Abstract

Background

To evaluate the dose–response relationship between cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer and to examine the effects of temporal variables.

Methods

We analyzed data from 12 case–control studies within the International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4), including 6507 pancreatic cases and 12 890 controls. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) by pooling study-specific ORs using random-effects models.

Results

Compared with never smokers, the OR was 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0–1.3) for former smokers and 2.2 (95% CI 1.7–2.8) for current cigarette smokers, with a significant increasing trend in risk with increasing number of cigarettes among current smokers (OR = 3.4 for ≥35 cigarettes per day, P for trend <0.0001). Risk increased in relation to duration of cigarette smoking up to 40 years of smoking (OR = 2.4). No trend in risk was observed for age at starting cigarette smoking, whereas risk decreased with increasing time since cigarette cessation, the OR being 0.98 after 20 years.

Conclusions

This uniquely large pooled analysis confirms that current cigarette smoking is associated with a twofold increased risk of pancreatic cancer and that the risk increases with the number of cigarettes smoked and duration of smoking. Risk of pancreatic cancer reaches the level of never smokers ∼20 years after quitting.

introduction

Cigarette smoking is the best established risk factor for pancreatic cancer [1, 2]. A meta-analysis of 82 cohort and case–control studies published between 1950 and 2007 [3] reported a summary relative risk (RR) of pancreatic cancer of 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6–1.9) for current smokers and of 1.2 (95% CI 1.1–1.3) for former smokers. It also showed that the risk persisted for up to 10 years after quitting smoking, although no detailed analysis of the dose– and duration–risk relations was conducted. In the International Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium nested case–control study [4], that included 1481 cases and 1539 controls, the RR was 1.1 (95% CI 0.9–1.3) for former smokers and 1.8 (95% CI 1.4–2.3) for current smokers. Significant trends in risk were observed with increased number of cigarettes smoked and duration of exposure, the RR being 1.75 for 30 or more cigarettes smoked per day and 2.1 for 50 or more years of smoking, whereas the RR for those who had quit smoking for >15 years was similar to that of never smokers.

To further evaluate the dose–response relationship between cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer and the role of various temporal factors, such as age at starting and time since stopping, we analyzed the original data from a series of case–control studies within the International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4) [5, 6]. This uniquely large dataset allowed us to investigate in detail cigarette smoking on pancreatic cancer, with careful adjustment for major potential confounding factors for pancreatic cancer.

methods

studies

The PanC4 identified 12 case–control studies (including the unpublished Louisiana State University study) of pancreatic cancer that collected data on cigarette smoking using structured questionnaires [7–18]. Eight studies [7–14] (including the unpublished Louisiana State University study) were conducted in North America, two in Europe [15, 16], and one in China [17], and one was the International Agency for Research on Cancer-coordinated Surveillance of Environmental Aspects Related to Cancer in Humans (SEARCH) study from Canada, Europe, and Australia [18]. A summary description of the individual studies is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary description of individual studies included in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4) on cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer

Country Study period Cases
 
Controls
 
Study, reference Men : women Age, range (median) Sources Men : women Age, range (median) Sources 
North America        
 Louisiana        
  LSUa 2001–2006 33 : 36 32–86 (68) Cancer registry 78 : 80 33–90 (67) Population-based files 
 Minnesota        
  Mayo Clinic [72000–2007 624 : 513 29–92 (68) Hospital 626 : 665 29–97 (70) Hospital 
 Texas        
  MDACC [82000–2006 539 : 335 28–87 (63) Hospital 495 : 295 31–84 (61) Hospital (visitors) 
 New York        
  MSKCC [92003–2008 264 : 245 32–89 (64) Hospital 142 : 206 27–84 (58) Hospital (visitors) 
 Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey        
  NCI [101986–1989 250 : 243 32–79 (63) Cancer registry 1364 : 782 30–81 (62) Random digit dial (<65 years)/Health Care Financing Administration (≥65 years) 
 California        
  UCSF [11, 121995–1999 287 : 240 32–85 (65) Cancer registry 879 : 818 32–85 (66) Random digit dial (<65 years)/Health Care Financing Administration as supplement for ≥65 years 
 Connecticut        
  Yale [132005–2009 238 : 175 36–84 (68) 30 Connecticut hospitals, cancer registry 404 : 311 35–84 (68) Random digit dial 
 Canada        
  Ontario [142003–2007 302 : 238 20–89 (65) Cancer registry 177 : 136 40–79 (67) Random digit dial 
Europe        
 Italy [151991–2008 174 : 148 34–80 (63) Hospital 348 : 304 34–80 (63) Hospital 
 Milan [161983–1999 229 : 133 17–86 (60) Hospital 1140 : 409 21–84 (56) Hospital 
China        
 Shanghai [171990–1993 264 : 187 30–74 (64) Cancer registry 851 : 701 30–74 (62) Resident registry 
International        
 Canada, Europe, Australia        
  SEARCH [181983–1989 447 : 363 32–86 (65) Hospital, cancer registry 858 : 821 28–87 (65) Resident registry 
Country Study period Cases
 
Controls
 
Study, reference Men : women Age, range (median) Sources Men : women Age, range (median) Sources 
North America        
 Louisiana        
  LSUa 2001–2006 33 : 36 32–86 (68) Cancer registry 78 : 80 33–90 (67) Population-based files 
 Minnesota        
  Mayo Clinic [72000–2007 624 : 513 29–92 (68) Hospital 626 : 665 29–97 (70) Hospital 
 Texas        
  MDACC [82000–2006 539 : 335 28–87 (63) Hospital 495 : 295 31–84 (61) Hospital (visitors) 
 New York        
  MSKCC [92003–2008 264 : 245 32–89 (64) Hospital 142 : 206 27–84 (58) Hospital (visitors) 
 Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey        
  NCI [101986–1989 250 : 243 32–79 (63) Cancer registry 1364 : 782 30–81 (62) Random digit dial (<65 years)/Health Care Financing Administration (≥65 years) 
 California        
  UCSF [11, 121995–1999 287 : 240 32–85 (65) Cancer registry 879 : 818 32–85 (66) Random digit dial (<65 years)/Health Care Financing Administration as supplement for ≥65 years 
 Connecticut        
  Yale [132005–2009 238 : 175 36–84 (68) 30 Connecticut hospitals, cancer registry 404 : 311 35–84 (68) Random digit dial 
 Canada        
  Ontario [142003–2007 302 : 238 20–89 (65) Cancer registry 177 : 136 40–79 (67) Random digit dial 
Europe        
 Italy [151991–2008 174 : 148 34–80 (63) Hospital 348 : 304 34–80 (63) Hospital 
 Milan [161983–1999 229 : 133 17–86 (60) Hospital 1140 : 409 21–84 (56) Hospital 
China        
 Shanghai [171990–1993 264 : 187 30–74 (64) Cancer registry 851 : 701 30–74 (62) Resident registry 
International        
 Canada, Europe, Australia        
  SEARCH [181983–1989 447 : 363 32–86 (65) Hospital, cancer registry 858 : 821 28–87 (65) Resident registry 

aUnpublished data.

