IJE Advance Access originally published online on August 9, 2007
International Journal of Epidemiology 2007 36(5):1048-1059; doi:10.1093/ije/dym158
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meta-analysis of studies of passive smoking and lung cancer: effects of study type and continent
School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Australia.
* School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston, Queensland 4006, Australia. E-mail: r.taylor{at}sph.uq.edu.au
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAcknowledgementReferences |
|---|
Background To calculate a pooled estimate of relative risk (RR) of lung cancer associated with exposure to passive smoking in never smoking women exposed to smoking spouses. This study is an updated meta-analysis that also assesses the differences between estimated risks according to continent and study type using meta-regression.
Methods From a total of 101 primary studies, 55 studies are included in this meta-analysis, of which, 7 are cohort studies, 25 population-based case-control and 23 non-population-based case-control studies. Twenty previously published meta-analyses are also reviewed. Fixed and random effect models and meta-regression are used to obtain pooled estimates of RR and P-value functions are used to demonstrate consistency of results.
Results The pooled RR for never-smoking women exposed to passive smoking from spouses is 1.27 (95% CI 1.17–1.37). The RR for North America is 1.15 (95% CI 1.03–1.28), Asia, 1.31 (95% CI 1.16–1.48) and Europe, 1.31 (1.24–1.52). Sequential cumulative meta-analysis shows no trend. There is no strong evidence of publication bias.
Conclusions The abundance of evidence, consistency of finding across continent and study type, dose–response relationship and biological plausibility, overwhelmingly support the existence of a causal relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer.
Keywords passive smoking, lung cancer, meta-analysis
Accepted 3 July 2007
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAcknowledgementReferences |
|---|
Lung cancer has been identified as the most frequently occurring cancer in the world with 1.2 million new cases diagnosed in the year 2000 (12.3% of the world's total cancer incidence).1 Active tobacco smoking is the major known cause of lung cancer. The influence of tobacco smoke in inducing lung and non-lung cancers is likely to be due to 60 known or suspected carcinogenic chemicals contained in tobacco smoke.2,3 The harmful effect of active smoking on lung cancer is well documented, and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been classified as a known (Group A) human lung carcinogen by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 1993.4 Since then, ETS has been the most widely studied risk factor of lung cancer among non-smokers.5
Passive smoking contains smoke from two sources: sidestream and exhaled mainstream smoke. At least 17 carcinogenic chemicals contained in tobacco smoke are emitted at higher levels in sidestream smoke than mainstream smoke.6–8 One of the metabolites of tobacco smoke [benzo (a) pyrene diol epoxide], which shows a direct aetiological association with lung cancer, is found in both mainstream and sidestream smoke.9 The present knowledge about the carcinogenic activity of sidestream smoke, the lack of any evidence to identify a minimum threshold for tobacco smoke inducing lung cancer and monotonic increase in the risk of lung cancer with increased amount smoked,2,10,11 suggest that an association between passive smoking and lung cancer is biologically plausible.
Numerous epidemiological studies since 1981 have examined the association between passive smoking and lung cancer. The tobacco industry has criticized the statistical evidence and much effort has gone into considering the possible effects of confounding factors and misclassification.
Exposure to ETS by non-smoking spouses of smokers is one of the sources of adult exposure to passive smoking that has been frequently studied because it is less likely to be subject to misclassification or other bias than other exposure scenarios. This meta-analysis is an update of a previous study12 which includes more recent primary studies and compares pooled estimates from studies classified by continent, study design and year of study using sensitive measures to detect effect differences.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAcknowledgementReferences |
|---|
Primary studies of ETS and lung cancer were identified through a computerized literature search of Medline and Embase (up to December 2006), using appropriate key words [(passive smoking or environmental tobacco smoke) and (lung cancer or lung carcinoma or carcinoma of lung or bronchial carcinoma) and (cohort or case control)]. In addition, all citations in each study were reviewed. Moreover, to capture further articles relevant to the topic, experts in the field of passive smoking were approached. We included all the publications in the peer-reviewed scientific press in the public domain if they examined the relationship between ETS and lung cancer among never-smoking women exposed to spousal smoke compared with never-smoking women exposed to non-smoking spouses.
Studies were classified by type of design (cohort and case-control), and case-control studies were further classified into those with or without population-based controls. If a study had multiple publications, the results were included only once, and the preference was to include the study with the most cases and/or longer follow-up. Adjusted estimates of risk [relative risks (RR) or odds ratios (OR)] or unadjusted estimates (if adjusted results were not available) were extracted for each study. In addition, all published meta-analyses examining the relationship between lung cancer and domestic spousal exposure to ETS were considered in this study. All primary studies included in the meta-analysis were evaluated by two reviewers.
One hundred and one papers published between 1981 and 2006 were identified. Of these studies, we excluded those that reported the same cases or subsets of cases13–26 and studies in which interaction between genetic background and ETS were examined.27–29 We also excluded studies in which there was no report on risk among non-smokers alone,30 or if the article had not specifically stated that all the subjects were never-smokers.31–40 The articles which reported combined results for males and females were excluded.24,41–50 Studies by Hole et al.,44 Kubik et al.51 and Katada et al.52 were excluded because the number of never-smoking women were 6, 5 and 2, respectively. The studies by Shen et al.,40 Rachtan53 and Xu et al.54 were excluded because there were no clear statements to indicate that risks were due to spousal exposure. We also excluded those articles with dead cases and controls, those without formal controls, and those studies with controls that included patients with diseases associated with smoking.55–57 The study by Garfinkel58 was replaced with the study by Enstrom and Kabat59 as the later contains more person-years of follow-up.
