Advertisement

Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 859–868 | Cite as

Association of tobacco habits, including bidi smoking, with overall and site-specific cancer incidence: results from the Mumbai cohort study

  • Mangesh S. Pednekar
  • Prakash C. Gupta
  • Balkrishna B. Yeole
  • James R. Hébert
Original paper

Abstract

Objective

Bidis are hand-rolled cigarettes commonly smoked in South Asia and are marketed to Western populations as a safer alternative to conventional cigarettes. This study examined the association between bidis and other forms of tobacco use and cancer incidence in an urban developing country population.

Methods

Using data from the large, well-characterized Mumbai cohort study, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed from Cox proportional hazards regression models in order to compare the relative effect of various forms of tobacco use on cancer incidence.

Results

During 649,228 person-years of follow-up 1,267 incident cancers occurred in 87,222 male cohort members. Incident oral cancer in bidi smokers (HR = 3.55; 95% CI = 2.40,5.24) was 42% higher than in cigarette smokers (HR = 2.50;95% CI = 1.65,3.78). For all respiratory and intrathoracic organs combined, the increase was 69% (HR = 5.54; 95% CI = 3.46,8.87 vs. HR = 3.28; 95% CI = 1.99,5.39); for lung and larynx, the increases were 35 and 112%, respectively. Smokeless tobacco use was associated with cancers of the lip, oral cavity, pharynx, digestive, respiratory, and intrathoracic organs.

Conclusions

Despite marketing claims to the contrary, we found that smokeless tobacco use and bidi smoking are at least as harmful as cigarette smoking for all incident cancers and are associated with increased risk of oral and respiratory/intrathoracic cancers.

Keywords

Public health Disease incidence Cancer Tobacco Cohort study 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the help and input of Cathy Backinger (National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA), Paolo Boffetta (International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France), Thomas Glynn (American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA), Alan Lopez (University of Queensland, Australia), D. M. Parkin (Queen Mary University of London, UK), Richard Peto (Clinical Trial Service Unit of the University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom) and R. Sankaranarayanan (the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France) in the conduct of the study. The authors also are grateful for the cooperation of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) in providing access to information on cause of death. This work was partly supported by funding from: the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France (Collaborative Research Agreement DEP/89/12); the Clinical Trial Service Unit of the University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; the World Health Organization Geneva, Switzerland; and Narotam Sekhsaria Foundation, Mumbai, India. Dr. Hébert was supported by grant 1 U01 CA114601 from the National Cancer Institute, Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities, and a USIA Fulbright Senior Research Fellowship for the 2008–2009 academic year through the US Educational Foundation in India.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References