LSU, Louisiana State University; MDACC, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center; MSKCC, Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; NCI, National Cancer Institute; SEARCH, Surveillance of Environmental Aspects Related to Cancer in Humans; UCSF, University of California, San Francisco.

The present pooled analysis included a total of 6507 cases of adenocarcinoma of the exocrine pancreas and 12 890 controls. The data included in the pooled analysis may differ slightly from those in published reports of the individual studies due to missing data for relevant variables. In all studies, cases and controls were interviewed in person, with the exception of the Ontario, Canada study that used self-administered questionnaires and included 63 case proxy respondents [14]; the SEARCH study [18], where proxy interviews were conducted for 474 cases and 332 controls; and the Shanghai study [17], where 155 cases and 150 controls were proxy interviewed.

The original datasets were restructured either by the original study investigators or by the central coordinators using a uniform format for data harmonization. In addition to the smoking-related data, for each study, we considered individual data on sociodemographic characteristics, anthropometric measures, alcohol consumption, and history of diabetes and pancreatitis.

exposure variables

All studies in this pooled analysis provided information about cigarette smoking status (never, former, and current smoker), number of cigarettes smoked per day, duration of smoking, age at start smoking, and years since quitting or age at quitting smoking for former smokers. Though questions about cigarette smoking were similar across studies, we conducted a careful and detailed examination of the comparability of smoking-related questions to harmonize the data from the multiple studies included in this pooled analysis.

For the present analyses, ever cigarette smokers were defined as participants who had smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime [7–9, 11, 13, 14, 17] or more than one cigarette per day for at least 1 year [15, 16, 18]. In the National Cancer Institute (NCI), information was only available for regular smokers, i.e. those who smoked at least one cigarette per day for at least 6 months [10]. Former cigarette smokers were defined as those who had quit smoking for at least 1 year before interview in all studies.

statistical analysis

To estimate the association between cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer risk, we used a two-stage modeling approach [19]. In the first stage, we assessed the association between cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer for each study by estimating the odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% CIs using multivariable unconditional logistic regression models [20]. These models included terms for age (<50, 50–54, 55–59, 60–64, 65–69, 70–74, ≥75 years), sex, education (≤8th grade, 9th–11th grade, 12th grade or high school graduates, some college or college graduates, ≥1 year of graduate school), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, other), body mass index (BMI; <20, 20 to <25, 25 to <30, ≥30 kg/m2), history of diabetes (≥1 year before diagnosis/interview), alcohol consumption (never drinkers, 1–6 drinks per day, ≥6 drinks per day), and study center for multicentric studies. In the second stage of the analysis, summary estimates were computed using random-effects models [21], weighting study-specific ORs by the inverse of the sum of their variance and the estimated between-study variance component. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated using the Q test statistic [22]. To test for the significance of linear trends in pancreatic cancer risk across levels of cigarette smoking, we first estimated the trends in each study and then used the Wald test to estimate the P value of the summary variable from the random-effects models [19].

To investigate whether the effect of cigarette smoking was homogeneous within strata of selected covariates, we conducted analyses stratified by sex, age (<65, ≥65 years), alcohol consumption (never drinkers or 1–4 drinks per day, ≥4 drinks per day), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, other races), study area (North America, Europe, other race/ethnicity), source of controls (population based, hospital based), type of respondents (in person, proxy). Significance of the heterogeneity across individual strata was assessed using a χ2 statistic [22].

We also conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the undue influence of a study on the overall summary estimates by excluding one study at a time from the pooled analysis. Moreover, we carried out a cumulative meta-analysis to determine whether the association between cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer risk changed over time.

In addition to the two-stage analysis, we conducted an aggregate analysis where data from all studies were pooled into a single large dataset [19]. The association between cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer risk was determined using multivariable unconditional multiple logistic regression models [20]. Models included terms for study area as well as for the confounding factors from the study-specific models and the study–confounder interactions. The results were not substantially different from those obtained in the two-stage analysis approach and therefore are not reported here.

results

Table 2 shows the distribution of 6507 pancreatic cancer cases and 12 890 controls by sex, age, and other potential confounding factors. Cases and controls have a similar sex distribution; cases were somewhat older than controls, were more frequently non-Hispanic White, had a higher level of education, a higher BMI, and more frequently reported a history of diabetes and pancreatitis.

Table 2.

Distribution of 6507 cases of pancreatic cancer and 12 890 controls according to sex, age, race, and other selected covariates. International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4)

