend or family member—how deep is the impact? A cross-sectional study

Estimating Non-Response Bias in Family Studies: Application to Mental Health and Lifestyle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About