This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Data Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pankow, J. F. Articles by Austin, D. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pankow, J. F. Articles by Austin, D. F. Related Collections Epidemiology Epidemiology: Classical Epidemiology

Calculated Cancer Risks for Conventional and "Potentially Reduced Exposure Product" Cigarettes

¹ Department of Environmental and Biomolecular Systems, Oregon Graduate Institute School of Science and Engineering; ² OHSU Cancer Institute; and ³ Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon

Requests for reprints: James F. Pankow, Department of Environmental and Biomolecular Systems, Oregon Graduate Institute School of Science and Engineering, Oregon Health and Science University, 20000 NW Walker Road, Beaverton, OR 97006-8921. Phone: 503-748-1070; Fax: 503-748-1464. E-mail: pankow{at}ebs.ogi.edu

Toxicant deliveries (by machine smoking) are compiled and associated cancer risks are calculated for 13 carcinogens from 26 brands of conventional cigarettes categorized as "regular" (R), "light" (Lt), or "ultralight" (ULt), and for a reference cigarette. Eight "potentially reduced exposure product" (PREP) cigarettes are also considered. Because agency-to-agency differences exist in the cancer slope factor (CSF) values adopted for some carcinogens, two CSF sets were used in the calculations: set I [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)–accepted values plus California EPA–accepted values as needed to fill data gaps] and set II (vice versa). The potential effects of human smoking patterns on cigarette deliveries are considered. Acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acrylonitrile are associated with the largest calculated cancer risks for all 26 brands of conventional cigarettes. The calculated risks are proportional to the smoking dose z (pack-years). Using CSF set I and z = 1 pack-year (7,300 cigarettes), the calculated brand-average incremental lifetime cancer risk values are R, 6 x 10^–5; Lt, 5 x 10^–5; and ULt, 3 x 10^–5 (cf. typical U.S. EPA risk benchmark of 10^–6). These values are similar, especially given the tendency of smokers to "compensate" when smoking Lt and ULt cigarettes. is the brand-average per pack-year subtotal risk for the measured human lung carcinogens. Using CSF set I, the values for R, Lt, and ULt cigarettes account for 2% of epidemiologically observed values of the all-smoker population average per pack-year risk of lung cancer from conventional cigarettes. R_PREP (%) is a science-based estimate of the possible reduction in lung cancer risk provided by a particular PREP as compared with conventional cigarettes. Using CSF set I, all R_PREP values are <2%. The current inability to account for the observed health risks of smoking based on existing data indicates that current expressed/implied marketing promises of reduced harm from PREPs are unverified: there is little reason to be confident that total removal of the currently measured human lung carcinogens would reduce the incidence of lung cancer among smokers by any noticeable amount. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(3):584–92)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Lin, V. Tran, and P. Talbot Comparison of toxicity of smoke from traditional and harm-reduction cigarettes using mouse embryonic stem cells as a novel model for preimplantation development Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2009; 24(2): 386 - 397. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G M Paszkiewicz and J L Pauly Spectrofluorometric method for measuring tobacco smoke particulate matter on cigarette filters and Cambridge pads Tob. Control, September 1, 2008; 17(Suppl_1): i53 - i58. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Givel FDA legislation Tob. Control, August 1, 2007; 16(4): 217 - 218. [Full Text] [PDF]