Characteristics Cases, N (%) Controls, N (%) 
Sex   
 Men 3651 (56.1) 7362 (57.1) 
 Women 2856 (43.9) 5528 (42.9) 
Age (years)   
 <50 596 (9.2) 1770 (13.7) 
 50–54 602 (9.2) 1385 (10.7) 
 55–59 905 (13.9) 1816 (14.1) 
 60–64 1091 (16.8) 1983 (15.4) 
 65–69 1148 (17.6) 2146 (16.7) 
 70–75 1084 (16.7) 2041 (15.8) 
 ≥75 1081 (16.6) 1749 (13.6) 
Race/ethnicity   
 Non-Hispanic white 5409 (83.1) 9478 (73.5) 
 Non-Hispanic black 356 (5.5) 1119 (8.7) 
 Hispanic 115 (1.8) 220 (1.7) 
 Others 622 (9.5) 1761 (13.7) 
 Missing 5 (0.1) 312 (2.4) 
Education   
 8th grade or less 1291 (19.8) 3570 (27.7) 
 9th–11th grade 823 (12.7) 1624 (12.6) 
 12th grade or high school graduate 1349 (20.7) 2186 (17.0) 
 Some college or college graduate 1991 (30.6) 3588 (27.8) 
 ≥ 1 year of graduate school 1006 (15.5) 1835 (14.2) 
 Missing 47 (0.7) 87 (0.7) 
Body mass index (kg/m2  
 <20 462 (7.1) 1111 (8.6) 
 20 to <25 2396 (36.8) 5658 (43.9) 
 25 to <30 2363 (36.3) 4473 (34.7) 
 ≥30 1201 (18.5) 1488 (11.5) 
 Missing 85 (1.3) 160 (1.3) 
Alcohol drinking (drinks per day)a   
 0 to <1 3853 (59.2) 7478 (58.0) 
 1 to <4 1432 (22.0) 3563 (27.6) 
 ≥4 697 (10.7) 1492 (11.6) 
 Missing 525 (8.1) 357 (2.8) 
History of diabetes   
 No 5052 (77.6) 11710 (90.8) 
 Yes 1378 (21.2) 1109 (8.6) 
 Missing 77 (1.2) 71 (0.6) 
History of pancreatitisb   
 No 4674 (71.8) 10703 (83.0) 
 Yes 313 (4.8) 112 (0.9) 
 Missing 1520 (23.4) 2075 (16.5) 
Characteristics Cases, N (%) Controls, N (%) 
Sex   
 Men 3651 (56.1) 7362 (57.1) 
 Women 2856 (43.9) 5528 (42.9) 
Age (years)   
 <50 596 (9.2) 1770 (13.7) 
 50–54 602 (9.2) 1385 (10.7) 
 55–59 905 (13.9) 1816 (14.1) 
 60–64 1091 (16.8) 1983 (15.4) 
 65–69 1148 (17.6) 2146 (16.7) 
 70–75 1084 (16.7) 2041 (15.8) 
 ≥75 1081 (16.6) 1749 (13.6) 
Race/ethnicity   
 Non-Hispanic white 5409 (83.1) 9478 (73.5) 
 Non-Hispanic black 356 (5.5) 1119 (8.7) 
 Hispanic 115 (1.8) 220 (1.7) 
 Others 622 (9.5) 1761 (13.7) 
 Missing 5 (0.1) 312 (2.4) 
Education   
 8th grade or less 1291 (19.8) 3570 (27.7) 
 9th–11th grade 823 (12.7) 1624 (12.6) 
 12th grade or high school graduate 1349 (20.7) 2186 (17.0) 
 Some college or college graduate 1991 (30.6) 3588 (27.8) 
 ≥ 1 year of graduate school 1006 (15.5) 1835 (14.2) 
 Missing 47 (0.7) 87 (0.7) 
Body mass index (kg/m2  
 <20 462 (7.1) 1111 (8.6) 
 20 to <25 2396 (36.8) 5658 (43.9) 
 25 to <30 2363 (36.3) 4473 (34.7) 
 ≥30 1201 (18.5) 1488 (11.5) 
 Missing 85 (1.3) 160 (1.3) 
Alcohol drinking (drinks per day)a   
 0 to <1 3853 (59.2) 7478 (58.0) 
 1 to <4 1432 (22.0) 3563 (27.6) 
 ≥4 697 (10.7) 1492 (11.6) 
 Missing 525 (8.1) 357 (2.8) 
History of diabetes   
 No 5052 (77.6) 11710 (90.8) 
 Yes 1378 (21.2) 1109 (8.6) 
 Missing 77 (1.2) 71 (0.6) 
History of pancreatitisb   
 No 4674 (71.8) 10703 (83.0) 
 Yes 313 (4.8) 112 (0.9) 
 Missing 1520 (23.4) 2075 (16.5) 

aNo information was available in the Memorial Sloan—Kettering Cancer Center study.

bNo information was available in the Italian and Mayo Clinic study.

The pooled ORs for pancreatic cancer according to cigarette smoking habits are given in Table 3. Compared with never smokers, the OR was 1.40 (95% CI 1.24–1.55) for ever cigarette smokers, 1.17 (95% CI 1.02–1.34) for former cigarette smokers, and 2.20 (95% CI 1.71–2.83) for current cigarette smokers. A significant trend in risk was observed with increased number of cigarettes smoked (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 2.4–4.9 for ≥35 cigarettes per day, P for trend <0.0001). Among current smokers, the risk increased with increased duration of cigarette smoking for up to 40 years of smoking (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.91–3.09) but did not increase further after 40 years. No trend in risk was observed for age at starting cigarette smoking in current smokers, whereas a significant decreasing trend in risk was found with increased time since quitting cigarette smoking. After ∼20 years, risk estimates were not different from nonsmokers (OR = 0.98). Sensitivity analyses showed that no single study unduly influenced the magnitude or the statistical significance of these summary estimates.

Table 3.

Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for pancreatic cancer according to cigarette smoking habits among 6507 cases and 12 890 controls. International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4)