  1. 1.
    Lopez AD, Mathers CD (2006) Measuring the global burden of disease and epidemiological transitions: 2002–2030. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 100(5–6):481–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray CJL, Lopez AD, Black R, Mathers CD, Shibuya K, Ezzati M, Salomon JA, Michaud CM, Walker N, Vos T (2007) Global burden of disease 2005: call for collaborators. Lancet 370(9582):109–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJL (2006) Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. [see comment]. Lancet 367(9524):1747–1757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McMichael A (1993) Planetary overload: global environmental change and the health of the human species. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McMichael AJ (1993) Global environmental change and human population health: a conceptual and scientific challenge for epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 22(1):1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hiatt RA, Breen N (2008) The social determinants of cancer: a challenge for transdisciplinary science. Am J Prev Med 35(2 Suppl):S141–S150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hall KL, Feng AX, Moser RP, Stokols D, Taylor BK (2008) Moving the science of team science forward: collaboration and creativity. [see comment]. Am J Prev Med 35(2 Suppl):S243–S249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garcia M, Jemal A, Ward E, Center M, Hao Y, Siegel R, Thun M (2007) Global cancer facts and figures 2007. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morgan GD, Backinger CL, Leischow SJ (2007) The future of tobacco-control research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 16:1077–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pednekar MS (2008) The impact of tobacco use and/or body composition on adult mortality in urban developing country population. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1340, Tampere University Press, Tampere 2008. Available at url:http://www.acta.uta.fi/pdf/978-951-44-7431-6.pdf
  11. 11.
    Gupta PC, Ray CS (2003) Smokeless tobacco and health in India and South Asia. Respirology 8:419–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jayant K, Deo MG (1986) Oral cancer and cultural practices in relation to betel quid and tobacco chewing and smoking. Cancer Detect Prev 9(3–4):207–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tobacco exports up by 7.4% in April. Times of India, (PTI), May 31, 2010, 04.33 pm IST accessed on June 2010 available at url: http://www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Tobacco-exports-up-by-74-in-April/articleshow/5994747.cms
  14. 14.
    India’s tobacco exports up 29% in FY2010 personal finance magazine—Moneylife. April 28, 2010 access on June 2010 available at url: http://www.moneylife.in/article/8/5082.html
  15. 15.
    India, The tax treatment of bidis. International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, January 2008. Accessed on May 2010 available at url:http://www.tobaccofreeunion.org/files/44.pdf
  16. 16.
    Malson JL, Pickworth WB (2002) Bidis–hand-rolled, Indian cigarettes: effects on physiological, biochemical and subjective measures. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 72(1–2):443–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malson JL, Sims K, Murty R, Pickworth WB (2001) Comparison of the nicotine content of tobacco used in bidis and conventional cigarettes. Tobacco Control 10(2):181–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gupta PC, Asma S (2008) Bidi smoking and public health, 2008, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rahman M, Sakamoto J, Fukui T (2003) Bidi smoking and oral cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 106(4):600–604Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yen KL, Hechavarria E, Bostwick SB (2000) Bidi cigarettes: an emerging threat to adolescent health. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 154(12):1187–1189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mahimkar MB, Bhisey RA (1995) Occupational exposure to bidi tobacco increases chromosomal aberrations in tobacco processors. Mutat Res 334(2):139–144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Malson JL, Lee EM, Moolchan ET, Pickworth WB (2002) Nicotine delivery from smoking bidis and an additive-free cigarette. Nicotine Tobacco Res 4(4):485–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Celebucki C, Turner-Bowker DM, Connolly G, Koh HK (1999) Bidi use among urban youth—Massachusetts. MMWR 48(36):796–799Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fisher L (2000) Bidis-the latest trend in US teen tobacco use. Cancer Causes Control 11:577–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Delnevo CD, Pevzner ES, Hrywna M, Lewis MJ (2004) Bidi cigarette use among young adults in 15 states. Prev Med 39(1):207–211Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deckers SK, Farley J, Heath J (2006) Tobacco and its trendy alternatives: implications for pediatric nurses. Critical Care Nurs Clin N Am 18:95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ribisl KM, Kim AE, Williams RS (2001) Web sites selling cigarettes: how many are there in the USA and what are their sales practices? Tobacco Control 10:352–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tanski SE, Prokhorov AV, Klein JD (2004) Youth and tobacco. Minerva Pediatrica 56:553–565PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gupta PC (1996) Survey of sociodemographic characteristics of tobacco use among 99, 598 individuals in Bombay, India using handheld computers. Tob Control 5(2):114–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gupta PC, Pednekar MS, Parkin DM, Sankarnarayanan R (2005) Tobacco associated mortality in Mumbai (Bombay) India: results of the Bombay cohort study. Int J Epidemiol 34(6):1395–1402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pednekar MS, Gupta PC (2007) Prospective study of smoking and tuberculosis in India. Prev Med 44(6):496–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yeole BB (2001) An assessment of improvement in reliability and completeness of Mumbai cancer registry data from 1965–1997. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Bangkok 2:225–232Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gupta PC, Hamner JE, Murti PR, eds (1992) Proceedings of an international symposium on control of tobacco-related cancers and other diseases: proceedings of an international symposium in Bombay, India, 15–19 Jan 1990. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 25–46Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pednekar MS, Gupta PC, Shukla HC, Hebert JR (2006) Association between tobacco use and body mass index in urban Indian population: implications for public health in India. BMC Public Health 6:70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thrasher JF, Johnson TP (2008) IARC handbooks of cancer prevention: tobacco control. Volume 12. Methods for evaluating tobacco control policies: developing and assessing comparable questions in cross-cultural survey research on tobacco. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chu KC, Miller BA, Springfield SA (2007) Measures of racial/ethnic health disparities in cancer mortality rates and the influence of socioeconomic status. J National Med Assoc 99(10):1092–1104Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Day TA, Chi A, Neville B, Hebert JR (2005) Prevention of head and neck cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 7(2):145–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ward E, Jemal A, Cokkinides V, Singh GK, Cardinez C, Ghafoor A, Thun M (2004) Cancer disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Ca Cancer J Clin 54(2):78–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    World Health Organization. India (1997) In: Tobacco or Health: a global status report. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    International Labor Organization (2003) Appendix: special cases: bidi and kretek. In: Employment trends in the tobacco sector: challenges and prospects. Report for discussion at the tripartite meeting on the future of employment in the Tobacco Sector. Geneva [cited 2004 Jun 5]; pp 85–93. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/public/englishdialogue/sectortechmeet/tmets03/tmets-r.pdf
  42. 42.
    Reddy KS, Gupta PC (2004) Report on tobacco control in India. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ray CS, Gupta PC, de Beyer J (2003) Research on tobacco in India (including betel quid and areca nut). Health, Nutrition and Population (HNP) discussion paper. Economics of tobacco control Paper no. 9. World Bank, pp 33–167Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (1986) IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans—tobacco smoking. Vol 38. IARC, LyonGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (2002) IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans—tobacco smoking and tobacco smoke. Vol 83. IARC, Lyon. Available from: http://www.monographs.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographsvol83/01-smoking.html
  46. 46.
    World Health Organization (2002) Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. In: The world health report, 2002. Geneva, p 225Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    US FDA, in first tobacco action, bans flavors access on May 13, 2010 available at url:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2236998020090922
  48. 48.
    Canada bans fruit-flavored cigarettes accessed on May 13, 2010 available at url:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5975GD20091008?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r1:c1.000000:b30639980:z0

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mangesh S. Pednekar
    • 1
  • Prakash C. Gupta
    • 1
    • 2
  • Balkrishna B. Yeole
    • 3
  • James R. Hébert
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Healis, Sekhsaria Institute for Public HealthNavi Mumbai, MaharashtraIndia
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public HealthUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Indian Cancer Society, Bombay Population-Based Cancer RegistryMumbai, MaharashtraIndia
  4. 4.South Carolina Statewide Cancer Prevention and Control ProgramUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations