Opium Use and Cancer Risk: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Background: Epidemiological studies have reported inconsistent associations between opium use and cancer risk. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between opium use and cancer risk. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar until February 2021 and references of retrieved relevant articles for observational studies that reported the risk of cancer in relation to opium use. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled effect sizes (ESs) as well as 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between opium use and cancer risk by considering opium doses and types, duration of consumption, and routes of opium use. Results: In total, 21 observational articles, with a total sample size of 64,412 individuals and 6,658 cases of cancer, were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Ever opium users, compared with never opium users, had 3.53 times greater risk of overall cancer (pooled ES: 3.53, 95% CI: 2.60-4.79, P ≤ 0.01). This positive association was also seen for some individual types of cancers except for esophageal and colon cancers. Also, we found that higher opium doses and higher duration of consumption were associated with an increased risk of overall and individual types of cancer. However, the associations between opium doses and the risk of head and neck and larynx cancers were not significant. In terms of the routes of opium use, both opium ingestion and smoking were positively associated with the risk of cancer. Regarding opium types, we found that using teriak, but not shireh, could increase the risk of cancer. Conclusions: Our findings showed that opium use, particularly in the form of teriak, is a risk factor for cancer.

Opium, Street Opium, and Cancer Risk.

Opium is defined as the air-dried latex obtained by incision from the unripe capsules of Papaver somniferum L. Opium is a complex mixture that contains approximately 10% morphine and 2% codeine. It is commonly used to prepare opium tinctures for people with chronic diarrhea. Morphine and related opioids are powerful but highly addictive analgesics; designing less addictive opioids is an active area of pharmaceutical research that may lead to significant improvements in chronic pain management. Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified opium consumption as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in human studies. However, all human studies analyzed by the IARC Working Group included participants who consumed opium that was mixed, adulterated, and/or contaminated with known and probable human carcinogens (e.g., tarry residues of combusted opium, arsenic, lead, and chromium). The working group considered that these carcinogens were part of the complex mixture that opium is, rather than co-exposure or confounders. No evidence of carcinogenicity was available for pure opium in human, animal, or mechanistic studies. To avoid confusion and concern among health professionals and patients using medicinal opium preparations and in scientists involved in the design and development of new opium derivatives, opium should be classified in Group 3 (not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans). The term 'street opium' could be used to refer to opium that probably contains human carcinogens not present in pure opium and should remain in Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans).

Does Opium Consumption Have Shared Impact on Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer?

Although atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and cancer are seemingly different types of disease, they have multiple shared underlying mechanisms and lifestyle-related risk factors like smoking, unhealthy diet, excessive alcohol consumption, and inadequate physical activity. Opium abuse is prevalent in developing countries, especially the Middle East region and many Asian countries. Besides recreational purposes, many people use opium based on a traditional belief that opium consumption may confer protection against heart attack and improve the control of the risk factors of ASCVD such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. However, scientific reports indicate an increased risk of ASCVD and poor control of ASCVD risk factors among opium abusers compared with nonusers. Moreover, there is accumulating evidence that opium consumption exerts potential carcinogenic effects and increases the risk of developing various types of cancer. We conducted a review of the literature to review the current evidence on the relationship between opium consumption and ASCVD as well as various kinds of cancer. In addition, we will discuss the potential shared pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying the association between opium abuse and both ASCVD and cancer.

Fifty Years of Research and One Conclusion: Opium Causes Cancer.

In September 2020, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that opium consumption causes cancer in humans - a conclusion drawn after reviewing data from five decades of research. Given the widespread use of opium and its derivatives by millions of people across the world, the classification of opium consumption as a "Group 1" carcinogen has important public health ramifications. In this mini-review, we offer a short history of opium use in humans and briefly review the body of research that led to the classification of opium consumption as carcinogenic. We also discuss possible mechanisms of opium's carcinogenicity and potential avenues for future research.

Hormesis: changing view of the dose-response, a personal account of the history and current status.

This paper provides a personal account of the history of the hormesis concept, and of the role of the dose response in toxicology and pharmacology. A careful evaluation of the toxicology and pharmacology literatures suggests that the biphasic dose response that characterizes hormesis may be much more widespread than is commonly recognized, and may come to rival our currently favored ideas about toxicological dose responses confined to the linear and threshold representations used in risk assessment. Although hormesis-like biphasic dose responses were already well-established in chemical and radiation toxicology by the early decades of the 20th century, they were all but expunged from mainstream toxicology in the 1930s. The reasons may be found in a complex set of unrelated problems of which difficulties in replication of low-dose stimulatory responses resulting from poor study designs, greater societal interest in high-dose effects, linking of the concept of hormesis to the practice of homeopathy, and perhaps most crucially a complete lack of strong leadership to advocate its acceptance in the right circles. I believe that if hormesis achieves widespread recognition as a valid and valuable interpretation of dose-response results, we would expect an increase in the breadth of evaluations of the dose-response relationship which could be of great value in hazard and risk assessment as well as in future approaches to drug development and/or chemotherapeutics.