 Cases, N (%) Controls, N (%) ORa (95% CI) 
Never smoker 2373 (36.5) 5557 (43.1) 1b 
Ever cigarette smoker 3962 (60.9) 6980 (54.2) 1.40 (1.24–1.59) 
 Former cigarette smoker 2327 (35.8) 4214 (32.7) 1.17 (1.02–1.34) 
 Current cigarette smoker 1635 (25.2) 2766 (21.5) 2.20 (1.71–2.83) 
Other than cigarettes smoker 164 (2.5) 336 (2.6) 1.17 (0.80–1.70) 
Missing 8 (0.1) 17 (0.1)  
Intensity (cigarettes per day)c    
 <15 440 (6.8) 1017 (7.9) 1.60 (1.24–2.06) 
 15 to <25 722 (11.1) 1182 (9.2) 2.30 (1.76–3.01) 
 25 to <35 253 (3.9) 294 (2.3) 2.76 (1.92–3.97) 
 ≥35 172 (2.6) 210 (1.6) 3.38 (2.36–4.86) 
 Missing 48 (0.7) 63 (0.5)  
P-value for trend   <0.0001 
Duration (years)c    
 <20 92 (1.4) 301 (2.3) 1.46 (0.89–2.40) 
 20 to <30 219 (3.4) 501 (3.9) 1.85 (1.44–2.37) 
 30 to <40 465 (7.1) 684 (5.3) 2.43 (1.91–3.09) 
 ≥40 837 (12.9) 1227 (9.5) 2.10 (1.58–2.78) 
 Missing 22 (0.3) 53 (0.4)  
P-value for trend   0.067 
Age at start (years)c    
 <16 356 (5.5) 541 (4.2) 1.98 (1.49–2.62) 
 16 to <20 547 (8.4) 867 (6.7) 2.20 (1.69–2.87) 
 20 to <23 296 (4.5) 534 (4.2) 1.96 (1.47–2.61) 
 ≥23 414 (6.4) 785 (6.1) 2.06 (1.48–2.87) 
 Missing 22 (0.3) 39 (0.3)  
P-value for trend   0.439 
Years since quitting    
 1 to <10 640 (9.8) 1032 (8.0) 1.64 (1.36–1.97) 
 10 to <15 301 (4.6) 525 (4.1) 1.42 (1.11–1.82) 
 15 to <20 267 (4.1) 503 (3.9) 1.12 (0.86–1.44) 
 20 to <30 469 (7.2) 963 (7.5) 0.98 (0.77–1.23) 
 ≥30 616 (9.5) 1136 (8.8) 0.98 (0.83–1.16) 
 Missing 34 (0.5) 55 (0.4)  
P-value for trend   <0.0001 
Years since quitting    
Current cigarette smoker 1637 (25.2) 2769 (21.5) 1b 
 1 to <10 640 (9.8) 1032 (8.0) 0.73 (0.56–0.95) 
 10 to <15 301 (4.6) 525 (4.1) 0.62 (0.49–0.80) 
 15 to <20 267 (4.1) 503 (3.9) 0.46 (0.35–0.60) 
 20 to <30 469 (7.2) 963 (7.5) 0.41 (0.30–0.56) 
 ≥30 616 (9.5) 1136 (8.8) 0.42 (0.29–0.60) 
 Missing 34 (0.5) 55 (0.4)  
P value for trend   <0.0001 
 Cases, N (%) Controls, N (%) ORa (95% CI) 
Never smoker 2373 (36.5) 5557 (43.1) 1b 
Ever cigarette smoker 3962 (60.9) 6980 (54.2) 1.40 (1.24–1.59) 
 Former cigarette smoker 2327 (35.8) 4214 (32.7) 1.17 (1.02–1.34) 
 Current cigarette smoker 1635 (25.2) 2766 (21.5) 2.20 (1.71–2.83) 
Other than cigarettes smoker 164 (2.5) 336 (2.6) 1.17 (0.80–1.70) 
Missing 8 (0.1) 17 (0.1)  
Intensity (cigarettes per day)c    
 <15 440 (6.8) 1017 (7.9) 1.60 (1.24–2.06) 
 15 to <25 722 (11.1) 1182 (9.2) 2.30 (1.76–3.01) 
 25 to <35 253 (3.9) 294 (2.3) 2.76 (1.92–3.97) 
 ≥35 172 (2.6) 210 (1.6) 3.38 (2.36–4.86) 
 Missing 48 (0.7) 63 (0.5)  
P-value for trend   <0.0001 
Duration (years)c    
 <20 92 (1.4) 301 (2.3) 1.46 (0.89–2.40) 
 20 to <30 219 (3.4) 501 (3.9) 1.85 (1.44–2.37) 
 30 to <40 465 (7.1) 684 (5.3) 2.43 (1.91–3.09) 
 ≥40 837 (12.9) 1227 (9.5) 2.10 (1.58–2.78) 
 Missing 22 (0.3) 53 (0.4)  
P-value for trend   0.067 
Age at start (years)c    
 <16 356 (5.5) 541 (4.2) 1.98 (1.49–2.62) 
 16 to <20 547 (8.4) 867 (6.7) 2.20 (1.69–2.87) 
 20 to <23 296 (4.5) 534 (4.2) 1.96 (1.47–2.61) 
 ≥23 414 (6.4) 785 (6.1) 2.06 (1.48–2.87) 
 Missing 22 (0.3) 39 (0.3)  
P-value for trend   0.439 
Years since quitting    
 1 to <10 640 (9.8) 1032 (8.0) 1.64 (1.36–1.97) 
 10 to <15 301 (4.6) 525 (4.1) 1.42 (1.11–1.82) 
 15 to <20 267 (4.1) 503 (3.9) 1.12 (0.86–1.44) 
 20 to <30 469 (7.2) 963 (7.5) 0.98 (0.77–1.23) 
 ≥30 616 (9.5) 1136 (8.8) 0.98 (0.83–1.16) 
 Missing 34 (0.5) 55 (0.4)  
P-value for trend   <0.0001 
Years since quitting    
Current cigarette smoker 1637 (25.2) 2769 (21.5) 1b 
 1 to <10 640 (9.8) 1032 (8.0) 0.73 (0.56–0.95) 
 10 to <15 301 (4.6) 525 (4.1) 0.62 (0.49–0.80) 
 15 to <20 267 (4.1) 503 (3.9) 0.46 (0.35–0.60) 
 20 to <30 469 (7.2) 963 (7.5) 0.41 (0.30–0.56) 
 ≥30 616 (9.5) 1136 (8.8) 0.42 (0.29–0.60) 
 Missing 34 (0.5) 55 (0.4)  
P value for trend   <0.0001 

aPooled ORs were computed using random-effects models. Study-specific ORs were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, body mass index, history of diabetes, history of pancreatitis, alcohol drinking, and study center for multicentric studies.

bReference category.

cCurrent smokers only.

The cumulative meta-analysis for pancreatic cancer risk in current cigarette smokers showed a trend of increasing risk according to the year of publication: the OR for current versus never smokers was 1.74 in the initial study published in 1994, 1.75 in the studies published up to 2007, and rose to 2.2 when studies published between 2007 and 2010 were added (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Cumulative meta-analysis of pancreatic cancer risk in current cigarette smokers as compared with never smokers. International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4). OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence intervals. aIncluding the unpublished Louisiana State University study.

Figure 1

Cumulative meta-analysis of pancreatic cancer risk in current cigarette smokers as compared with never smokers. International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4). OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence intervals. aIncluding the unpublished Louisiana State University study.

