Abstract 3633: Cannabis smoking and lung cancer risk: pooled analysis in the International Lung Cancer Consortium.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, with tobacco smoking established as the main risk factor. Cannabis smoke contains similar carcinogens as tobacco smoke including the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; animal studies and human case series and histopathologic studies have suggested its potential carcinogenic effect in lungs. However, epidemiologic evidence is limited and conflicting. The present study aimed to examine the role of cannabis smoking in lung cancer risk using a pooled analysis in the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Methods Cannabis smoking and putative lung cancer risk factor data on 2131 lung cancer cases and 3075 controls were harmonized and pooled from six case-control studies in US, Canada, UK and New Zealand within the ILCCO. To standardize the definition and to distinguish occasional/non-users from habitual users, cumulative consumption of 1 joint-year (1 joint-equivalent per day for 1 year) or more was used to define habitual vs. non-users. The association between cannabis smoking (habitual vs. non-users, joint-equivalent per day, duration, and total joint-years) and the risk of lung cancer was assessed by odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) obtained from unconditional logistic regression in each study, while adjusting for age, sex, sociodemographic factors and tobacco packyears. Pooled risk estimates were calculated using random effect models. To minimize confounding by tobacco smoking, we also conducted analyses restricted to 367 case and 1400 control never tobacco smokers. Results The summary OR from the six studies for habitual vs. non-users was 1.15 (95% CI: 0.73-1.82, p for heterogeneity: 0.05). Compared to non-users, the summary OR was 1.28 (95%CI: 0.62-2.63) for individuals who smoked cannabis for 20 years or more and 1.53 (95%CI: 0.57-4.09) for those with 10 joint-years or more cumulative consumption. A lack of significant association between cannabis smoking and lung cancer was also observed in the never tobacco smokers: compared to non-users, the OR was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.49-2.00) for habitual users and 2.13 (95%CI: 0.67-6.78) for those who used 20 years or more. Conclusion Our pooled results showed no significant association between the intensity, duration, or cumulative consumption of cannabis smoke and the risk of lung cancer overall or in never smokers. Cannabis use is under international control and its legal status varies, so reporting bias is of concern. However, since the reported prevalence in our data is comparable to nation-specific survey results and not differential between cases and controls, it is unlikely to fully explain the lack of significant association. Our results cannot preclude the possibility that cannabis may exhibit an association with lung cancer risk at extremely high dosage. We will also present data after applying restricted cubic splines to explore non-linear relationships. Citation Format: Li Rita Zhang, Zuo-Feng Zhang, Hal Morgenstern, Shen-Chih Chang, Philip Lazarus, M. Dawn Teare, Penella J. Woll, Irene Orlow, Brian Cox, Geoffrey Liu, Rayjean J. Hung. Cannabis smoking and lung cancer risk: pooled analysis in the International Lung Cancer Consortium. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2013 Apr 6-10; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2013;73(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 3633. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2013-3633
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,027 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».