Statistical analysis
The data were analysed using Stata version 8.60 We used inverse-variance weighting to calculate fixed and random effects summary estimates and to produce a forest plot. Where the studies showed no significant heterogeneity, a fixed effects model was used. In addition to the overall pooled RR, results were pooled according to type of study (cohort studies, population-based case-control and non-population-based case-control studies) and continent in which the study was conducted (North America, Europe and Asia). Furthermore, studies were classified as Western (including North America and Europe) and non-Western studies. We plotted the P-value function for pooled RR of effect by type of study and continent.61 Cumulative meta-analysis in which the cumulative results at the time each study was published were calculated and graphed. Publication bias was checked using a modification of Macaskill's test.62 In addition, to assess the effect of possible publication bias, we calculated the pooled RR adjusted for publication bias using the ‘trim and fill’ algorithm.63 Meta-regression was used to analyse association between the pooled RR and study characteristics (study type and continent of study).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAcknowledgementReferences |
|---|
A total of 55 studies, seven cohort and 48 case-control studies are included in the meta-analysis. In 45 of these studies (82.0%) there is an increased risk for lung cancer among non-smoking women (RR or OR > 1). In only one study the OR is less than 1.0 with 95% CI excluding unity (OR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.60–0.90) (Tables 1–3
).
|
|
|
Risk associated with exposure to passive smoking
Table 4 and Figure 1 show the estimated pooled RR associated with exposure to ETS. The pooled RR from all 55 studies is 1.27 (95% CI 1.17–1.37). Figure 2 shows the P-value function for pooled estimates of effect by type of study demonstrating substantially overlapping results, although results from non-population-based case-control studies tend to be somewhat higher.
|
|
|
Stratification of the studies by continent of origin shows that the RR for lung cancer for exposure of never-smoking women to spousal ETS is 1.31 for studies conducted in Europe (95% CI 1.24–1.52) compared with 1.15 (95% CI 1.03–1.28) for North America and 1.31 (95% CI 1.16–1.48) for studies conducted in Asia (Table 4). The corresponding RR in studies of Western countries is 1.20 (1.10–1.31). Figure 3 and results of meta-regression in Table 4 show the lack of regional differences.
|
|
Cumulative relative risk and publication bias
Figure 4 shows the pooled cumulative RR from 1981 to 2006 with no evident trend. Using a modification of Macaskill's test, there is no evidence of publication bias among 48 studies in which there are available data about the sample size (P-value for bias = 0.80). As the lack of evidence of bias could be due to inadequate statistical power we used a non-parametric method of ‘trim and fill’ and estimated 13 possible missing studies. The estimated RR for 68 studies, including the ‘missing’ studies, is not substantially different from our estimate without adjustment for missing studies: RR = 1.17 (95% CI 1.08–1.25).
Heterogeneity between studies
There is some evidence suggestive of heterogeneity between the 55 studies (
2 = 67.6; df = 54; P = 0.04) and therefore a random effect model is used to estimate the pooled effect (Table 4). Further examination of studies shows that the source of heterogeneity is among the 28 studies carried out in Asia (2 = 43.7; df = 27; P = 0.02). To examine the effect of the heterogeneity between studies of continent and type of study in more detail, a pooled RR is estimated using meta-regression. None of these factors has a substantial effect on the results (Table 4). The only source of heterogeneity is the study by Wu-Williams et a1.64 which shows an implausible protective effect of passive smoking on risk of lung cancer (RR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.60–0.90). Exclusion of this study does not change the point estimate of the pooled RR of 1.27 (95% CI 1.17–1.37).
Dose–response relationship
Data on the dose–response relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer are available for 36 studies. Measurement of the passive smoking ‘dose’ is recorded in one of three ways: cigarettes per day; years of living with a husband who smoked or a combined measure of number of cigarettes and years of exposure. Of these 36 studies, 20 demonstrate a dose–response relationship with 95% CI excluding unity for one or all of the ETS ‘dose’ measures.16,20,65–81 Five studies show a positive dose–response association but the 95% CIs include unity,82–86 and in 11 studies there is no evidence of a dose–response relationship.40,59,87–94
Other meta-analyses
There are 23 published meta-analyses examining the relationship between exposure to ETS and lung cancer. Twenty of the meta-analyses combined only spousal studies (Table 5),7,12,95–112 three combined workplace studies,112–114 and one did not specify the context of the ETS exposure.115
The pooled relative risks of the previously published spousal meta-analyses range from 0.91 to 1.44. With the exception of the meta-analysis by Wang and Zhou of six Chinese studies (RR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.75–1.10),109 these meta-analyses all give estimates with confidence limits that exceed unity. Meta-analyses of studies of exposure to ETS in the workplace yield RR of 1.01 (95% CI 0.92–1.11)113, 1.39 (95% CI 1.15–1.68)114 and 1.17 (1.04–1.32)112; the second was meta-analysis of five studies meeting basic quality criteria. The meta-analysis which did not specify the context of ETS exposure combined data from three Chinese studies and produced RR = 1.00 (95% CI 0.74–1.35).115
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAcknowledgementReferences |
|---|
Using recently published articles, the present meta-analysis shows a 27% excess in risk of lung cancer among never-smoking women exposed to spousal ETS compared with never-smoking women not exposed to spousal ETS. This study supports the results of previous findings from other meta-analyses in showing a positive relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer. In most individual studies and meta-analyses the estimated (or pooled) RR is between 1.2 and 1.4, a level where the possibility of confounding and different types of bias should be carefully explored. By restricting the data to exposure to ETS among never-smoking women, we have minimized some of the difficulties of previous meta-analyses especially in relation to misclassification bias. We have also considered other types of bias and confounding.