A forest plot of the study-specific and the pooled ORs for pancreatic cancer risk for ever versus never cigarette smokers is presented in Figure 2. The corresponding forest plots for numbers of cigarettes smoked per day among current smokers are given in Figure 3. The pooled estimate for ever cigarette smokers as compared with never smokers was 1.40, with significant heterogeneity in ORs across studies (P = 0.003). Similarly, for current smokers of <15 (Figure 3A), 15–24 (Figure 3B), and ≥25 (Figure 3C) cigarettes per day, pooled estimates were significantly elevated, although between-study heterogeneity was observed for each level of cigarette smoking.

Figure 2

Study-specific and pooled odds ratios (ORs)a for pancreatic cancer according to ever cigarette smokers as compared with never smokers. International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4). aStudy-specific ORs were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, body mass index, history of diabetes, history of pancreatitis, alcohol drinking, and study center for multicentric studies. Pooled ORs were computed using random-effects models. Ca, cases; CI, confidence intervals; Co, controls; LSU, Louisiana State University; MSKCC, Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; NCI, National Cancer Institute; SEARCH, Surveillance of Environmental Aspects Related to Cancer in Humans; UCSF, University of California, San Francisco.

Figure 2

Study-specific and pooled odds ratios (ORs)a for pancreatic cancer according to ever cigarette smokers as compared with never smokers. International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4). aStudy-specific ORs were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, body mass index, history of diabetes, history of pancreatitis, alcohol drinking, and study center for multicentric studies. Pooled ORs were computed using random-effects models. Ca, cases; CI, confidence intervals; Co, controls; LSU, Louisiana State University; MSKCC, Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; NCI, National Cancer Institute; SEARCH, Surveillance of Environmental Aspects Related to Cancer in Humans; UCSF, University of California, San Francisco.

Figure 3

Study-specific and pooled odds ratios (ORs)a for pancreatic cancer according to level of cigarette smoking in current smokers as compared with never smokers. (A) <15 cigarettes per day, (B) 15–24 cigarettes per day, (C) ≥15 cigarettes per day. International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4). aStudy-specific ORs were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, body mass index, history of diabetes, history of pancreatitis, alcohol drinking, and study center for multicentric studies. Pooled ORs were computed using random-effects models. Ca, cases; CI, confidence intervals; Co, controls; LSU, Louisiana State University; MSKCC, Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; NCI, National Cancer Institute; SEARCH, Surveillance of Environmental Aspects Related to Cancer in Humans; UCSF, University of California, San Francisco.

Figure 3

Study-specific and pooled odds ratios (ORs)a for pancreatic cancer according to level of cigarette smoking in current smokers as compared with never smokers. (A) <15 cigarettes per day, (B) 15–24 cigarettes per day, (C) ≥15 cigarettes per day. International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4). aStudy-specific ORs were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, body mass index, history of diabetes, history of pancreatitis, alcohol drinking, and study center for multicentric studies. Pooled ORs were computed using random-effects models. Ca, cases; CI, confidence intervals; Co, controls; LSU, Louisiana State University; MSKCC, Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; NCI, National Cancer Institute; SEARCH, Surveillance of Environmental Aspects Related to Cancer in Humans; UCSF, University of California, San Francisco.

The association between number of cigarettes smoked and pancreatic cancer risk was further assessed in analyses stratified by sex, age, alcohol drinking, race/ethnicity, study area, source of controls, and type of respondents (Table 4). The association appeared somewhat stronger—though not significantly—in women, in participants <65 years, and in proxy respondents; no meaningful differences in risk estimates were observed across strata of other covariates considered.

Table 4.

Pooled odds ratios (ORs)a and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for pancreatic cancer according to cigarette smoking in strata of selected covariates among 6507 cases and 12 890 controls. International Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium (PanC4)

  Current cigarette smoking
 
 Neverb <15
 
15 to <25 cigarettes per day
 
≥ 25 cigarettes per day
 
 Ca : Co Ca : Co OR (95% CI) Ca : Co OR (95% CI) Ca : Co OR (95% CI) 
Overall 2373 : 5557 440 : 1017 1.60 (1.24–2.06) 722 : 1182 2.30 (1.76–3.01) 425 : 504 3.03 (2.23–4.13) 
Sex        
 Men 916 : 2105 223 : 622 1.50 (1.12–2.01) 449 : 909 1.92 (1.55–2.38) 304 : 427 2.92 (2.01–4.23) 
 Women 1457 : 3452 217 : 395 1.60 (1.24–2.06) 273 : 273 2.60 (1.74–3.90) 121 : 77 3.84 (2.73–5.42) 
P value for interaction   0.755  0.195  0.286 
Age (years)        
 <65 1040 : 3044 268 : 635 1.80 (1.36–2.38) 502 : 798 2.92 (2.23–3.82) 292 : 373 3.33 (2.47–4.50) 
 ≥65 1333 : 2513 172 : 382 1.28 (0.93–1.76) 220 : 384 1.51 (1.03–2.22) 133 : 131 2.75 (1.85–4.10) 
P value for interaction   0.116  0.006  0.454 
Alcohol drinking (drinks per day)c        
 0 to <1 1679 : 4080 255 : 537 1.64 (1.20–2.23) 367 : 491 2.50 (1.83–3.42) 196 : 168 3.54 (2.73–4.58) 
 1 to <4 375 : 1024 112 : 330 1.28 (0.87–1.88) 203 : 409 1.90 (1.27–2.83) 111 : 156 2.94 (2.02–4.28) 
 ≥4 89 : 286 48 : 134 1.46 (0.87–2.44) 123 : 278 1.77 (1.17–2.67) 111 : 175 3.49 (1.68–7.26) 
P value for interaction   0.623  0.349  0.723 
Race/ethnicity        
 Non-Hispanic white 1874 : 3912 314 : 590 1.73 (1.25–2.40) 555 : 766 2.24 (1.64–3.08) 363 : 420 2.88 (1.99–4.17) 
 Other 496 : 1517 126 : 421 1.16 (0.89–1.52) 167 : 412 1.79 (1.36–2.35) 62 : 80 4.18 (2.77–6.33) 
P value for interaction   0.066  0.285  0.187 
Study area        
 North America 1797 : 3363 262 : 385 2.01 (1.51–2.68) 470 : 550 2.74 (1.91–3.91) 323 : 274 3.46 (2.65–4.51) 
 Europe 353 : 1175 101 : 366 1.09 (0.67–1.76) 159 : 370 1.92 (1.19–3.09) 61 : 185 2.01 (0.93–4.31) 
 Other 271 : 1019 77 : 266 1.21 (0.88–1.66) 793 : 262 1.57 (1.13–2.19) 41 : 45 4.19 (2.58–6.83) 
P value for interaction   0.023  0.081  0.279 
Sources of controlsd        
 Hospital 697 : 1580 115 : 291 1.61 (0.65–3.99) 201 : 332 2.81 (1.02–7.72) 86 : 178 2.52 (0.83–7.66) 
 Population 1449 : 3816 301 : 710 1.55 (1.25–1.91) 492 : 846 2.01 (1.69–2.38) 333 : 321 3.40 (2.79–4.14) 
P value for interaction   0.933  0.519  0.602 
Type of respondents        
 In-person 2129 : 5285 370 : 964 1.57 (1.20–2.06) 613 : 1126 2.31 (1.73–3.07) 348 : 474 3.04 (2.14–4.32) 
 Proxy 218 : 203 165 : 48 2.05 (0.64–6.56) 101 : 42 3.34 (0.69–16.32) 72 : 23 3.39 (1.31–8.82) 
P value for interaction   0.660  0.651  0.832 
  Current cigarette smoking
 
 Neverb <15
 
15 to <25 cigarettes per day
 
≥ 25 cigarettes per day
 
 Ca : Co Ca : Co OR (95% CI) Ca : Co OR (95% CI) Ca : Co OR (95% CI) 
Overall 2373 : 5557 440 : 1017 1.60 (1.24–2.06) 722 : 1182 2.30 (1.76–3.01) 425 : 504 3.03 (2.23–4.13) 
Sex        
 Men 916 : 2105 223 : 622 1.50 (1.12–2.01) 449 : 909 1.92 (1.55–2.38) 304 : 427 2.92 (2.01–4.23) 
 Women 1457 : 3452 217 : 395 1.60 (1.24–2.06) 273 : 273 2.60 (1.74–3.90) 121 : 77 3.84 (2.73–5.42) 
P value for interaction   0.755  0.195  0.286 
Age (years)        
 <65 1040 : 3044 268 : 635 1.80 (1.36–2.38) 502 : 798 2.92 (2.23–3.82) 292 : 373 3.33 (2.47–4.50) 
 ≥65 1333 : 2513 172 : 382 1.28 (0.93–1.76) 220 : 384 1.51 (1.03–2.22) 133 : 131 2.75 (1.85–4.10) 
P value for interaction   0.116  0.006  0.454 
Alcohol drinking (drinks per day)c        
 0 to <1 1679 : 4080 255 : 537 1.64 (1.20–2.23) 367 : 491 2.50 (1.83–3.42) 196 : 168 3.54 (2.73–4.58) 
 1 to <4 375 : 1024 112 : 330 1.28 (0.87–1.88) 203 : 409 1.90 (1.27–2.83) 111 : 156 2.94 (2.02–4.28) 
 ≥4 89 : 286 48 : 134 1.46 (0.87–2.44) 123 : 278 1.77 (1.17–2.67) 111 : 175 3.49 (1.68–7.26) 
P value for interaction   0.623  0.349  0.723 
Race/ethnicity        
 Non-Hispanic white 1874 : 3912 314 : 590 1.73 (1.25–2.40) 555 : 766 2.24 (1.64–3.08) 363 : 420 2.88 (1.99–4.17) 
 Other 496 : 1517 126 : 421 1.16 (0.89–1.52) 167 : 412 1.79 (1.36–2.35) 62 : 80 4.18 (2.77–6.33) 
P value for interaction   0.066  0.285  0.187 
Study area        
 North America 1797 : 3363 262 : 385 2.01 (1.51–2.68) 470 : 550 2.74 (1.91–3.91) 323 : 274 3.46 (2.65–4.51) 
 Europe 353 : 1175 101 : 366 1.09 (0.67–1.76) 159 : 370 1.92 (1.19–3.09) 61 : 185 2.01 (0.93–4.31) 
 Other 271 : 1019 77 : 266 1.21 (0.88–1.66) 793 : 262 1.57 (1.13–2.19) 41 : 45 4.19 (2.58–6.83) 
P value for interaction   0.023  0.081  0.279 
Sources of controlsd        
 Hospital 697 : 1580 115 : 291 1.61 (0.65–3.99) 201 : 332 2.81 (1.02–7.72) 86 : 178 2.52 (0.83–7.66) 
 Population 1449 : 3816 301 : 710 1.55 (1.25–1.91) 492 : 846 2.01 (1.69–2.38) 333 : 321 3.40 (2.79–4.14) 
P value for interaction   0.933  0.519  0.602 
Type of respondents        
 In-person 2129 : 5285 370 : 964 1.57 (1.20–2.06) 613 : 1126 2.31 (1.73–3.07) 348 : 474 3.04 (2.14–4.32) 
 Proxy 218 : 203 165 : 48 2.05 (0.64–6.56) 101 : 42 3.34 (0.69–16.32) 72 : 23 3.39 (1.31–8.82) 
P value for interaction   0.660  0.651  0.832 

aPooled ORs were computed using random-effects models. Study-specific ORs were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, body mass index, history of diabetes, history of pancreatitis, alcohol drinking, and study center for multicentric studies.

bReference category.

cNo information was available in the MSKCC study.

dExcluding the MSKCC study which included both hospital and population controls.

Ca, cases; Co, controls; MSKCC, Memorial Sloan—Kettering Cancer Center.

discussion

This uniquely large collaborative pooled analysis within the PanC4 allowed us to provide more accurate estimates of the relationship between cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer risk. Results from our analyses confirm that current cigarette smoking is associated with a twofold increased risk of pancreatic cancer and that the risk increases with increasing number of cigarettes smoked and duration of smoking. A 20% excess risk of pancreatic cancer was found among former smokers, which declines with time since quitting, and reached the level of never cigarette smokers ∼20 years after quitting.

