Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 5-13, 2002
© 2002 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press
Article |
The Combination of Effects on Lung Cancer of Cigarette Smoking and Exposure in Quebec Chrysotile Miners and Millers
1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; 2Environmental Epidemiology Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
Received 14 February 2001; in final form 1 June 2001.
Although it is well known that both cigarette smoke and microscopic airborne asbestos fibres can cause lung cancer, evidence as to how these two agents combine is nebulous. Many workers have believed in the multiplicative theory, whereby asbestos increases the risk in proportion to the risk from other causes. However, evidence against this theory is mounting: a recent review concluded that the multiplicative hypothesis was untenable, and that the relative risk of lung cancer from asbestos exposure was about twice as high in non-smokers as in smokers, a finding largely independent of type of asbestos fibre. The criteria for entry to the current study were met by 7279 men in the 1891–1920 birth cohort of Quebec chrysotile miners and millers. The data consisted of date of birth, place of employment, smoking habit, asbestos exposure accumulated to age 55 and, for those 5527 who died between 1950 and June 1992, date and cause of death; 533 of the deaths were from lung cancer. For the principal analyses, ex-smokers were excluded from the study cohort, which comprised 5888 men, of whom 473 died of lung cancer. The conventional form of analysis is simply of the double dichotomy: non-smokers of cigarettes, ‘unexposed’ and exposed; all others, ‘unexposed’ and exposed. The respective standardized lung cancer mortality ratios (SMRs) were 0.29 and 0.62; and 1.37 and 1.72. Thus, the differences in relative risk, due to exposure, were closely similar, 0.33 and 0.35. On the other hand, the effects of asbestos measured by the corresponding ratios, 2.12 and 1.25, did differ, being 1.7 times as high in non-smokers as in others. The principal analysis was much more penetrating: the method was to fit models to a ‘disaggregated’ 6 x 10 array, by smoking habit (excluding ex-smokers) and asbestos exposure, of lung cancer SMRs. Both linear and log-linear models were fitted: the former included the additive and linear-multiplicative; the latter embraced the more conventional multiplicative form. The additive model fitted much the best. The fit of each multiplicative model was improved by the introduction of an interaction term that implied a less than multiplicative relationship. Thus smoking and exposure to chrysotile appear to have acted independently in causing lung cancer, with 10 cigarettes a day having an effect roughly equivalent to exposure amounting to 700 million particles per cubic foot x years. The refutation of the multiplicative hypothesis in these data reinforces its inapplicability in general; but the additive hypothesis is not generally applicable either. Indeed, there seems to be no good reason to believe that interactions conform to any simple theory. The implications are important.
Keywords: additivity; chrysotile asbestos; cigarette smoke; combination of effects; disaggregation; independent action; lung cancer; multiplicativity; relative asbestos effect; Quebec; synergy index
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. Wraith and K. Mengersen A Bayesian approach to assess interaction between known risk factors: the risk of lung cancer from exposure to asbestos and smoking Statistical Methods in Medical Research, April 1, 2008; 17(2): 171 - 189. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M Y N C K Cheyip, G Nelson, M H Ross, and J Murray South African platinum mine employees reduce smoking in 5 years Tob. Control, June 1, 2007; 16(3): 197 - 201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A Reid, N H de Klerk, G L Ambrosini, G Berry, and A W Musk The risk of lung cancer with increasing time since ceasing exposure to asbestos and quitting smoking. Occup. Environ. Med., August 1, 2006; 63(8): 509 - 512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. R. Cullen, M. J. Barnett, J. R. Balmes, B. Cartmel, C. A. Redlich, C. A. Brodkin, S. Barnhart, L. Rosenstock, G. E. Goodman, S. P. Hammar, et al. Predictors of Lung Cancer among Asbestos-exposed Men in the {beta}-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial Am. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2005; 161(3): 260 - 270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F D K Liddell and P Lee Joint action of smoking and asbestos exposure on lung cancer * Author's reply Occup. Environ. Med., July 1, 2002; 59(7): 494 - 495. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|