Use of 'light' cigarettes linked to rise in lung adenocarcinoma

May 22 (UPI) -- Study shows so-called "light" cigarettes do not benefit health and may contribute to the increased risk of lung adenocarcinoma, a form of lung cancer.

Researchers at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute, or OSUCCC-James, in collaboration with five other universities, found that a certain type of lung cancer known as lung adenocarcinoma has been on the rise over the last 50 years while other types of lung cancer have been declining.

Lung adenocarcinoma is a form of non-small cell lung cancer and the most common form of lung cancer.

The study found that the increase in lung adenocarcinoma may be attributed to the use of low tar or light cigarettes marketed by the tobacco industry as a "healthier" option to regular cigarettes.

Light or low tar cigarettes have holes in the cigarette filter, which allow smokers to inhale more smoke with higher levels of carcinogens, mutagens and other toxins, and have been on the market for 50 years.

"This was done to fool smokers and the public health community into thinking that they actually were safer," Dr. Peter Shields, deputy director of the OSUCCC-James and a lung medical oncologist, said in a press release. "Our data suggests a clear relationship between the addition of ventilation holes in cigarettes and increasing rates of lung adenocarcinoma seen over the past 20 years. What is especially concerning is that these holes are still added to virtually all cigarettes that are smoked today."

Researchers analyzed existing literature, chemistry and toxicology studies, human clinical trials and epidemiological studies of smoking behavior and cancer risk and determined that the higher incidence rates of lung adenocarcinoma were linked to filter ventilation holes in cigarettes.

"The filter ventilation holes change how the tobacco is burned, producing more carcinogens, which then also allows the smoke to reach the deeper parts of the lung where adenocarcinomas more frequently occur," Shields said.

Researchers are urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to take immediate action to regulate the use of the ventilation holes including banning the holes, which would be a step further than current regulations banning the labeling and marketing of cigarettes as low tar or light.

The study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

KJ_Jeller on May 22nd, 2017 at 21:57 UTC »

This may be an incredibly stupid question, but why do they have to put all the garbage in cigarettes? Like I get that nicotine keeps people buying the cigarettes, and maybe some of the ingredients create a certain taste, but surely there's a lot of unnecessary stuff in there too right?

doublepulse on May 22nd, 2017 at 18:48 UTC »

There is a huge reason that no cigarette company is allowed to market them as "light" any longer- even the cashiers at a gas station will correct you. Brands use color coding to denote filtration/flavor (e.g. red, silver, gold, black.)

A few things this study may not have accounted for: cost and FSC regulations affecting smokers' behaviors. Is a person who is spending anywhere from $5.50 to $13 per pack going to "waste" any of that cigarette? People don't snub them out halfway through like they used to- they're going to inhale more and hold each drag longer to satisfy a buzz rather than throw it away. "Fire safe cigarettes" do not stay lit as easily as previous versions of cigarettes and must constantly be puffed on. The state of New York mandated cigarettes must be FSC in 2000 and it became a nationwide practice by 2011. Again, that is a behavior that can't quite be measured but I can speculate there may be a few other factors other than just the filter alone.

edit: For replies about you buying cigarettes and asking for "lights" instead of whatever brand's color coding: it is a federal regulation against marketing cigarettes as "light" or use of terms such as "low tar." Whether or not a clerk selling you a pack and verbally using "light" during a transaction constitutes what the FDA would consider marketing is beyond me.

mvea on May 22nd, 2017 at 14:37 UTC »

Journal reference:

Cigarette Filter Ventilation and its Relationship to Increasing Rates of Lung Adenocarcinoma

Min-Ae Song Neal L. Benowitz Micah Berman Theodore M. Brasky K. Michael Cummings Dorothy K. Hatsukami Catalin Marian Richard O’Connor Vaughan W. Rees Casper Woroszylo ... Show more

Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2017) 109 (12): djx075.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx075

Published: 22 May 2017

Link: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/109/12/djx075/3836090/Cigarette-Filter-Ventilation-and-its-Relationship?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Abstract:

The 2014 Surgeon General’s Report on smoking and health concluded that changing cigarette designs have caused an increase in lung adenocarcinomas, implicating cigarette filter ventilation that lowers smoking machine tar yields. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has the authority to regulate cigarette design if doing so would improve public health. To support a potential regulatory action, two weight-of-evidence reviews were applied for causally relating filter ventilation to lung adenocarcinoma. Published scientific literature (3284 citations) and internal tobacco company documents contributed to causation analysis evidence blocks and the identification of research gaps. Filter ventilation was adopted in the mid-1960s and was initially equated with making a cigarette safer. Since then, lung adenocarcinoma rates paradoxically increased relative to other lung cancer subtypes. Filter ventilation 1) alters tobacco combustion, increasing smoke toxicants; 2) allows for elasticity of use so that smokers inhale more smoke to maintain their nicotine intake; and 3) causes a false perception of lower health risk from “lighter” smoke. Seemingly not supportive of a causal relationship is that human exposure biomarker studies indicate no reduction in exposure, but these do not measure exposure in the lung or utilize known biomarkers of harm. Altered puffing and inhalation may make smoke available to lung cells prone to adenocarcinomas. The analysis strongly suggests that filter ventilation has contributed to the rise in lung adenocarcinomas among smokers. Thus, the FDA should consider regulating its use, up to and including a ban. Herein, we propose a research agenda to support such an effort.