The increased pancreatic cancer risk in current cigarette smokers in our data is consistent with that of a previous meta-analysis and a pooled analysis [3, 4] and with the results from a subsequent study of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort [23] that reported a 70% increased risk (95% CI 1.4–2.2) for current smokers on the basis of 524 pancreatic cancer cases among 465 910 participants. The OR estimate for current cigarette smokers from our data was slightly higher than that reported in previous investigations [3, 4, 23]. This can be explained by the better distinction between current and former smokers that was possible in our analysis, but not in the studies included in the meta-analysis by Iodice et al. [3], as well as in prospective studies [4, 23], where smoking habits are generally assessed at the time of recruitment or last interview, and may have changed in subsequent years [24], i.e. some current smokers at baseline may have quit before diagnosis.

The significant dose–risk association with increasing number of cigarettes smoked is consistent with that reported in the pooled analysis of cohort studies [4]. However, case–control studies data allowed us to assess this association specifically among current smokers, something that was not possible in cohort studies where the effect pertained to ever smokers.

With reference to duration of smoking, we observed that the risk of pancreatic cancer increased in relation to the years of smoking, up to 40 years of smoking. This confirms the importance of long-term duration of smoking as a risk factor for pancreatic cancer [1, 4].

The results of our study also confirmed the decline in risk of pancreatic cancer with increasing time since quitting cigarette smoking [3, 4]. More specifically, our large population and detailed data on smoking allowed us to confirm that after 20 years of smoking cessation, risk of pancreatic cancer approaches that of never smokers. This result was in close agreement with the findings from the International Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium [4].

The PanC4 study had a number of strengths. It included original and detailed data about cigarette smoking for >6000 pancreatic cancer cases and >12 000 controls, which provided a unique opportunity to investigate and quantify accurately the dose- and duration–risk relationships, and among former smokers, the pattern of risk with years since quitting. Our study included a relatively large number of heavy and long-term smokers as well as a large number of former smokers, increasing our ability to examine smoking behaviors in greater detail than previous studies. We were able to uniformly and carefully account for study design variables and potential confounding factors for pancreatic cancer, including education, BMI, history of diabetes and pancreatitis, and heavy alcohol consumption. We also conducted stratified analyses by selected covariates and showed that our risk estimates were consistent across strata of sex, age, race, study area, and alcohol consumption.

Although there was significant heterogeneity between the 12 studies included in our pooled analysis, this was not explained by sex, age, study areas, source of controls, or other selected covariates considered and was largely attributable to the Mayo [7] and Milan studies only [16]. This may be due to different background risk levels in various populations, bias, or simply the play of chance. Because N-nitrosamines are considered the major tobacco carcinogens for the pancreas [25, 26], some of the heterogeneity also might be related to different N-nitrosamines yield of cigarettes from various countries [27, 28]. In the absence of comprehensive data, however, any inference on this issue remains speculative.

Both hospital-based and population-based case–controls are prone to potential bias. Hospital controls may have been admitted to hospital for conditions related to tobacco use that could lead to an underestimation of the true association, whereas population controls may have a lower participation of smokers that could result in an overestimation of risk. Although the results from one meta-analysis [3] showed that RR estimates were higher in hospital-based than in population-based case–control studies, our stratified analyses by source of controls did not support this, showing no consistent difference in risk estimates when using hospital or population controls. Tobacco consumption is frequently underreported [29], and this may have biased our risk estimates, particularly if misclassification of smoking differed between cases and controls. However, information on smoking habits in case–control studies has proven to be satisfactorily reliable [30]. Furthermore, the similarities of our findings with those from cohort studies [4] argue against a major role of recall bias and misclassification. Although proxy respondents may have reported tobacco consumption less completely than participants, we found no evidence of stronger associations in studies based on in-person interviews versus those using proxy respondents.

There is no early diagnosis or effective chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer [31]. Most patients cannot undergo curative surgery, thus, even in the optimal series, 5-year survival is <5% [32]. Consequently, primary prevention is the only way to reduce pancreatic cancer, and control of tobacco smoking is the key measure since it could avoid 15%–25% of pancreatic cancers in various populations [4, 16, 33].

funding

The Louisiana State University study was supported by the Louisiana Board of Regents Millennium Trust Health Excellence Fund [project 5: HEF (2000–2005, Genetics Studies in the Acadian Population)]. The Pancreatic Cancer Family Registry at Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center has been supported by the Prevention, Control, and Population Research Goldstein Award, the Society of Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center, and the Geoffrey Beene Cancer Research Fund. The National Cancer Institute study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (contract numbers: N01-CP-51090, N01-CP-51089, N01-CP-51092, N01-CP-05225, N01-CP-31022, N01-CP-05227). The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) study work was supported in part by National Cancer Institute grants (CA59706, CA108370, CA109767, CA89726, CA098889 to EAH, PI) and by the Rombauer Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund. Cancer incidence data collection in the UCSF study was supported by the California Department of Public Health, the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program contract N01-PC-35136 awarded to the Northern California Cancer Center. The Yale Connecticut Study was supported by National Cancer Institute grant (5R01-CA098870 to HAR, PI). The Ontario Pancreas Cancer Study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA97075, as part of the PACGENE consortium), the Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, and the Ontario Cancer Research Network. The Italian and Milan studies were supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC). The Montreal investigation in the Surveillance of Environmental Aspects Related to Cancer in Humans study was supported by the Cancer Research Society, the Toronto contribution was supported by the National Cancer Institute of Canada, and The Netherlands contribution was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (formerly Welfare, Health and Culture).

disclosure

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

acknowledgements

The authors thank Mrs Ivana Garimoldi for editorial assistance.

references

1
IARC
IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risks to humans
Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking, Vol. 83
 , 
2004
Lyon, France
IARC
2
Secretan
B
Straif
K
Baan
R
, et al.  . 
A review of human carcinogens—Part E: tobacco, areca nut, alcohol, coal smoke, and salted fish
Lancet Oncol
 , 
2009
, vol. 
10
 (pg. 
1033
-
1034
)
3
Iodice
S
Gandini
S
Maisonneuve
P
Lowenfels
AB
Tobacco and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a review and meta-analysis
Langenbecks Arch Surg
 , 
2008
, vol. 
393
 (pg. 
535
-
545
)
4
Lynch
SM
Vrieling
A
Lubin
JH
, et al.  . 
Cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis from the pancreatic cancer cohort consortium
Am J Epidemiol
 , 
2009
, vol. 
170
 (pg. 
403
-
413
)
5
 
