PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C Vutuc

Publications and source records attributed to C Vutuc.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed1983

Tar yields of cigarettes and male lung cancer risk.

Of 252 male lung cancer patients, 248 or 98% were cigarette smokers, significantly (P less than .001) more than in the control group (526 = 64% of 839). In relation to the relative risks (RR) of never-smokers, the adjusted (for age, total years smoked, and average number of cigarettes smoked per day) lung cancer RR for smokers who had exclusively smoked cigarettes belonging to group II (15-24 mg tar/cigarette) was 10.4 (P less than .001); for smokers who had exclusively smoked cigarettes belonging to group III (greater than 24 mg tar/cigarette), it was 25.1 (P less than .001). The respective RR of smokers who had mainly smoked cigarettes belonging to group I (less than 15 mg tar/cigarette), group II, or group III were 10.9 (P less than .001), 20.6 (P less than .001), and 36.7 (P less than .001). After the differences in daily consumption were taken into account, the adjusted (for age and total years smoked) lung cancer RR for smokers who had consumed mainly cigarettes belonging to the various groups were the following: group II (11-20 cigarettes/day) compared to group III (11-20 cigarettes/day), RR = 0.6 (P less than .05); group II (greater than 20 cigarettes/day) compared to group III (greater than 20 cigarettes/day), RR = 0.8; group II (greater than 20 cigarettes/day) compared to group III (11-20 cigarettes/day), RR = 1.3 (P less than .001); group II (greater than 20 cigarettes/day) compared to group III (less than 10 cigarettes/day), RR = 7.8 (P less than .001); and group II (11-20 cigarettes/day) compared to group III (less than 10 cigarettes/day), RR = 2.5 (P less than .001).

Adolescent↗
PubMed1983

[Lung cancer risk and passive smoking: quantitative aspects].

The exposure of passive smokers is estimated equivalent to 1/10-1 cig./day actively smoked. According to the relationship of dose and time (ref. 4) lung cancer incidence figures are calculated for ages 40, 50, 60, 70 and 79 years of age and further relative risks in relation to non smokers. Risks of smokers with a daily consumption of 1/10-1 cig. are in the range of R = 1.03-1.36. Analogously applied to passive smokers this range of exposure can be neglected because it has no major effect on lung cancer incidence. The results of three studies about passive smoking and lung cancer (ref. 5, 7, 18) are compared with the calculated risks and differences discussed.

Adult↗
PubMed1983

[Risk of lung cancer in workers belonging to the occupational group of mining and stone processing].

Out of 1580 male lung cancer patients and 3160 controls (data collected in a nationwide study) 177 patients and 197 controls belonged to the occupation "mining and processing of stone" (asbestos, metals and coal excluded). 164 (92.6%) patients had a Kreyberg I tumor, 13 patients a Kreyberg II tumor. There are significant more smokers among patients (98.9%a), all patients with a K I tumor were smokers, compared to the controls (82.2%). Patients had a significant longer smoking career (40.9 yearsa) and a higher tar exposure (TE = 2544)b compared to the controls (36.2 years, TE = 2223). Lung cancer risk (adj. for age, years of occupation, TE) of smokers belonging to occupation "stone" compared to smokers belonging to group "white collar" (no occupational exposure in their anamnesis) was R = 2.0a. Significantly higher risks (adj. for age, TE) were in relation to years of occupation: less than 10 years: R = 2.2a, 11-20 years: R = 2.7a, 21-30 years: R = 2.6a. a P less than 1%; b P less than 5%.

Aged↗
PubMed1982

[Exposure to tobacco tars and risk of lung cancer in smokers].

A formula to quantify the tar exposure of smokers is described, it uses informations of the life long smoking habits of the individual and offers some aspects to the prevention and early detection of lung cancer. The average tar exposure of male tumor patients is significantly higher than the tar exposure of controls. There is a significant difference between Kreyberg I tumors and controls but not between Kreyberg II tumors and controls. The average tar exposure of a female tumor patient is significantly higher than the average tar exposure of female controls, but significantly lower than the average tar exposure of a male patient. Tar exposure is of course related to lung cancer risk in a dose response relationship. To contribute to the question of thresholds of lung cancer risk one identifies tar exposures which might be helpful in the further discussion. The application of the formula for tar exposure could lead to a more precise definition of people at extreme risk. These should be screened first, also because of the excess morbidity caused by other tobacco-related diseases.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1982

[Lung cancer and cigarette smoking in women. (Results of a case control study)].