Careful analysis of the effect of different study types and studies conducted in different continents indicates that real heterogeneity between the included studies is implausible (Table 4, Figures 2 and 3). This result is consistent with the previous reports showing no evidence of differences between RR of passive smoking on lung cancer by continents and type of study.95,112
Our findings are also consistent with results from exposure to ETS in workplace in both men and women.20,45,77,82,85,86,89–92,116–121 In addition, our results are compatible with the result of those studies using a dosimetric extrapolation of effect of active smoking on lung cancer. For example Puntoni et al.122 concluded that passive smoking can be related with a 17–35% excess risk of lung cancer among never-smokers. Data concerning individuals at the 95th centile of exposure to passive smoking yield a risk much higher than the estimated effects which are based on the average exposure which provide additional evidence of a dose–response relationship.123
While smoking is the main risk factor of lung cancer among smokers, several weak risk factors may contribute to the occurrence of lung cancer in never-smokers. Therefore, it could be expected that the final estimated risk may be confounded by various factors. Indeed, a household in which one spouse is a smoker may differ in some aspects from those in which neither is a smoker. Indoor air pollution and lifestyle (such as diet) are two important features in which smoking and non-smoking households may differ. For example, it has been documented that non-smokers living with smokers have a lower intake of micronutrients,124,125 cholesterol and beta carotene.126,127 Despite findings published by Lee et al.,128 it has been estimated that the confounding effect of these dietary variables is modest.18,20,77,86,110,126,129,130
A possible source of misclassification is uncertainty about personal smoking status. At least part of this misclassification is likely to be systematic as some smokers will deny smoking. Since smokers are likely to marry smokers, therefore, self-reported never-smokers are more likely to actually be ex-smokers or current smokers if married to smokers than self-reported never-smokers married to never-smokers.102,131,132 It is estimated that such misreporting among females ranges from 1.3 to 3.6% compared with 11.5% among males.124,133,134 In a meta-analysis by Hackshaw et al.,110 even taking into account of all determinants of misclassification of ever smokers as never smokers98—the proportion of ever smokers misreported as never smokers, the estimated risk of lung cancer among misclassified persons, aggregation of smokers and the prevalence of smoking in the population—the estimated risk of lung cancer associated with passive smoking only reduced from 1.24 to 1.18.
Deficiencies in the accurate measurement and reporting of ETS are other factors which may induce misclassification. As there is no reliable biological marker for ETS exposure, many epidemiological studies rely on questionnaire assessment. For the 25–50% of women who work outside the home, exposure to spousal smoking would be an underestimation of true overall exposure to ETS,135 since they may also be exposed to ETS in the workplace. Control groups are also subject to misclassification. In fact non-smokers living with non-smokers may be exposed to ETS from workplace and public environment. While the misclassification from inaccurate self-designation as a never smoker would lead to over-estimation of the true risk of lung cancer associated with passive smoking, the additional exposure of controls would underestimate the effect.
Another source of misclassification which would lead to underestimation of the RR is misdiagnosis of lung cancer. In fact there is little evidence of association between passive smoking and cancers other than lung cancer. Misdiagnosis of other forms of cancers with spread to the lung as primary lung cancer, and inclusion of such cases, could induce some systematic bias towards the null. Although new methods for diagnosis of lung cancer (cytological examination) have reduced the possibility for misdiagnosis of this condition, diagnosis between a primary and secondary lung cancer is still challenging.112
This study was restricted to published papers in scientific peer reviewed journals and therefore publication bias has to be considered. Studies with a statistically significant effect are more likely to be published136 and to be published in English,137 more likely to be cited by other authors138 and more likely to have multiple publications.139 In addition, those articles that show no association between passive smoking and lung cancer may not indicate this in the title or abstract whether passive smoking was assessed (authors’ publication bias). The study by Wu-Williams et al.64 is one of these studies. However, publication bias is unlikely to explain the observed excess in risk of lung cancer associated with passive smoking. Cumulative RRs estimated in Figure 4 support this conclusion as the pooled RR has remained almost stable over time. In addition, there is some evidence to show that only a small number of studies of ETS and lung cancer are unpublished.140 In our study, adjustment for publication bias has little effect on the pooled estimated RR. This finding is consistent with the result of recently published re-analysis of 37 studies by Takagi et al.,141 which yielded an estimate adjusted for publication bias (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08–1.31).
Except for specificity, the association between passive smoking and lung cancer fulfils all other criteria for causation outlined by Bradford Hill.142 The strength of association (even after consideration of bias and confounding), consistency of findings across domestic and workplace primary studies, dose-response relationship and dosimetric extrapolations and biological plausibility are important criteria which indicate a causal relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer. Furthermore, the evidence is coherent.
Although the excess risk from exposure to passive smoking is small, the high prevalence of exposure to passive smoking in workplaces, restaurants and other public areas in some countries, as well as at home and in private automobiles, make it an important risk factor for lung cancer among non-smoking people.
The tobacco industry tends to understate the effect of passive smoking on occurrence of lung cancer, and has tried to introduce ventilation as a solution for passive smoking in enclosed public areas.143 But this does not prevent exposure of workers in these areas to passive smoking. The preferable public health policy is still a total ban on smoking in public areas.
|
Acknowledgement |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAcknowledgementReferences |
|---|
F.N. is supported by a scholarship from Ministry of Health in Iran. R.T. and A.D. have never received any money from the tobacco industry.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Key Messages
|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAcknowledgementReferences |
|---|
1 Ginsberg MS. Epidemiology of lung cancer. Semin Roentgenol (2005) 40:83–89.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
2 US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General (1986) Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
3 US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Smoking and Cancer (1982) Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. DMS Pub. No. 82-50179.