The Pancreatic Cancer Case Control Consortium (PanC4). Available at: http://panc4.org
6
Bertuccio
P
La Vecchia
C
Silverman
DT
, et al.  . 
Cigar and pipe smoking, smokeless tobacco use and pancreatic cancer: an analysis from the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4)
Ann Oncol
 , 
2011
, vol. 
22
 (pg. 
1420
-
1426
)
7
McWilliams
RR
Bamlet
WR
de Andrade
M
, et al.  . 
Nucleotide excision repair pathway polymorphisms and pancreatic cancer risk: evidence for role of MMS19L
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
 , 
2009
, vol. 
18
 (pg. 
1295
-
1302
)
8
Hassan
MM
Bondy
ML
Wolff
RA
, et al.  . 
Risk factors for pancreatic cancer: case-control study
Am J Gastroenterol
 , 
2007
, vol. 
102
 (pg. 
2696
-
2707
)
9
Olson
SH
Orlow
I
Simon
J
, et al.  . 
Allergies, variants in IL-4 and IL-4R alpha genes, and risk of pancreatic cancer
Cancer Detect Prev
 , 
2007
, vol. 
31
 (pg. 
345
-
351
)
10
Silverman
DT
Dunn
JA
Hoover
RN
, et al.  . 
Cigarette smoking and pancreas cancer: a case-control study based on direct interviews
J Natl Cancer Inst
 , 
1994
, vol. 
86
 (pg. 
1510
-
1516
)
11
Chan
JM
Wang
F
Holly
EA
Sweets, sweetened beverages, and risk of pancreatic cancer in a large population-based case-control study
Cancer Causes Control
 , 
2009
, vol. 
20
 (pg. 
835
-
846
)
12
Bracci
PM
Wang
F
Hassan
MM
, et al.  . 
Pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in two large pooled case-control studies
Cancer Causes Control
 , 
2009
, vol. 
20
 (pg. 
1723
-
1731
)
13
Risch
HA
Yu
H
Lu
L
Kidd
MS
ABO blood group, Helicobacter pylori seropositivity, and risk of pancreatic cancer: a case-control study
J Natl Cancer Inst
 , 
2010
, vol. 
102
 (pg. 
502
-
505
)
14
Anderson
LN
Cotterchio
M
Gallinger
S
Lifestyle, dietary, and medical history factors associated with pancreatic cancer risk in Ontario, Canada
Cancer Causes Control
 , 
2009
, vol. 
20
 (pg. 
825
-
834
)
15
Talamini
R
Polesel
J
Gallus
S
, et al.  . 
Tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer risk: a case-control study in Italy
Eur J Cancer
 , 
2010
, vol. 
46
 (pg. 
370
-
376
)
16
Fernandez
E
La Vecchia
C
Decarli
A
Attributable risks for pancreatic cancer in northern Italy
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
 , 
1996
, vol. 
5
 (pg. 
23
-
27
)
17
Ji
BT
Chow
WH
Dai
Q
, et al.  . 
Cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a case-control study in Shanghai, China
Cancer Causes Control
 , 
1995
, vol. 
6
 (pg. 
369
-
376
)
18
Boyle
P
Maisonneuve
P
Bueno de Mesquita
B
, et al.  . 
Cigarette smoking and pancreas cancer: a case control study of the search programme of the IARC
Int J Cancer
 , 
1996
, vol. 
67
 (pg. 
63
-
71
)
19
Smith-Warner
SA
Spiegelman
D
Ritz
J
, et al.  . 
Methods for pooling results of epidemiologic studies: the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer
Am J Epidemiol
 , 
2006
, vol. 
163
 (pg. 
1053
-
1064
)
20
Breslow
NE
Day
NE
Statistical methods in cancer research
The Analysis of Case-Control Studies, Vol. 1
 , 
1980
Lyon, France
IARC
21
DerSimonian
R
Laird
N
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
Control Clin Trials
 , 
1986
, vol. 
7
 (pg. 
177
-
188
)
22
Greenland
S
Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature
Epidemiol Rev
 , 
1987
, vol. 
9
 (pg. 
1
-
30
)
23
Vrieling
A
Bueno-de-Mesquita
HB
Boshuizen
HC
, et al.  . 
Cigarette smoking, environmental tobacco smoke exposure and pancreatic cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
Int J Cancer
 , 
2010
, vol. 
126
 (pg. 
2394
-
2403
)
24
Bosetti
C
Negri
E
Tavani
A
, et al.  . 
Smoking and acute myocardial infarction among women and men: a case-control study in Italy
Prev Med
 , 
1999
, vol. 
29
 (pg. 
343
-
348
)
25
Schuller
HM
Mechanisms of smoking-related lung and pancreatic adenocarcinoma development
Nat Rev Cancer
 , 
2002
, vol. 
2
 (pg. 
455
-
463
)
26
Duell
EJ
Epidemiology and mechanisms of tobacco smoking and heavy alcohol consumption in pancreatic carcinogenesis
Mol Carcinog
 , 
2011
 
in press
27
Gray
N
Boyle
P
The case of the disappearing nitrosamines: a potentially global phenomenon
Tob Control
 , 
2004
, vol. 
13
 (pg. 
13
-
16
)
28
Gray
N
Zaridze
D
Robertson
C
, et al.  . 
Variation within global cigarette brands in tar, nicotine, and certain nitrosamines: analytic study
Tob Control
 , 
2000
, vol. 
9
 pg. 
351
 
29
Rebagliato
M
Validation of self reported smoking
J Epidemiol Community Health
 , 
2002
, vol. 
56
 (pg. 
163
-
164
)
30
D'Avanzo
B
La Vecchia
C
Katsouyanni
K
, et al.  . 
Reliability of information on cigarette smoking and beverage consumption provided by hospital controls
Epidemiology
 , 
1996
, vol. 
7
 (pg. 
312
-
315
)
31
Hidalgo
M
Pancreatic cancer
N Engl J Med
 , 
2010
, vol. 
362
 (pg. 
1605
-
1617
)
32
Levi
F
Randimbison
L
Te
VC
, et al.  . 
Trends in survival for patients diagnosed with cancer in Vaud, Switzerland, between 1974 and 1993
Ann Oncol
 , 
2000
, vol. 
11
 (pg. 
957
-
963
)
33
Maisonneuve
P
Lowenfels
AB
Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer: an update
Dig Dis
 , 
2010
, vol. 
28
 (pg. 
645
-
656
)