Female reproductive and hormonal factors and lung cancer mortality among never-smokers: A prospective cohort study of 287 408 Chinese women.

There is growing, but inconsistent evidence suggesting oestrogen may play a key role in lung cancer development, especially among never-smoking women for whom lung cancer risk factors remain largely elusive. Using the China Kadoorie Biobank, a large-scale prospective cohort with 302 510 women aged 30 to 79 years recruited from 10 regions in China during 2004 to 2008, we assessed the risk of lung cancer death among self-reported never-smoking women who were cancer-free at baseline, in relation to age at menarche, age at menopause, time since menopause, prior use of oral contraceptives (OCP), number of livebirths, breastfeeding and age at first livebirth. Women were followed up to December 31, 2016 with linkage to mortality data. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Cox regression, adjusting for key confounders including several socio-demographic, environmental and lifestyle factors. Among 287 408 never-smoking women, 814 died from lung cancer with a median follow-up of 10.3 years. Women who had used OCP within 15 years prior to baseline had a significantly higher hazard of lung cancer death compared with never-users: HR = 1.85 (95% CI: 1.14-3.00) and risk increased by 6% with each additional year of use: HR = 1.06 (1.01-1.10). Among parous women, the hazard of lung cancer death increased by 13% with each single livebirth: HR = 1.13 (1.05-1.23); and among post-menopausal women, the risk increased by 2% with each year since menopause: HR = 1.02 (1.01-1.04). These results suggest that reproductive factors which were proxies for lower endogenous oestrogen level, for example, longer duration of OCP use, could play a role in lung cancer development.

Solid Fuel, Secondhand Smoke, and Lung Cancer Mortality: A Prospective Cohort of 323,794 Chinese Never-Smokers.

Rationale: Household air pollution and secondhand tobacco smoke are known carcinogens for lung cancer, but large-scale estimates of the relationship with lung cancer mortality are lacking. Objectives: Using the large-scale cohort China Kadoorie Biobank, we prospectively investigated associations between these two risk factors and lung cancer death among never-smokers. Methods: The Biobank recruited 512,715 adults aged 30-79 years from 10 regions in China during 2004-2008. Self-reported never-smoking participants were followed up to December 31, 2016, with linkage to mortality data. Total duration of exposure to household air pollution was calculated from self-reported domestic solid fuel use. Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke was ascertained using exposure at home and/or other places. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between these two exposures and lung cancer death were estimated using Cox regression, adjusting for key confounders. Measurements and Main Results: There were 979 lung cancer deaths among 323,794 never-smoking participants without a previous cancer diagnosis during 10.2 years of follow-up. There was a log-linear positive association between exposure to household air pollution and lung cancer death, with a 4% increased risk per 5-year increment of exposure (hazard ratio = 1.04; 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.06; P trend = 0.0034), and participants with 40.1-50.0 years of exposure had the highest risk compared with the never-exposed (hazard ratio = 1.53; 95% confidence interval = 1.13-2.07). The association was largely consistent across various subgroups. No significant association was found between secondhand smoke and lung cancer death. Conclusions: This cohort study provides new prospective evidence suggesting that domestic solid fuel use is associated with lung cancer death among never-smokers.

Lung cancer risk in never-smokers: An overview of environmental and genetic factors.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally, accounting for 1.8 million deaths in 2020. While the vast majority are caused by tobacco smoking, 15%-25% of all lung cancer cases occur in lifelong never-smokers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified multiple agents with sufficient evidence for lung carcinogenesis in humans, which include tobacco smoking, as well as several environmental exposures such as radon, second-hand tobacco smoke, outdoor air pollution, household combustion of coal and several occupational hazards. However, the IARC evaluation had not been stratified based on smoking status, and notably lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) has different epidemiological, clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics from lung cancer in ever-smokers. Among several risk factors proposed for the development of LCINS, environmental factors have the most available evidence for their association with LCINS and their roles cannot be overemphasized. Additionally, while initial genetic studies largely focused on lung cancer as a whole, recent studies have also identified genetic risk factors for LCINS. This article presents an overview of several environmental factors associated with LCINS, and some of the emerging evidence for genetic factors associated with LCINS. An increased understanding of the risk factors associated with LCINS not only helps to evaluate a never-smoker's personal risk for lung cancer, but also has important public health implications for the prevention and early detection of the disease. Conclusive evidence on causal associations could inform longer-term policy reform in a range of areas including occupational health and safety, urban design, energy use and particle emissions, and the importance of considering the impacts of second-hand smoke in tobacco control policy.