4 US Department of Health and Human Services EpA. In: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders (1993) Washington DC: DHHS. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 4. NIH Pub 93-3605.
5 Brownson RC, Alavanja MC, Caporaso N, Simoes EJ, Chang JC. Epidemiology and prevention of lung cancer in nonsmokers. Epidemiol Rev (1998) 20:218–36.
6 Mohtashamipur E, Mohtashamipur A, Germann PG, Ernst H, Norpoth K, Mohr U. Comparative carcinogenicity of cigarette mainstream and sidestream smoke condensates on the mouse skin. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (1990) 116:604–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and other Disorders (1992) Washington DC: Office of Research and Development.
8 Wynder E, Hoffmann D. Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke: Studies in Experimental Carcinogenesis (1967) New York: Academic Press.
9 Denissenko MF, Pao A, Tang M, Pfeifer GP. Preferential formation of benzo[a]pyrene adducts at lung cancer mutational hotspots in P53. Science (1996) 274:430–32.
10 Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors. Br Med J (2004) 328:1519–1528.
11 Rogot E, Murray JL. Smoking and causes of death among U.S. veterans: 16 years of observation. Public Health Rep (1980) 95:213–22.[Web of Science][Medline]
12 Taylor R, Cumming R, Woodward A, Black M. Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis. Aust Nz J Public Health (2001) 25:203–11.[Web of Science][Medline]
13 Ko YC, Lee CH, Chen MJ, et al. Risk factors for primary lung cancer among non-smoking women in Taiwan. Int J Epidemiol (1997) 26:24–31.
14 Hirayama T. Passive smoking and lung cancer: consistency of association. Lancet (1983) 2:1425–26.[Web of Science][Medline]
15 Hirayama T. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan. Br Med J (1981) 282:183–5. (Clinical research ed.)
16 Trichopoulos D, Kalandidi A, Sparros L. Lung cancer and passive smoking: conclusion of Greek study. Lancet (1983) 2:677–78.[Web of Science][Medline]
17 Koo L, Ho J, Saw D. Active and passive smoking among female lung cancer patients and controls in Hong Kong. J Exp Clin Cancer Res (1983) 4:367–75.
18 Dalager N, Pickle L, Mason T, et al. The relation of passive smoking to lung cancer. Can Res (1986) 46:4808–11.
19 Fontham ET, Correa P, WuWilliams A, et al. Lung cancer in nonsmoking women: a multicenter case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (1991) 1:35–43.[Abstract]
20 Fontham ET, Correa P, Reynolds P, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in nonsmoking women. A multicenter study. JAMA (1994) 271:1752–59.
21 Du Y, Cha Q, Chen X, Chen Y, Lei Y, Xue S. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and female lung cancer. Indoor Air (1995) 5:231–36.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
22 Jockel KH, Pohlabeln H, Ahrens W, Krauss M. Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer. Epidemiology (1998) 9:672–75.[Web of Science][Medline]
23 Nyberg F, Agrenius V, Svartengren K, Svensson C, Pershagen G. Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in nonsmokers: does time since exposure play a role? Epidemiology (1998) 9:301–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
24 Brennan P, Buffler PA, Reynolds P, et al. Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies. Int J Cancer (2004) 109:125–31.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
25 Hu J, Mao Y, Dryer D, White K, Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research G. Risk factors for lung cancer among Canadian women who have never smoked. Cancer Detect Prev (2002) 26:129–38.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
26 Zaridze D, Zemlyanaya G. Indoor air pollution and lung cancer risk in non-smoking women in Moscow. Exp Oncol (1994) 16:441–45.
27 Kiyohara C, Wakai K, Mikami H, Sido K, Ando M, Ohno Y. Risk modification by CYP1A1 and GSTM1 polymorphisms in the association of environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: a case-control study in Japanese nonsmoking women. Int J Cancer (2003) 107:139–44.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
28 Miller D, De Vivo I, Neuberg D, et al. Association between self-reported environmental tobacco smoke exposure and lung cancer: modification by GSTP1 polymorphism. Int J Cancer (2003) 104:758–63.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
29 Bennett W, Alavanja M, Blomeke B, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke, genetic susceptibility, and risk of lung cancer in never-smoking women. J Natl Cancer Inst (1999) 91:2009–14.
30 Dai WC, Wang SY, Chen Y. Fraction analysis of the involvement of multiple risk factors in the etiology of lung cancer: risk factor interactions in a case-control study for lung cancer in females. Chinese J Epidemiol (1997) 18:341–44.
31 Li WX. A case-control study of female lung cancer at XuHui district in Shanghai. Chinese J Prev Med (1989) 23:93–95.
32 Lloyd OL, Ireland E, Tyrrell H, Williams F. Respiratory cancer in a Scottish industrial community: a retrospective case-control study. J Soc Occup Med (1986) 1986:2–8.
33 Axelson O, Andersson K, Desai G, et al. Indoor radon exposure and active and passive smoking in relation to the occurrence of lung cancer. Scand J Work Environ Health (1988) 14:286–92.[Web of Science][Medline]
34 Ye Z, Wang Q. The environmental factors of lung cancer in family women, Tianjin. Chinese J Clin Oncol (1990) 14:195–98.
