CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101Smoking Behavior and CessationCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research

Effects of reduced cigarette smoking on the uptake of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogen

Hecht, S. S., Murphy, S. E., Carmella, S. G., Zimmerman, C. L., Losey, L., Kramarczuk, I., Roe, M. R., Puumala, S. S. +4 more·2004·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
DOI 10.1093/jnci/djh016
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on carcinogen uptake in smokers who reduce their smoking. To determine whether reducing the number of cigarettes smoked per day would lead to a corresponding reduction in carcinogen uptake, we measured levels of metabolites of the tobacco-specific lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) in the urine of smokers who reduced their smoking for up to 26 weeks. METHODS: We recruited 153 smokers, of whom 151 were randomly assigned to a reduction group or a waitlist group. In the reduction group of 102 smokers, we measured the metabolites 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) and its glucuronides (NNAL-Gluc) at two baseline times and at weeks 4, 6, 8, 12, and 26 after baseline. Smokers were then expected to reduce their number of cigarettes per day by 25% in weeks 0-2, 50% in weeks 2-4, and 75% in weeks 4-6 and to maintain the reduced level through week 26. In the waitlist group of 49 smokers, four baseline measurements over 7 weeks were made to assess the longitudinal stability of the metabolite measurements, and then the smokers began the reduction program. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: For waitlist and reduction groups results were comparable. Statistically significant reductions in the lung carcinogen metabolites were observed at most intervals as smokers reduced the number of cigarettes smoked each day. However, the observed decreases were generally modest, always proportionally less than the reductions in cigarettes smoked per day, and sometimes transient. For example, among the 65 individuals in the reduction group who reduced cigarettes per day by 40% or more during weeks 4-12 after baseline, mean decreases in cigarettes per day were 53% (week 4), 74% (week 6), 75% (week 8), and 74% (week 12); whereas the corresponding mean reductions in NNAL plus NNAL-Gluc were 29%, 33%, 37%, and 29%. (P<.001 for all NNAL plus NNAL-Gluc values) CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant reductions in levels of urinary metabolites of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogen were achieved by reduction in smoking, but for most smokers, reductions were modest and transient.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/djh016

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Smokers engage in significant compensatory smoking so that a 50% or greater reduction in cigarette consumption only results in a 30% reduction in biomarkers for toxicant exposure and modest reductions in biomarkers for cardiovascular risk.

    “Smokers engage in significant compensatory smoking so that a 50% or greater reduction in cigarette consumption, only results in a 30% reduction in biomarkers for toxicant exposure (125, 126) and modest reductions in biomarkers for cardiovascular risk (127).”

    From Tobacco addiction (2008) · cites this paper as [126]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hecht, S. S., Murphy, S. E., Carmella, S. G., Zimmerman, C. L., Losey, L., Kramarczuk, I., Roe, M. R., Puumala, S. S., Li, Y. S., Le, C., Jensen, J., & Hatsukami, D. K.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Hecht, S. S.
ORCID
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2004-01-20
Volume
96
Issue
2
Pages
107-115
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
DOI
10.1093/jnci/djh016
OpenAlex
W2122499737
Cited by
101
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
8.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p50da013333-10)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA13333)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Keywords
cigarette smoking, NNK, NNAL, urinary biomarkers, lung cancer risk, biomarker stability, tobacco smoke carcinogens
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Alkaloids, Carcinogens, Cotinine, Female, Glucuronates, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Nitrosamines, Pyridines, Research Design, Smoking, Biomarkers, Tumor, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review