Evaluating risk factors for lung cancer among never-smoking individuals using two Australian studies.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer (LC) in never-smoking individuals would rank as Australia's eighth most deadly cancer, yet risk factors remain uncertain. We investigated demographic, lifestyle and health-related exposures for LC among never-smoking Australians. METHODS: Using the prospective 45 and Up Study with 267,153 New South Wales (NSW) residents aged ≥ 45 years at recruitment (2006-2009), we quantified the relationship of 20 potential exposures with LC among cancer-free participants at baseline who self-reported never smoking. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for incident LC were estimated using Cox regression. The NSW Cancer, Lifestyle and Evaluation of Risk (CLEAR) Study, a case-control study including 10,781 NSW residents aged ≥ 18 years (2006-2014), was used to examine 16 potential LC exposures among cancer-free never-smoking participants. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI of LC were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 226 LC cases among 132,354 cancer-free 45 and Up Study participants who reported never smoking, with a median follow-up of 5.41 years. The CLEAR Study had 58 LC cases and 1316 cancer-free controls who had never smoked. Analyses of both datasets showed that Asian-born participants had a higher risk of LC than those born elsewhere: cohort, adjusted HR = 2.83 (95% CI 1.64-4.89) and case-control, adjusted OR = 3.78 (1.19-12.05). No significant association with LC was found for other exposures. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the growing evidence that never-smoking, Asian-born individuals are at higher risk of developing LC than those born elsewhere. Ethnicity could be considered when assessing potential LC risk among never-smoking individuals.

Evaluating Prognostic Factors for Sex Differences in Lung Cancer Survival: Findings From a Large Australian Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Women tend to survive a lung cancer diagnosis longer than men; however potential drivers of this sex-related disparity remain largely elusive. We quantified factors related to sex differences in lung cancer survival in a large prospective cohort in Australia. METHODS: Participants in the 45 and Up Study (recruited 2006-2009) diagnosed with incident lung cancer were followed up to December 2015. Prognostic factors were identified from questionnaire data linked with cancer registrations, hospital inpatient records, emergency department records, and reimbursement records for government-subsidized medical services and prescription medicines. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for lung cancer death for men versus women were estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression in relation to key prognostic factors alone and jointly. RESULTS: A total of 488 women and 642 men were diagnosed with having lung cancer. Women survived significantly longer (median 1.28 versus 0.77 y; HR for men = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.25-1.64, p < 0.0001). The survival disparity remained when each subgroup of major prognostic factors was evaluated separately, including histologic subtype, stage at diagnosis, treatment received, and smoking status. Multivariable analyses revealed that treatment-related factors explained half of the survival difference, followed by lifestyle and tumor characteristics (explaining 28%, 26%, respectively). After adjusting for all major known prognostic factors, the excess risk for men was reduced by more than 80% (HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.96-1.18, p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: The sex-related lung cancer survival disparity in this Australian cohort was largely accounted for by known prognostic factors, indicating an opportunity to explore sex differences in treatment preferences, options, and access.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of residential radon and lung cancer in never-smokers.

BACKGROUND: Globally, radon is the leading risk factor for lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS). In this study, we systematically reviewed and meta-analysed the evidence of the risk of LCINS associated with residential radon exposure. METHODS: Medline and Embase databases were searched using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify relevant studies published from 1 January 1990 to 5 March 2020 focused on never-smokers. We identified four pooled collaborative studies (incorporating data from 24 case-control studies), one case-control study and one cohort study for systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed on the results of the four pooled studies due to different measures of effect and outcome reported in the cohort study and insufficient information reported for the case-control study. In a post hoc analysis, the corresponding risk for ever-smokers was also examined. RESULTS: Risk estimates of lung cancer from residential radon exposure were pooled in the meta-analysis for 2341 never-smoker cases, 8967 never-smoker controls, 9937 ever-smoker cases and 12 463 ever-smoker controls. Adjusted excess relative risks (aERRs) per 100 Bq·m-3 of radon level were 0.15 (95% CI 0.06-0.25) for never-smokers and 0.09 (95% CI 0.03-0.16) for ever-smokers, and the difference between them was statistically insignificant (p=0.32). The aERR per 100 Bq·m-3was higher for men (0.46; 95% CI 0.15-0.76) than for women (0.09; 95% CI -0.02-0.20) among never-smokers (p=0.027). CONCLUSION: This study provided quantified risk estimates for lung cancer from residential radon exposure among both never-smokers and ever-smokers. Among never-smokers in radon-prone areas, men were at higher risk of lung cancer than women.