35 Holowaty EJ, Risch HA, Miller AB, Burch JD. Lung cancer in women in the Niagara region, Ontario: a case-control study. Can J Public Health (1991) 82:304–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
36 Ger LP, Hsu WL, Chen KT, Chen CJ. Risk factors of lung cancer by histological category in Taiwan. Anticancer Res (1993) 13:1491–500.[Web of Science][Medline]
37 Lan Q, Chen W, Chen H, He XZ. Risk factors for lung cancer in non-smokers in Xuanwei County of China. Biomed Environ Sci (1993) 6:112–18.[Medline]
38 Luo RX, Wu B, Yi YN, Huang ZW, Lin RT. Indoor burning coal air pollution and lung cancer–a case-control study in Fuzhou, China. Lung Cancer (1996) 14:S113–19.[Web of Science][Medline]
39 Wang SY, Hu YL, Wu YL, et al. A comparative study of the risk factors for lung cancer in Guangdong, China. Lung Cancer (1996) 14:S99–105.[Web of Science][Medline]
40 Shen XB, Wang GX, Zhou BS. Relation of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and pulmonary adenocarcinoma in non-smoking women: a case control study in Nanjing. Oncol Rep (1998) 5:1221–23.[Web of Science][Medline]
41 Gillis CR, Hole DJ, Hawthorne VM, Boyle P. The effect of environmental tobacco smoke in two urban communities in the west of Scotland. Eur J Respir Dis Suppl (1984) 133:121–26.[Medline]
42 Sandler DP, Everson RB, Wilcox AJ. Passive smoking in adulthood and cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol (1985) 121:37–48.
43 Sandler DP, Everson RB, Wilcox AJ, Browder JP. Cancer risk in adulthood from early life exposure to parents’ smoking. Am J Public Health (1985) 75:487–92.
44 Hole DJ, Gillis CR, Chopra C, Hawthorne VM. Passive smoking and cardiorespiratory health in a general population in the west of Scotland. Br Med J (1989) 299:423–27.
45 Janerich DT, Thompson WD, Varela LR, et al. Lung cancer and exposure to tobacco smoke in the household. N Engl J Med (1990) 324:632–36.
46 Vineis P, Airoldi L, Veglia P, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke and risk of respiratory cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in former smokers and never smokers in the EPIC prospective study. Br Med J (2005) 330:277–281.
47 Rylander R, Axelsson G. Lung cancer risks in relation to vegetable and fruit consumption and smoking. Int J Cancer (2006) 118:739–43.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
48 Schwartz AG. Lung cancer: family history matters. Chest (2006) 130:936–37.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
49 Malats N, Camus-Radon AM, Nyberg F, et al. Lung cancer risk in nonsmokers and GSTM1 and GSTT1 genetic polymorphism. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2000) 9:827–33.
50 Lagarde F, Axelsson G, Damber L, Mellander H, Nyberg F, Pershagen G. Residential radon and lung cancer among never-smokers in Sweden. Epidemiology (2001) 12:396–404.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
51 Kubik A, Zatloukal P, Boyle P, et al. A case-control study of lung cancer among Czech women. Lung Cancer (2001) 31:111–22.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
52 Katada H, Mikami R, Konishi M, Koyama Y, Narita N. The effects of passive smoking in the development of female lung cancer in the Nara district. Jap J Cancer Clin (1988) 34:21–27.
53 Rachtan J. Smoking, passive smoking and lung cancer cell types among women in Poland. Lung Cancer (2002) 35:129–36.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
54 Xu ZY, Blot WJ, Xiao HP, et al. Smoking, air pollution, and the high rates of lung cancer in Shenyang, China. J Natl Cancer Inst (1989) 81:1800–6.
55 Miller GH, Golish JA, Cox CE, Chacko DC. Women and lung cancer: a comparison of active and passive smokers with nonexposed nonsmokers. Cancer Detect Prev (1994) 18:421–30.[Web of Science][Medline]
56 Knoth A, Bohn H, Schmidt F. Passive smoking as a causal factor of bronchial carcinoma in female non-smokers. Medizinische Klinik (1983) 78:66–69. [MED.KLIN.].[Web of Science]
57 Chan-Yeung M, Koo LC, Ho JCM, et al. Risk factors associated with lung cancer in Hong Kong. Lung Cancer (2003) 40:131–40.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
58 Garfinkel L. Time trends in lung cancer mortality among nonsmokers and a note on passive smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst (1981) 66:1061–66.[Web of Science][Medline]
59 Enstrom JE, Kabat GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960–98. Br Med J (2003) 326:1057–1067.
60 Stata Corporation. Stata 8 Statistics/Data analysis Special Edition. College station (2003) 8. Texas: Stata Corporation.
61 Rothman K. Epidemiology: An Introduction (2002) New York: Oxford University Press.
62 Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA (2006) 295:676–80.
63 Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics (2000) 56:455–63.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
64 Wu-Williams AH, Dai XD, Blot W, et al. Lung cancer among women in north-east China. Br J Cancer (1990) 62:982–87.[Web of Science][Medline]
65 Hirayama T. Cancer mortality in nonsmoking women with smoking husbands based on a large-scale cohort study in Japan. Prevent Med (1984) 13:680–90.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
66 Cardenas VM, Thun MJ, Austin H, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer mortality in the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study. II. Cancer Cause Control (1997) 8:57–64.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
67 Geng G, Liang Z, Zhang A, Wu G. On the relationship between smoking and female lung cancer. In: Smoking and Health 1987—Aoki M, Hisamichi S, Tominaga S, eds. (1988) Amsterdam, New York: Elsevier Science.
