Skip to main content

Table 5 Oesophageal cancer; individual effect (relative risk/odds ratio) estimates

From: Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America

 

ST use

  

RR/OR

Sourcea

Typeb

Exposurec

Smoking

Sexd

Id.

Casese

Estimate (95%CI)d

Adjustment factorsf

Cohort studies

        

Lutheran Brotherhood: IARC Monograph 37 1985 [14]

ST

Ever

Any

M

1

NA

2.6 (not significant)

age, res

US Veterans: Winn et al. 1982 [19]

ST

Ever

Never

Mg

2

1

2.28 (NA)

age

Norway cohorts: Boffetta et al. 2005 [26]

Snuff

Current

Any

M

3

4

1.06 (0.35–3.23)

age, smok

  

Former

 

M

4

5

1.90 (0.69–5.27)

 
  

Ever

 

M

5

9

1.40 (0.61–3.24)

 

Swedish construction workers: Zendehdel et al. 2008 [34]

Snuff

Ever

Any

M

6

77

1.00 (0.79–1.27)h

age, bmi, smok

   

Never

 

7

11

1.92 (1.00–3.68)i

age, bmi

Case-control studies

        

Wynder et al. 1957 [40]

Chew

Ever

Any

M

8

NA

no associationj

none

Wynder and Bross 1961 [44]

Chew

Ever

Any

M

9

21

2.39 (1.23–4.64)k

none

Martinez et al. 1969 [49]

Chew

Use

Never

M

10

3

1.18 (0.28–4.90)k

none

    

F

11

7

2.69 (0.92–7.87)k

 

Bjelke et al. 1974 USA [52]

Chew

Use

NA

NA

12

NA

associationl

NA

Williams and Horm 1977 [55]

ST

Ever

Any

M

13

2

0.55 (0.13–2.31)

none

Wynder and Stellman 1977 [56]

Chew

Ever

Any

M

14

20

1.23 (0.76–1.99)k

none

 

Snuff

   

15

8

1.65 (0.78–3.49)k

 
 

ST

   

16

28

1.35 (0.89–2.06)m

 

Pottern et al. 1981 [60]

Chew

Ever

Any

M

17

4

no associationn

none

 

Snuff

   

18

2

no associationn

 

Morris Brown et al. 1988 [76]

ST

Ever

Never

M

19

1

1.20 (0.10–13.30)

alc, incm

Lewin et al. 1998 [102]

Snuff

Current

Any

M

20

10

1.10 (0.50–2.40)

age, alc, res, smok

  

Former

  

21

9

1.30 (0.60–3.10)

 
  

Ever

  

22

19

1.20 (0.70–2.20)

 

Lagergren et al. 2000 [108]

Snuff

Ever

Any

M+F

23

68

1.31 (0.89–1.92)k

age, alc, bmi, diet, edu, exer, rflx, sex, smok

  1. a Fuller details of the studies are given in Tables 1 and 2.
  2. b ST implies smokeless tobacco unspecified, or combined snuff use or chewing.
  3. c Ever, former and current ST use were compared with never ST. Use indicates timing not given and comparison is with non-use.
  4. d NA = not available.
  5. e 'Id.' is the RR/OR identification number used in Table 6, and 'Cases' is the number of cases in ST users as defined. NA = not available.
  6. f Abbreviations used: alc = alcohol, bmi = body mass index, edu = education, exer = exercise, incm = incidence or mortality, res = area of residence, rflx = reflux symptoms, smok = smoking, NA = not available.
  7. g The population included < 0.5% females.
  8. h RRs for adenocarcinoma (1.0, 95% CI 0.6–1.5) and squamous cell carcinoma (1.0, 0.8–1.4) combined.
  9. i RRs for adenocarcinoma (0.2, 95% CI 0.0–1.9) and squamous cell carcinoma (3.5, 1.6–7.6) combined.
  10. j The average ridit duration of chewing was non-significantly lower in the oesophageal cancer cases.
  11. k RR/OR and/or 95% CI estimated from data provided in the source.
  12. l The abstract noted a "synergistic effect of tobacco chewing and alcohol".
  13. m RR/OR and/or 95% CI estimated from data provided in the source assuming that no one both chewed and used snuff.
  14. n The authors noted the percentage of ever users was "slightly higher" in the controls than in the cases for chewing but not for snuff.
  15. CI = confidence interval; ST = smokeless tobacco; OR = odds ratio; RR = relative risk.