Selective Reduction of Socioeconomic Disparities in the Experimental Tobacco Marketplace: Effects of Cigarette and E-cigarette Flavor Restrictions.

INTRODUCTION: Cigarette smoking accounts for >30% of the socioeconomic gap in life expectancy. Flavored restrictions claim to promote equity; however, no previous studies have compared the effect of cigarette and e-cigarette flavor restrictions among individuals who smoke with lower and higher socioeconomic status (SES). AIMS AND METHODS: In a between-group within-subject design, individuals with lower (n = 155) and higher (n = 125) SES completed hypothetical purchasing trials in the experimental tobacco marketplace (ETM). Conditions were presented in a 2 × 2 factorial design (cigarette flavors restricted or unrestricted and e-cigarette flavors restricted or unrestricted) with increasing cigarette prices across trials. RESULTS: Results show (1) SES differences in cigarette, e-cigarette, and NRT purchases under unrestricted policies, with lower SES showing higher cigarette demand and lower e-cigarette and NRT substitution than higher SES, (2) cigarette restrictions decreased cigarette and increased NRT purchases among lower SES, but no significant changes among higher SES, (3) decreased SES differences in cigarette demand under cigarette restrictions, but persistence under e-cigarette restrictions or their combination, (4) persistence of SES differences in e-cigarette purchases when all restrictions were enforced, and (5) waning of SES differences in NRT purchasing under all restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: Flavor restrictions differentially affected individuals based on SES. Within-group comparisons demonstrated restrictions significantly impacted lower SES, but not higher SES. Between-group comparisons showed SES differences in cigarette purchasing decreased under cigarette restrictions, but persisted under e-cigarette-restrictions or their combination. Additionally, SES differences in NRT substitution decreased under flavor restrictions. These findings highlight the utility of the ETM to investigate SES disparities. IMPLICATIONS: With increasing trends of socioeconomic differences in smoking prevalence and cessation rates, smoking-related health disparities are expected to continue to widen. Restricting menthol flavor in cigarettes while enhancing the availability and affordability of NRT have the potential to alleviate SES disparities in tobacco use, therefore, positively impacting health equity. However, this effect may depend on flavor availability in other tobacco products.

Risk Assessment for Tobacco Regulation.

Risk assessment is a process that uses a transparent, reproducible and pre-established methodology to evaluate alternatives for managing health-related risks. Although an array of federal agencies regularly use risk assessment to inform regulatory decisions, its application to tobacco regulation is new. By comparing examples of FDA risk assessments for food and tobacco, this paper highlights some of the challenges inherent in applying risk assessment methodologies to tobacco regulation. In doing so, it calls upon researchers to work with the FDA to develop a tobacco-specific approach to risk assessment that reflects the Tobacco Control Act's regulatory framework and the distinctive features of tobacco products and tobacco use.

Assessment of Tumor Sequencing as a Replacement for Lynch Syndrome Screening and Current Molecular Tests for Patients With Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) in colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended and involves up to 6 sequential tests. Somatic gene testing is performed on stage IV CRCs for treatment determination. The diagnostic workup for patients with CRC could be simplified and improved using a single up-front tumor next-generation sequencing test if it has higher sensitivity and specificity than the current screening protocol. Objective: To determine whether up-front tumor sequencing (TS) could replace the current multiple sequential test approach for universal tumor screening for LS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Tumor DNA from 419 consecutive CRC cases undergoing standard universal tumor screening and germline genetic testing when indicated as part of the multicenter, population-based Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative from October 2015 through February 2016 (the prospective cohort) and 46 patients with CRC known to have LS due to a germline mutation in a mismatch repair gene from January 2013 through September 2015 (the validation cohort) underwent blinded TS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity of TS compared with microsatellite instability (MSI) testing and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for the detection of LS. Results: In the 465 patients, mean age at diagnosis was 59.9 years (range, 20-96 years), and 241 (51.8%) were female. Tumor sequencing identified all 46 known LS cases from the validation cohort and an additional 12 LS cases from the 419-member prospective cohort. Testing with MSI or IHC, followed by BRAF p.V600E testing missed 5 and 6 cases of LS, respectively. Tumor sequencing alone had better sensitivity (100%; 95% CI, 93.8%-100%) than IHC plus BRAF (89.7%; 95% CI, 78.8%-96.1%; P = .04) and MSI plus BRAF (91.4%; 95% CI, 81.0%-97.1%; P = .07). Tumor sequencing had equal specificity (95.3%; 95% CI, 92.6%-97.2%) to IHC plus BRAF (94.6%; 95% CI, 91.9%-96.6%; P > .99) and MSI plus BRAF (94.8%; 95% CI, 92.2%-96.8%; P = .88). Tumor sequencing identified 284 cases with KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF mutations that could affect therapy for stage IV CRC, avoiding another test. Finally, TS identified 8 patients with germline DPYD mutations that confer toxicity to fluorouracil chemotherapy, which could also be useful for treatment selection. Conclusions and Relevance: Up-front TS in CRC is simpler and has superior sensitivity to current multitest approaches to LS screening, while simultaneously providing critical information for treatment selection.