68 Akiba S, Kato H, Blot WJ. Passive smoking and lung cancer among Japanese women. Cancer Res (1986) 49:4804–7.
69 Gao YT, Blot WJ, Zheng W, et al. Lung cancer among Chinese women. Int J Cancer (1987) 40:604–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
70 Humble CG, Samet JM, Pathak DR. Marriage to a smoker and lung cancer risk. Am J Public Health (1987) 77:598–602.
71 Lam TH, Kung IT, Wong CM, et al. Smoking, passive smoking and histological types in lung cancer in Hong Kong Chinese women. Br J Cancer (1987) 56:673–78.[Web of Science][Medline]
72 Pershagen G, Hrubec Z, Svensson C. Passive smoking and lung cancer in Swedish women. Am J Epidemiol (1987) 125:17–24.
73 Correa P, Pickle LW, Fontham E, Lin Y, Haenszel W. Passive smoking and lung cancer. Lancet (1983) 2:595–97.[Web of Science][Medline]
74 Inoue R, Hirayama T. Passive smoking and lung cancer in women. In: Smoking and Health—Aoki M, Hisamichi S, Tominaga S, eds. (1988) New York: Elsevier Science.
75 Liu Q, Sasco AJ, Riboli E, Hu MX. Indoor air pollution and lung cancer in Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. Am J Epidemiol (1993) 137:145–54.
76 Wang TJ, Zhou BS, Shi JP. Lung cancer in nonsmoking Chinese women: a case-control study. Lung Cancer (1996) 14:S93–98.[Web of Science][Medline]
77 Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, et al. Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst (1998) 90:1440–50.
78 Zheng S, Fan R, Wu Z. Studies on relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer in non-smoking women. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi (1997) 31:163–65.[Medline]
79 Jee SH, Ohrr H, Kim IS. Effects of husbands’ smoking on the incidence of lung cancer in Korean women. Int J Epidemiol (1999) 28:824–28.
80 Stockwell H, Goldman A, Lyman G. Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk in non-smoking women. J Natl Cancer Inst (1992) 84:1417–22.
81 Lee CH, Ko YC, Goggins W, et al. Lifetime environmental exposure to tobacco smoke and primary lung cancer of non-smoking Taiwanese women. Int J Epidemiol (2000) 29:224–31.
82 Brownson RC, Alavanja MC, Hock ET, Loy TS. Passive smoking and lung cancer in nonsmoking women. Am J Public Health (1992) 82:1525–30.
83 Johnson KC, Hu J, Mao Y, Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research G. Lifetime residential and workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in never-smoking women, Canada 1994–97. Int J Cancer (2001) 93:902–6.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
84 Wang L, Lubin JH, Zhang SR, et al. Lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke in a non-industrial area of China. Int J Cancer (2000) 88:139–45.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
85 Wu AH, Henderson BE, Pike MC, Yu MC. Smoking and other risk factors for lung cancer in women. J Natl Cancer Inst (1985) 74:747–51.[Web of Science][Medline]
86 Kalandidi A, Katsouyanni K, Voropoulou N, Bastas G, Saracci R, Trichopoulos D. Passive smoking and diet in the etiology of lung cancer among non-smokers. Cancer Cause Control (1990) 1:15–21.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
87 Koo LC, Ho JH, Saw D, Ho CY. Measurements of passive smoking and estimates of lung cancer risk among non-smoking Chinese females. Int J Cancer (1987) 39:162–69.[Web of Science][Medline]
88 Buffler P, Pickle L, Mason T, Contant C. The causes of lung cancer in Texas. In: Lung Cancer Causes and Prevention—Mizell M, Correa P, eds. (1984) New York: Verlag Chemie.
89 Garfinkel L, Auerbach O, Joubert L. Involuntary smoking and lung cancer: a case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst (1985) 75:463–69.[Web of Science][Medline]
90 Lee PN, Chamberlain J, Alderson MR. Relationship of passive smoking to risk of lung cancer and other smoking-associated diseases. Br J Cancer (1986) 54:97–105.[Web of Science][Medline]
91 Kabat G, Stellman S, Wynder E. Relation between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in lifetime non-smokers. Am J Epidemiol (1995) 142:141–148.
92 Rapiti E, Jindal SK, Gupta D, Boffetta P. Passive smoking and lung cancer in Chandigarh, India. Lung Cancer (1999) 23:183–89.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
93 Lei YX, Cai WC, Chen YZ, Du YX. Some lifestyle factors in human lung cancer: a case-control study of 792 lung cancer cases. Lung Cancer (1996) 14(Suppl 1):S121–36.[Web of Science][Medline]
94 Zhong L, Goldberg MS, Gao YT, Jin F. A case-control study of lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke among nonsmoking women living in Shanghai, China. Cancer Causes Control (1999) 10:607–16.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
95 Zhong L, Goldberg MS, Parent ME, Hanley JA. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and the risk of lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Lung Cancer (2000) 27:3–18.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
96 Blot W, Fraumeni J. Passive smoking and lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst (1986) 77:993–1000.[Web of Science][Medline]
97 National Research Council. Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures And Assessing Health Effects (1986) Washington DC: National Academy Press.
98 Wald NJ, Nanchahal K, Thompson SG, Cuckle HS. Does breathing other people's tobacco smoke cause lung cancer? Br Med J (1986) 293:1217–22. (Clinical Research ed).
99 Wells A. An estimate of adult mortality in the United States from passive smoking. Environ Int (1988) 14:249–65.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
100 Saracci R, Riboli E. Passive smoking and lung cancer: current evidence and ongoing studies at the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Mutat Res (1989) 222:117–27.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
101 Lee PN. Environmental tobacco smoke and mortality. Environ Int (1992) 18:432.
102 Tweedie RL, Mengersen KL. Lung cancer and passive smoking: reconciling the biochemical and epidemiological approaches. Br J Cancer (1992) 66:700–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
103 Pershagen G. Passive smoking and lung cancer. In: Epidemiology of Lung Cancer—Samet J, ed. (1994) New York: Marcel Dekker.
104 Gross AJ. The risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers in the United States and its reported association with environmental tobacco smoke. J Clin Epidemiol (1995) 48:587–98.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
105 Mengersen K, Tweedie R, Biggerstaff B. The impact of method choice on meta-analysis. Aust J Stat (1995) 37:19–44.[CrossRef]
106 Dockery D. Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: environmental smoke screen? In: Indoor Air and Human Health—Gammage R, Berven B, eds. (1996) New York: CRC/Lewis. 309–23.
107 Law MR, Hackshaw AK. Environmental tobacco smoke. Br Med Bull (1996) 52:22–34.
108 Tweedie RL, Scott DJ, Biggerstaff BJ, Mengersen KL. Bayesian meta-analysis, with application to studies of ETS and lung cancer. Lung Cancer (1996) 14:S171–94.[Web of Science][Medline]
109 Wang T-J. Meta-analysis of the potential relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in nonsmoking Chinese women. Lung Cancer (1997) 16:145–50.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
110 Hackshaw AK, Law MR, Wald NJ. The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. Br Med J (1997) 315:980–8.
111 Merletti F, Richiardi L, Boffetta P. Health effects of passive smoking. Med Lav (1998) 89:149–63.[Medline]
112 Boffetta P. Involuntary smoking and lung cancer. Scand J Work Environ Health (2002) 28(Suppl 2):30–40.[Web of Science][Medline]
113 LeVois ME, Layard MW. Inconsistency between workplace and spousal studies of environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol (1994) 19:309–16.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
114 Wells AJ. Lung cancer from passive smoking at work. Am J Public Health (1998) 88:1025–29.
115 Yu SZ, Zhao N. Combined analysis of case-control studies of smoking and lung cancer in China. Lung Cancer (1996) 14:S161–70.[Web of Science][Medline]
116 Wang TJ, Zhou BS, Shi JP. Lung cancer in nonsmoking Chinese women: a case-control study. Lung Cancer (1996) 14:S93–S98.[Web of Science][Medline]
117 Kabat GC, Wynder EL. Lung cancer in nonsmokers. Cancer (1984) 53:1214–21.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
118 Shimizu H, Morishita M, Mizuno K, et al. A case-control study of lung cancer in nonsmoking women. Tohoku J Exp Med (1988) 154:389–97.[Web of Science][Medline]
119 Svensson C, Pershagen G, Klominek J. Smoking and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer in women. Acta Oncol (1989) 28:623–29.[Web of Science][Medline]
120 Wu-Williams AH, Samet JM. Environmental tobacco smoke: exposure-response relationships in epidemiologic studies. Risk Anal (1990) 10:39–48.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
121 Schwartz AG, Yang P, Swanson GM. Familial risk of lung cancer among nonsmokers and their relatives. Am J Epidemiol (1996) 144:554–62.
122 Puntoni R, Toninelli F, Zhankui L, Bonassi S. Mathematical modelling in risk/exposure assessment of tobacco related lung cancer. Carcinogenesis (1995) 16:1465–71.
123 Repace JL, Jinot J, Bayard S, Emmons K, Hammond SK. Air nicotine and saliva cotinine as indicators of passive smoking exposure and risk. Risk Anal (1998) 18:71–83.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
124 Matanoski G, Kanchanaraksa S, Lantry D, Chang Y. Characteristics of nonsmoking women in NHANES I and NHANES I epidemiologic follow-up study with exposure to spouses who smoke. Am J Epidemiol (1995) 142:149–57.
125 Emmons KM, Thompson B, Feng Z, Hebert JR, Heimendinger J, Linnan L. Dietary intake and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in a worksite population. Eur J Clin Nutr (1995) 49:336–45.[Web of Science][Medline]
126 Le Marchand L, Wilkens LR, Hankin JH, Haley NJ. Dietary patterns of female nonsmokers with and without exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Cancer Cause Control (1991) 2:11–16.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
127 Shibata A, Paganini-Hill A, Ross RK, Yu MC, Henderson BE. Dietary beta-carotene, cigarette smoking, and lung cancer in men. Cancer Cause Control (1992) 3:207–14.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
128 Lee PN, Forey B, Fry JS. Revisiting the association between environmental tobacco smoke exposure and lung cancer risk. Indoor Built Environ (2001) 10:384–98.[CrossRef]
129 Sidney S, Caan BJ, Friedman GD. Dietary intake of carotene in nonsmokers with and without passive smoking at home. Am J Epidemiol (1989) 129:1305–9.
130 Mayne ST, Janerich DT, Greenwald P, et al. Dietary beta carotene and lung cancer risk in U.S. nonsmokers. J Natl Cancer Inst (1994) 86:33–38.
