Calculated Cancer Risks for Conventional and “Potentially Reduced Exposure Product” Cigarettes
Open Access
- 1 March 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
- Vol. 16 (3), 584-592
- https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-06-0762
Abstract
Toxicant deliveries (by machine smoking) are compiled and associated cancer risks are calculated for 13 carcinogens from 26 brands of conventional cigarettes categorized as “regular” (R), “light” (Lt), or “ultralight” (ULt), and for a reference cigarette. Eight “potentially reduced exposure product” (PREP) cigarettes are also considered. Because agency-to-agency differences exist in the cancer slope factor (CSF) values adopted for some carcinogens, two CSF sets were used in the calculations: set I [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)–accepted values plus California EPA–accepted values as needed to fill data gaps] and set II (vice versa). The potential effects of human smoking patterns on cigarette deliveries are considered. Acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acrylonitrile are associated with the largest calculated cancer risks for all 26 brands of conventional cigarettes. The calculated risks are proportional to the smoking dose z (pack-years). Using CSF set I and z = 1 pack-year (7,300 cigarettes), the calculated brand-average incremental lifetime cancer risk values are R, 6 × 10−5; Lt, 5 × 10−5; and ULt, 3 × 10−5 (cf. typical U.S. EPA risk benchmark of 10−6). These values are similar, especially given the tendency of smokers to “compensate” when smoking Lt and ULt cigarettes. is the brand-average per pack-year subtotal risk for the measured human lung carcinogens. Using CSF set I, the values for R, Lt, and ULt cigarettes account for ≤2% of epidemiologically observed values of the all-smoker population average per pack-year risk of lung cancer from conventional cigarettes. RPREP (%) is a science-based estimate of the possible reduction in lung cancer risk provided by a particular PREP as compared with conventional cigarettes. Using CSF set I, all RPREP values are <2%. The current inability to account for the observed health risks of smoking based on existing data indicates that current expressed/implied marketing promises of reduced harm from PREPs are unverified: there is little reason to be confident that total removal of the currently measured human lung carcinogens would reduce the incidence of lung cancer among smokers by any noticeable amount. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(3):584–92)Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Modeling Lung Cancer Risk in Case-Control Studies Using a New Dose Metric of SmokingCancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2005
- Synthesizing the Lifetime History of SmokingCancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2005
- Smoking Topography, Brand Switching, and Nicotine Delivery: Results from an In vivo StudyCancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2005
- Smoking behaviour and toxin exposure during six weeks use of a potential reduced exposure product: OmniTobacco Control, 2004
- Smoker and ex-smoker reactions to cigarettes claiming reduced riskTobacco Control, 2004
- Quantitative comparisons between a nicotine delivery device (Eclipse) and conventional cigarette smokingNicotine & Tobacco Research, 2004
- Toxicological evaluation of an electrically heated cigarette. Part 2: Chemical composition of mainstream smokeJournal of Applied Toxicology, 2003
- My travels with John SladeTobacco Control, 2002
- Tobacco use and its contribution to early cancer mortality with a special emphasis on cigarette smoking.Environmental Health Perspectives, 1995
- Cigarette smoking and bronchial carcinoma: dose and time relationships among regular smokers and lifelong non-smokers.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1978