Smoking habits of 297 female lung cancer patients (Kreyberg I: 202, Kreyberg II: 95) and 580 controls were analyzed. In addition tar exposures (TE) were calculated. Calculation of TE includes amount of consumptions, duration and the tar yields of all cigarette brands ever smoked. These are significant more smokers among patients (63%) and patients with a K I tumor (80%) compared to the controls (21%); K II: 29%. All patients and patients with a K I tumor had a significant longer smoking career (39.3 years; 39.6 years) and a higher tar exposure (TE = 1767; TE - 1810) compared to the controls (31.9 years, TE = 1146). K II: 37.4 years, TE = 1508. Lung cancer risks (adj. for TE) and population attributable risks (PAR) were: all age groups R = 7.3*, PAR = 54%; less than 40 years R = 1.1, PAR = 3%; 41-50 years R = 4.2*, PAR = 42% ; 51-60 years R = 7.6*, PAR = 62%; 61-70 years R = 7.8*, PAR = 54%; greater than 71 years R = 8.0*, PAR = 55%. Lung cancer risks (adj. for age) in relation to tar exposure and attributable risks (AR) were: TE less than 500: all cases R = 1.5, AT = 34% (KIR = 2.9, K II R = 0.8); TE 501-1000: all cases R = 4.2*, AR = 76% (KIR = 9.9*, K II R - 1.1): TE 1001-2000: all cases R = 12.1*, AR = 92% (KIR = 27.2*, K II R = 2.6**); TE 2001-3000: all cases R = 11.1*, AR = 91% (KIR = 25.2*, K II R = 2.0); TE greater than 3001: all cases R = 13.0*, AR = 92% (KIR = 29.3*, K II R = 3.3). These is a significant increase of risk of cigarette smokers beyond a TE of 501, which could be identified as a sort of critical exposure. There is a pronounced dose response relationship between cigarette smoking in relation to TE and lung cancer risk as concerning K I tumors but not KII tumors. Lung cancer risks in relation to age began smoking: less than 19 years R = 7.8*; 19 years and above R = 6.5*. *P less than 1%, **P less than 5%.

Adult↗
PubMed1981

[Tobacco condensate exposure and occupational history in female lung cancer patients].

In a retrospective case-control study on female lung cancer 130 (65%) of 200 cases suffered from a tumor group Kreyberg I and 70 (35%) from a Kreyberg II tumor. Significantly more Kreyberg I cases (75%) than controls (22%) were smokers as well as significantly more Kreyberg I than Kreyberg II cases (29%). There was no difference in the proportion of ex-smokers, but the duration of nonsmoking was significantly shorter in Kreyberg I cases (4 years) than in controls (12 years) and in Kreyberg II cases (9 years). Patients with Kreyberg I (88%) and Kreyberg II (90%) tumors preferred significantly more often high-tar group III (greater than 24 mg/cigarette) cigarettes than controls (63%). Patients with a Kreyberg I tumor differ significantly from controls by longer smoking careers (40 years) and higher daily consumption of group III (18/day) and group I (18/day) cigarettes. Patients with a Kreyberg II tumor had a significant higher consumption (20/day) of group I cigarettes than controls. Female lung cancer patients (74%) more often than controls (64%) reported occupations other than housewives. There were no other significant differences in the occupational patterns between patients and controls.

Female↗
PubMed1980

[Social class and bronchial cancer. Quantitative and qualitative aspects of cigarette smoking].

The social class distribution of 400 male lung cancer patients differs significantly from the distribution in 280 controls (more lower-class people among lung cancer patients). Lung cancer patients showed a similar distribution of smokers in all social classes, who had the same tar exposure. Controls showed a similar distribution of smokers in all social classes but a significant difference between the tar exposure of smokers in different social classes. Tar exposure of smokers increases with the decrease of social class, comprising a higher lung cancer risk in the lower social classes, which equals the class distribution of lung cancer patients found in the study.

Humans↗