Consortium on Methods Evaluating Tobacco: Research Tools to Inform US Food and Drug Administration Regulation of Snus.

Introduction: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has purview over tobacco products. To set policy, the FDA must rely on sound science, yet most existing tobacco research methods have not been designed to specifically inform regulation. The NCI and FDA-funded Consortium on Methods Evaluating Tobacco (COMET) was established to develop and assess valid and reliable methods for tobacco product evaluation. The goal of this article is to describe these assessment methods using a US manufactured "snus" as the test product. Methods: In designing studies that could inform FDA regulation, COMET has taken a multidisciplinary approach that includes experimental animal models and a range of human studies that examine tobacco product appeal, addictiveness, and toxicity. This article integrates COMET's findings over the last 4 years. Results: Consistency in results was observed across the various studies, lending validity to our methods. Studies showed low abuse liability for snus and low levels of consumer demand. Toxicity was less than cigarettes on some biomarkers but higher than medicinal nicotine. Conclusions: Using our study methods and the convergence of results, the snus that we tested as a potential modified risk tobacco product is likely to neither result in substantial public health harm nor benefit. Implications: This review describes methods that were used to assess the appeal, abuse liability, and toxicity of snus. These methods included animal, behavioral economics, consumer perception studies, and clinical trials. Across these varied methods, study results showed low abuse-liability and appeal of the snus product we tested. In several studies, demand for snus was lower than for less toxic nicotine gum. The consistency and convergence of results across a range of multi-disciplinary studies lends validity to our methods and suggests that promotion of snus as a modified risk tobacco products is unlikely to produce substantial public health benefit or harm.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems: a policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Combustible tobacco use remains the number one preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), which include e-cigarettes, are devices capable of delivering nicotine in an aerosolized form. ENDS use by both adults and youth has increased rapidly, and some have advocated these products could serve as harm-reduction devices and smoking cessation aids. ENDS may be beneficial if they reduce smoking rates or prevent or reduce the known adverse health effects of smoking. However, ENDS may also be harmful, particularly to youth, if they increase the likelihood that nonsmokers or formers smokers will use combustible tobacco products or if they discourage smokers from quitting. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recognize the potential ENDS have to alter patterns of tobacco use and affect the public's health; however, definitive data are lacking. AACR and ASCO recommend additional research on these devices, including assessing the health impacts of ENDS, understanding patterns of ENDS use, and determining what role ENDS have in cessation. Key policy recommendations include supporting federal, state, and local regulation of ENDS; requiring manufacturers to register with the FDA and report all product ingredients, requiring childproof caps on ENDS liquids, and including warning labels on products and their advertisements; prohibiting youth-oriented marketing and sales; prohibiting child-friendly ENDS flavors; and prohibiting ENDS use in places where cigarette smoking is prohibited.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems: a policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Combustible tobacco use remains the number-one preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), which include electronic cigarettes, are devices capable of delivering nicotine in an aerosolized form. ENDS use by both adults and youth has increased rapidly, and some have advocated these products could serve as harm-reduction devices and smoking cessation aids. ENDS may be beneficial if they reduce smoking rates or prevent or reduce the known adverse health effects of smoking. However, ENDS may also be harmful, particularly to youth, if they increase the likelihood that nonsmokers or former smokers will use combustible tobacco products or if they discourage smokers from quitting. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recognize the potential ENDS have to alter patterns of tobacco use and affect the health of the public; however, definitive data are lacking. The AACR and ASCO recommend additional research on these devices, including assessing the health impacts of ENDS, understanding patterns of ENDS use, and determining what role ENDS have in cessation. Key policy recommendations include supporting federal, state, and local regulation of ENDS; requiring manufacturers to register with the US Food and Drug Administration and report all product ingredients, requiring childproof caps on ENDS liquids, and including warning labels on products and their advertisements; prohibiting youth-oriented marketing and sales; prohibiting child-friendly ENDS flavors; and prohibiting ENDS use in places where cigarette smoking is prohibited. This policy statement was developed by a joint writing group composed of members from the Tobacco and Cancer Subcommittee of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Science Policy and Government Affairs (SPGA) Committee and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Tobacco Cessation and Control Subcommittee of the Cancer Prevention Committee (CaPC). The statement was reviewed by both parent committees (ie, the AACR SPGA Committee and the ASCO CaPC) and was approved by the AACR Boards of Directors on August 6, 2014, and the ASCO Executive Committee on September 18, 2014. This policy statement was published jointly by invitation and consent in both Clinical Cancer Research and Journal of Clinical Oncology. Copyright 2015 American Association for Cancer Research and American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or storage in any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission by the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Future directions for postdoctoral training in cancer prevention: insights from a panel of experts.

