Jump to:

Philip Morris

Effect of Filter Cigarettes on the Risk of Lung Cancer

Date: 19670911/P
Length: 3 pages
1005110910-1005110912
Jump To Images
snapshot_pm 1005110910-1005110912

Fields

Author
Bross, D.J.
Area
LEGAL DEPT/CARLSTADT QRSA
Type
PSCI, SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION
CHAR, CHART/GRAPH
Site
N28
Request
Stmn/R1-004
Stmn/R1-039
Stmn/R1-040
Stmn/R1-041
Stmn/R1-042
Stmn/R1-045
Stmn/R1-046
Stmn/R1-053
Stmn/R1-061
Stmn/R1-068
Stmn/R1-071
Stmn/R1-073
Stmn/R1-075
Stmn/R1-080
Stmn/R1-087
Stmn/R1-088
Stmn/R1-092
Stmn/R1-093
Stmn/R1-104
Stmn/R1-106
Stmn/R1-107
Stmn/R1-133
Stmn/R1-135
Stmn/R3-011
Stmn/R4-002
Stmn/R4-003
Named Organization
Hri, Health Research Inst,Roswell Park
NCI, Natl Cancer Inst
Named Person
Bross, D.J.
Cochran
Document File
1005110840/1005111206/the Safer Cigarette
Litigation
Stmn/Produced
Author (Organization)
Hri, Health Research Inst,Roswell Park
Master ID
1005110847/1206

Related Documents:
Characteristic
EXTR, EXTRA
MARG, MARGINALIA
MISS, MISSING PAGES
Date Loaded
24 May 1999
UCSF Legacy ID
jkh91a00

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: jkh91a00
TOWARD A LESS H;ARMFJL CIGARETTE A Workshon He1d' at the World' Y National Cancer Institute Monograph 28.. 1968. Confernce on Smoking and Health, September 11-13, 1967. ~. , r . Effect of Filter Cigarettes on the Risk of Lung Cancer Ixwix D. J. BROSS, Ph.D., Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, .Ve'w York 14203 SO1SE epidemiological data are presented: on the question : Does switchin(r to filter cigarettes reduce the risk of lung cancer . On the basis of these data, the answer is : The risk seems to be reduced to about 60% of what it would have been if the smoker had not switched. Un- fortunately, however, even with this reduction the ri'sk is sti114 times that of a nonsmoker, and further steps toward a less harmful ciaarette are needed. The data here are oia ~ 74~hite maie put:ci>.ts .:ith cancer --;ho .. _re seen at Roswell Park Memorial Institute between 1960 and 1966. These patients have been matched case-for-case on age and entry date with white male patients who had no diagnosis of neoplastic disease and' -who were seen at the same institution in the same time period. Table 1 gives the basic data. It also defines the deb ee of exposure categories used in teat- figure 1. However the discussion will' focus on text-figure 1 since this one 12 10 9 .8 7 REL ATIVE RISK OF 6 LUNG CANCER 5 4 ( LOG' SCALE ) 0 In] 5.6 3.0 t _OW 12.0 NO ~ SPECIFIC. jjj BRANO r~REGULAR CIGARETTES ~,y' FILTER fq CiGARETTE3 • REGULARCIGARETTES Y NO SPECIFIC BRAN9 OF REGULAR CIGARETTES • FILTER CIGARET 7ES [] MINIMUM.NUM.BER LESS THAN 200 t + MEOIUM K1GH. DEGREE OF EXPOSURE TO CIGARETTE SMOKE ~ O O ZEzT-FIGtiaE 1'.-nelatiPe risk of lung cancer by type of Cigarttte and clesree of ea- 0 posure : Itisks relative to those of nonsmokers. Lines show tilter risks are 60% of the regular risks. 35 ' ^ r'- Q' ` 2se-019-68 --~
Page 2: jkh91a00
~...r.l .....~ ......~ ~.~ .....J Ir.+r~ ~ 1005110911
Page 3: jkh91a00
I I I 38 BROSS filter series. A second procedure (which avoids the assumption that the same reduction occurs in alli de(,rees of exposure) is called "Cochran's test." This test tells us that there is less than one chance in a hundred that this result could be due to sampling,variation (P=0.004). 7) Text-figure 1 shows one further point that should not be overlooked. The filters seem to provide some protection, but thas protection is atill in- adequate. Even with a switch to filters, a person with a high de ;ree of exposure to cigarette smoke has over 5 times the risk of lung cancer for a nonsmoker. Filtration is a step in the right direction, but further steps are needed. Existing filter technology enables us to take such steps im- mediately. 8) There is another, more subtle, point of importance to public health action that this test-fia re makes. With about 1,000 lung cancer patients it was possible to see clearly differentials in risk for the filter cigarettes. It took us 6 years to amass this series. But there are over 50,000 lung cancer deaths each year. If a nationwide, retrospective surveillance sys- tem were set up which was patterned after this study, it could easily get 5,000 cases in a single year. Such a system could monitor any steps toward safer cigarettes thatt might be taken. Definite answers to questions about reduct~ion in human hazardsshoul'd be obtainable in 3-5 years. The above findings show that current filt'er_ cinarettes are not the an- s~rer to tlse problem of lunn cancer, and to this extent they are discourag= ing. On the whole, however, they encoura ge the search for a less harmful clgarettp. These flndin{TC D_rnvnr7n the first human e\'ldencP tbR* reCl.°.S]gn of the product can reduce health azards. They indicate that, if full ad- vantage were taken of existing filter and'~ other cij?rette technology, a greater protection could be provided' immediately. In the competitive situation in~the cigarette market, however, government standards for filter cigarettes are probably a prerequisite to progress in this direction. Finally, the findings suggest the feasibility of monitoring progress toward a less harmful cigarette. A surveillance system would permit a direct test of the various speculative theories of carcinogenesis and of the different animal model systems and would' speed development of less harmful cig- arettes :n other ways. The present findings siiould' be viewed with some caution since they 5tilli require confirmation by other investigators, but they reirresent an enc:;uraging result in an area where such results- are infreqient. APPENDIX Due to the unexPected findings of, this study, Dr. Bross answered specific questions about the validity and interpretation of his data. . . . Question: Isn't it true that some filters are not effective? Why didn't you separate the effective and noneffective fiiters?' Answer: Recent studies have shown a wide ran~re of effectiveness for filters. We have looked into the individuali filter brands. The problem is that this cross-tabulation NATIONAL CANCER INSTIT= MONOGRAPH NO. 28 fracttoi some s- to try i thermoi and, th, resulta Quesr noneffec Answt regula r analysis not incrc state the to an ove Questi had smoh Answet in this se the inter FiIter cig peopie ha cigaret'tea Questio Answer a filter ci, brand if I to those n objection t Who smok Policy of no Question of filters to Answer: Question effect. Tou' short time: reducing ta a reduction Answer: in most cas< reduction in Question: to 8 nd a red r Answer: }- Question: to find thece Answer: Z h„A utilization s; Q policy is to r C with precone Question: ~ due to an arti. ~ Answer: T Q into account ~ disappear. W ~TOWARDAI

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: