Cited by 31Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentSmoking Behavior and CessationGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Cigarette smoking and survival after ovarian cancer diagnosis

Open access
Nagle, Christina M., Bain, Christopher J., Webb, Penelope M.·2006·Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract

We have examined the association between cigarette smoking and ovarian cancer survival in 676 women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, recruited into a case-control study in the early 1990s. Information about cigarette smoking and other personal and reproductive factors was obtained from a personal interview at the time of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between cigarette smoking and time to ovarian cancer death. Current smokers at diagnosis were more likely to die early than women who had never smoked [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.36; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.01-1.84]. Increased risks of dying were greater among those who had accumulated more pack-years of smoking (HR for 30+ pack-years compared with never smokers, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.41-2.66) and smoked more cigarettes per day (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.37-2.73). All these associations were stronger among women with late-stage disease (HR for current versus never smokers, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.15-2.18). Time since quitting had little effect on survival after adjusting for lifetime smoking exposure. These results validate and extend recent findings and suggest that premorbid cigarette smoking is related to worse outcome in ovarian cancer patients. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(12):2557–60)

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-06-0592

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Post-diagnosis smoking is associated with increased all-cause and cancer-related mortality.

    “and all-cause and cancer-related mortality.12,13”

    From Efficacy of smartphone applications to help cancer patients quit smoking: Protocol of the Quit2Heal randomized controlled trial (2023) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Results (p. 2) associate smoking at diagnosis with worse ovarian-cancer survival. But the paper explicitly limits its analysis to ovarian-cancer mortality, censoring deaths from other causes (Results, p. 2), and says it had no information on smoking after diagnosis (Discussion, p. 2). It therefore does not establish the claimed association for post-diagnosis smoking or all-cause mortality. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Quitting smoking after a cancer diagnosis reduces harms and improves prognosis and survival odds.

    “By contrast, quitting smoking after a cancer diagnosis dramatically reduces these harms and improves prognosis and odds of survival.6,12,13”

    From Efficacy of smartphone applications to help cancer patients quit smoking: Protocol of the Quit2Heal randomized controlled trial (2023) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Results (p. 2) associate smoking at diagnosis with worse survival in women with ovarian cancer and note better survival among former smokers. But smoking status was measured before diagnosis, not as quitting afterward; the apparent benefit of longer time since quitting was attenuated after adjustment for lifetime smoking exposure (Results, p. 2). The paper therefore does not establish that quitting after diagnosis dramatically improves prognosis or survival. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [8]8. fatal prostate cancer in United States health professionals. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:277-82.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nagle, C. M., Bain, C. J., & Webb, P. M.
Affiliations
  • QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Venue
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Published
2006-12-01
Volume
15
Issue
12
Pages
2557-2560
ISSN
  • 1055-9965 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7755
OpenAlex
W2043733025
Cited by
31
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
cigarette smoking, ovarian cancer, survival, epithelial ovarian cancer, pack-years, smoking intensity, stage at diagnosis, smoking cessation, mortality risk
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Australia, Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Ovarian Neoplasms, Smoking, Time Factors, Survival Analysis

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