Cancer prevention postdoctoral fellowships have existed since the 1970s. The National Cancer Institute facilitated a meeting by a panel of experts in April 2013 to consider four important topics for future directions for cancer prevention postdoctoral training programs: (i) future research needs; (ii) underrepresented disciplines; (iii) curriculum; and (iv) career preparation. Panelists proffered several areas needing more research or emphasis, ranging from computational science to culture. Health care providers, along with persons from nontraditional disciplines in scientific training programs such as engineers and lawyers, were among those recognized as being underrepresented in training programs. Curriculum suggestions were that fellows receive training in topics such as leadership and human relations, in addition to learning the principles of epidemiology, cancer biologic mechanisms, and behavioral science. For career preparation, there was a clear recognition of the diversity of employment options available besides academic positions, and that program leaders should do more to help fellows identify and prepare for different career paths. The major topics and strategies covered at this meeting can help form the basis for cancer prevention training program leaders to consider modifications or new directions, and keep them updated with the changing scientific and employment climate for doctoral degree recipients and postdoctoral fellows.

Formaldehyde as a potential human leukemogen: an assessment of biological plausibility.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 2004) recently reevaluated the epidemiological data on formaldehyde and concluded that there was "strong but not sufficient evidence for a causal association between leukaemia and occupational exposure to formaldehyde." This conclusion was tempered since a mechanism for leukemia induction could not be identified. Chemically induced leukemia is a well-studied phenomenon with benzene and a number of cancer chemotherapeutic drugs recognized as capable of causing this effect. Abundant in vitro and in vivo data in animals and humans demonstrate that exposure to sufficient doses of these recognized leukemogens can initiate a cascade of events leading to hematopoietic toxicity and the subsequent development of leukemia. This review addresses the biological plausibility that formaldehyde might be capable of causing any type of leukemia by providing a broad overview of the scientific data that must be considered in order to support or refute a conclusion that a particular substance might be leukemogenic. Data on benzene and selected chemotherapeutic cancer drugs are used as examples and are briefly summarized to demonstrate the similar biological events thought to result in leukemogenesis. These data are compared and contrasted with the available data on formaldehyde in order to judge whether they fulfill the criteria of biological plausibility that formaldehyde would be capable of inducing leukemia as suggested by the epidemiological data. Based on the epidemiological data, it is reasonable to expect that if formaldehyde was capable of inducing leukemia, in vivo and in vitro data would offer supporting evidence for biological plausibility. In particular, there is (1) no evidence to suggest that formaldehyde reaches any target organ beyond the site of administration including the bone marrow, (2) no indication that formaldehyde is toxic to the bone marrow/hematopoietic system in in vivo or in vitro studies, and (3) no credible evidence that formaldehyde induces leukemia in experimental animals. As discussed in this review, based on the key biological events that occur in the process of chemically induced leukemia, there is inadequate biological evidence currently available to corroborate existing weak epidemiological associations. This provides an insufficient database to conclude that there is a causal relationship for formaldehyde and leukemia risk.

Understanding population and individual risk assessment: the case of polychlorinated biphenyls.

Decisions about how to improve or protect the public health can be, and sometimes necessarily are, made on imprecise science. The regulation of potential human carcinogens in the environment entails a population-risk assessment process intended to reduce risks to less than one additional cancer in 100,000 or 1,000,000 persons. These risk assessment processes, however, may be miscommunicated or misinterpreted in the context of individual cancer risks by scientists, regulators, the lay media, and the public. This commentary will review methods for establishing a causal relationship between carcinogen exposures and cancer risk. It will use the case of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) as an example of how to place scientific data into the context of human exposure and cancer risk. PCBs are widespread environmental contaminants and most people have detectable levels of PCBs in their bodies. The primary source for exposure in the general population is through the diet. PCBs are carcinogens in experimental animal models, but how this information can be extrapolated to human risk remains uncertain. PCB experimental studies provide data that are used to regulate and control human exposure, although the epidemiologic evidence fails to establish PCBs as human carcinogens. Thus, what is used for population-risk assessment may not be appropriate for individual-risk assessment or concluding that a causal relationship exists between PCB exposure and cancer risk. The hazards from a carcinogen designated by regulatory and review agencies as a "probable" human carcinogen is often misunderstood out of context about the magnitude of the risk and in what settings. How scientists communicate their results in scientific articles can strongly influence how others interpret their data. Misunderstandings from both the use of regulatory and review-agency opinions and the conclusions espoused by scientists occur in the media, among private physicians counseling their patients about cancer risk, and in the legal settings where plaintiffs seek compensation for exposure and alleged harm (or future harm). This can lead to false conclusions about what caused a cancer in a specific patient, undue anxiety about future cancer risk, inappropriate cancer screening, and attendant increased morbidity due to increased uses of the medical system and complication rates from medical procedures. The communication of research findings by scientists must be presented with caution, resisting the temptation to extrapolate, inappropriately, research data to the general population.