131 Lee PN. Lung cancer and passive smoking: association an artefact due to misclassification of smoking habits? Toxicol Lett (1987) 35:157–62.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
132 Lee PN. Passive smoking and lung cancer association: a result of bias? Hum Toxicol (1987) 6:517–24.[Web of Science][Medline]
133 Ogden MW, Morgan WT, Heavner DL, Davis RA, Steichen TJ. National incidence of smoking and misclassification among the U.S. married female population. J Clin Epidemiol (1997) 50:253–63.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
134 Riboli E, Haley NJ, Tredaniel J, Saracci R, Preston-Martin S, Trichopoulos D. Misclassification of smoking status among women in relation to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Eur Respir J (1995) 8:285–90.[Abstract]
135 Repace JL, Lowrey AH. A quantitative estimate of nonsmokers’ lung cancer risk from passive smoking. Environ Int (1985) 11:3–22.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
136 Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA (1992) 267:374–78.
137 Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet (1997) 350:326–29.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
138 Gotzsche PC. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. Br Med J (1987) 295:654–56. (Clinical Research ed).[Web of Science][Medline]
139 Tramer MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. Br Med J (1997) 315:635–40.
140 Bero LA, Glantz SA, Rennie D. Publication bias and public health policy on environmental tobacco smoke. JAMA (1994) 272:133–36.
141 Takagi H, Sekino S, Kato T, Matsuno Y, Umemoto T. Revisiting evidence on lung cancer and passive smoking: adjustment for publication bias by means of "trim and fill" algorithm. Lung Cancer (2006) 51:245–46.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
142 Hill A. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med (1965) 58:295–300.[Web of Science][Medline]
143 Drope J, Bialous SA, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts to present ventilation as an alternative to smoke-free environments in North America. Tobacco Control (2004) 13(Suppl 1):i41–47.
144 Hirayama T. Passive smoking and lung cancer. Br Med J (1981) 282:1394.[Medline]
145 Nishino Y, Tsubono Y, Tsuji I, et al. Passive smoking at home and cancer risk: a population-based prospective study in Japanese nonsmoking women. Cancer Cause Control (2001) 12:797–802.[Web of Science][Medline]
146 Liu ZY, He XZ, Chapman RS. Smoking and other risk factors for lung cancer in Xuanwei, China. Int J Epidemiol (1991) 20:26–31.
147 de Waard F, Kemmeren JM, van Ginkel LA, Stolker AA. Urinary cotinine and lung cancer risk in a female cohort. Br J Cancer (1995) 72:784–87.[Web of Science][Medline]
148 Sun Xi-wei, Dai Xu-dong, Lin Chun-Yan, Shi Yu-bo, Ma Yu-Yan, Li Wei. Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer among nonsmoking women in Harbin, China. Lung Cancer (1996) 14:S237.
149 Boffetta P, Ahrens W, Nyberg F, et al. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and risk of adenocarcinoma of the lung. Int J Cancer (1999) 83:635–39.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
150 Kreuzer M, Heinrich J, Kreienbrock L, Rosario AS, Gerken M, Wichmann HE. Risk factors for lung cancer among nonsmoking women. Int J Cancer (2002) 100:706–13.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
151 Trichopoulos D, Kalandidi A, Sparros L, MacMahon B. Lung cancer and passive smoking. Int J Cancer (1981) 27:1–4.[Web of Science][Medline]
152 Chan W, Fung S. Lung cancer in non-smokers in Hong Kong. In: Cancer Campaign, Vol 6: Cancer Epidemiology—Grundmann E, ed. (1982) Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
153 Brownson RC, Reif JS, Keefe TJ, Ferguson SW, Pritzl JA. Risk factors for adenocarcinoma of the lung. Am J Epidemiol (1987) 125:25–34.
154 Sobue T, Suzuki T, Nakayama N, et al. Association of indoor air pollution and passive smoking with lung cancer in Osaka, Japan. Int J Epidemiol (1990) 19:329–33.
155 Wang SY, Hu YL, Wu YL, et al. A comparative study of the risk factors for lung cancer in Guangdong, China. Lung Cancer (1996) 14:S99–105.[Web of Science][Medline]
156 Zaridze D, Maximovitch D, Zemlyanaya G, Aitakov ZN, Boffetta P. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and risk of lung cancer in non-smoking women from Moscow, Russia. Int J Cancer (1998) 75:335–38.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
157 Seow A, Poh W-T, Teh M, et al. Diet, reproductive factors and lung cancer risk among Chinese women in Singapore: evidence for a protective effect of soy in nonsmokers. Int J Cancer (2002) 97:365–71.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
158 Zatloukal P, Kubik A, Pauk N, Tomasek L, Petruzelka L. Adenocarcinoma of the lung among women: risk associated with smoking, prior lung disease, diet and menstrual and pregnancy history. Lung Cancer (2003) 41:283–93.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
159 Wells AJ. An estimate of adult mortality in the United States from passive smoking. Environ Int (1988) 14:249–65.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
160 Speizer FE, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Rosner B, Hennekens C. Prospective study of smoking, antioxidant intake, and lung cancer in middle-aged women (USA). Cancer Causes & Control (1999) 10:475–82.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
161 Wen W, Shu XO, Gao Y-T, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke and mortality in Chinese women who have never smoked: prospective cohort study. BMJ (2006) 333:376.
162 McGhee SM, Ho SY, Schooling M, et al. Mortality associated with passive smoking in Hong Kong. BMJ (2005) 330:287–88.
163 Yu I, Chiu Y, Au J, Wong T, Tang J-L. Dose–response relationship between cooking fumes exposures and lung cancer among Chinese nonsmoking women. Cancer Res (2006) 66:4961–67.
164 Gorlova OY, Zhang Y, Schabath MB, et al. Never smokers and lung cancer risk: a case control study of epidemiological factors. International Journal of Cancer (2006) 118:1798–804.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||