Interaction between tobacco and alcohol use and the risk of head and neck cancer: pooled analysis in the INHANCE consortium

By M. Hashibe, P. Brennan, Shu-Chun Chuang, S. Boccia, X. Castellsagué, Chu Chen, M. Curado, L. Maso, A. Daudt, E. Fabiánová and 33 more. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 2009

1,100 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Background The magnitude of risk conferred by the interaction between tobacco and alcohol use on the risk of head and neck cancers is not clear, since studies have used various methods to quantify the excess head and neck cancer burden. Methods We analyzed individual-level pooled data from 17 European and American case-control studies (11,221 cases and 16,168 controls) participating in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology (INHANCE) consortium. We estimated the multiplicative interaction parameter (ψ) and population attributable risks (PAR). Results A greater than multiplicative joint effect between ever tobacco and alcohol use was observed for head and neck cancer risk (ψ=2.15, 95%CI=1.53–3.04). The PAR for tobacco or alcohol was 72% (95%CI=61%–79%) for head and neck cancer, of which 4% was due to alcohol alone, 33% was due tobacco alone and 35% was due to tobacco and alcohol combined. The total PAR differed by subsite (64% for oral cavity cancer, 72% for pharyngeal cancer, 89% for laryngeal cancer), by sex (74% for men, 57% for women) by age (33% for cases <45 years, 73% for cases >60 years) and by region (84% in Europe, 51% in North America, 83% in Latin America). Conclusions Our results confirm that the joint effect between tobacco and alcohol use is greater than multiplicative on head and neck cancer risk. However, a substantial proportion of head and neck cancers cannot be attributed to tobacco or alcohol use, particularly for oral cavity cancer, for head and neck cancer among women and among young onset cases.

Subfields: Otorhinolaryngology, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Physiology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5ec1d32b38ba3e083b219d02c6b53a54a41e1ebd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Pathology and Forensic Medicine

  1. A. Jemal
  2. humAn cArcinogens
  3. Iarc Monographs
  4. peRsonAl hAbIts
  5. R. Siegel

In Physiology

  1. A. Jemal

Citations in the corpus