Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Nicotine Metabolite Ratio Predicts Smoking Topography and Carcinogen Biomarker Level

Andrew A. Strasser, Neal L. Benowitz, Angela G. Pinto, Kathy Z. Tang, Stephen S. Hecht, Steve G. Carmella, Rachel F. Tyndale and Caryn E. Lerman
Andrew A. Strasser
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neal L. Benowitz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Angela G. Pinto
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathy Z. Tang
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen S. Hecht
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steve G. Carmella
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachel F. Tyndale
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Caryn E. Lerman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0674 Published February 2011
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Variability in smoking behavior is partly attributable to heritable individual differences in nicotine clearance rates. This can be assessed as the ratio of the metabolites cotinine and 3′-hydroxycotinine (referred to as the nicotine metabolism ratio; NMR). We hypothesized that faster NMR would be associated with greater cigarette puff volume and higher levels of total 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL), a carcinogen biomarker.

Methods: Current smokers (n = 109) smoked one of their preferred brand cigarettes through a smoking topography device and provided specimens for NMR and total NNAL assays.

Results: Faster nicotine metabolizers (third and fourth quartiles versus first quartile) based on the NMR exhibited significantly greater total puff volume and total NNAL; the total puff volume by daily cigarette consumption interaction was a significant predictor of total NNAL level.

Conclusion: A heritable biomarker of nicotine clearance predicts total cigarette puff volume and total NNAL.

Impact: If validated, the NMR could contribute to smoking risk assessment in epidemiologic studies and potentially in clinical practice. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(2); 234–8. 2011 AACR.

Introduction

The substantial variability in smoking behavior is attributable, in part, to heritable individual differences in nicotine clearance rates (1). Nicotine, the primary addictive compound in tobacco, is metabolized to cotinine (COT), and then to 3′-hydroxycotinine (3HC), predominantly by the hepatic CYP2A6 enzyme (2, 3). Smokers can extract varying levels of nicotine by altering their smoking topography (e.g., puff volume, number of puffs; refs. 4–6), which in turn can affect level of toxin exposure (6–8).

To provide a noninvasive assessment of CYP2A6 activity, a phenotypic marker has been characterized (9). The ratio of 3HC/COT, referred to as the nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR), reflects CYP2A6 genetic variation and environmental factors influencing CYP2A6 activity and therefore nicotine clearance in vivo (10). The NMR is highly reproducible and independent of time since last cigarette (9, 11). Faster metabolizers of nicotine have higher smoking rates (12), and therefore may have increased risk for lung cancer (13, 14). We hypothesized that smokers with higher NMRs (faster nicotine metabolism) will exhibit (i) increased total puff volume, reflecting efforts to extract more nicotine from their cigarettes and (ii) increased total 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) levels, reflecting the effect of total puff volume on toxin exposure. If confirmed, the NMR would be of value in assessment of risk from cigarette smoking.

Materials and Methods

To test this hypothesis, 109 smokers of 10 or more cigarettes per day and ages 18 to 65 years were recruited from participants in a nicotine replacement therapy trial (for exclusion criteria see ref. 15). The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Pennsylvania and all other analytical sites.

Participants were recruited from April 2005 to February 2006. Following informed consent and prior to initiating treatment, they completed measures of demographics, smoking history, current cigarette brand, and nicotine dependence level (Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence; FTND; ref. 16). They provided a 15-mL blood sample for analysis of nicotine metabolites, assayed at the University of California, San Francisco via liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (9). Genotyping for CYP2A6 variants was done at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (Toronto, Canada) as previously described (17). A 30-mL urine sample was provided and assayed for total NNAL, the sum of NNAL, and its glucuronides at the University of Minnesota, per standard procedures (18).

In a smoking-approved ventilated room, participants smoked one of their own brand cigarettes under ad libitum conditions, using a smoking topography device (Clinical Research Support System) validated in previous research (19, 20). Participants were asked to refrain from smoking for 1 hour prior to their laboratory smoking session, and were generally compliant (mean = 64.3 minutes; SD = 35.4; range, 42–190). Total puff volume, defined as the sum of all puffs taken, was a priori selected as the outcome measure for analysis (21, 22).

NMR values were positively skewed (+1.8) and have positive kurtosis (+4.8) consistent with previously results, and was therefore log-transformed (15, 17). NMR quartiles were created (15, 23) and CYP2A6 genotypes were coded as described previously (17). NMR quartiles, previously determined from receiver operator characteristic analyses, have been used to characterize smokers' response to transdermal nicotine treatment and bupropion (15, 17, 24), and therefore were used in this study to assist comparisons to previous research that utilized NMR. Hypotheses were tested using analysis of covariance where total puff volume and total NNAL were the outcome measures and NMR quartile was the between group factor. Fisher's post hoc analyses were used to identify quartile differences. Regression analysis was used to examine the association between log-transformed NMR and total puff volume, and with NNAL. Stepwise regression analysis was used to examine the association between smoking behavior (daily cigarette consumption, total puff volume, and their product as an index of daily puff volume) and total NNAL levels, retaining covariates at P < 0.2.

Results

The participant sample was 59% men, 96% Caucasian with an average age of 45.4 years (SD = 10.8). On average, they had been smoking for 29.3 years (SD = 11.2), smoked an average of 20.5 cigarettes per day (SD = 8.4), with an average nicotine dependence score of 4.9 (SD = 2.1). Most participants smoked light brand (55%) and nonmenthol (71%) cigarettes. This study sample is similar to the full clinical study sample, (n = 568; see ref. 15), but with a significantly greater proportion of Caucasians (84% in the full sample). Of the 142 participants who attended these initial intake sessions, 131 (92%) agreed to complete a smoking topography assessment with their own brand cigarettes; of these 131, 14 withdrew prior to having assays completed, 5 had contaminated urine samples, and 3 had failed topography assessment. Topography session completers did not differ from noncompleters on demographic or smoking variables.

Mean plasma NMR value was 0.395 (SD = 0.20; range, 0.012–1.246). Mean (SD; lower limit and upper limit) for quartiles were as follows (for additional data see Table 1): Quartile 1, 0.192 (0.06; 0.010–0.259); Quartile 2, 0.313 (0.03; 0.260–0.357); Quartile 3, 0.410 (SD0.036; 0.358–0.477); Quartile 4, 0.668 (0.21; 0.478–1.246). Women were more likely to be in the highest NMR (faster metabolism; P = 0.02), consistent with previous reports that women metabolize nicotine faster than men (25). NMR was nonsignificantly higher among participants who were older (P = 0.10), who had higher nicotine dependence levels (P = 0.09), and who smoked nonmenthol cigarettes (P = 0.10). Thus, these variables were included as covariates.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Descriptive measures for overall study sample and nicotine metabolism ratio quartiles

Mean total puff volume was 785.1 mL (SD = 284.9; range, 247.4–1776.1). There was an overall association of NMR quartiles with total puff volume (F = 2.62, P = 0.05); smokers in the third quartile (P = 0.042) and fourth quartile (P = 0.016) exhibited significantly higher total puff volumes than those in the first quartile (Table 1; Fig. 1A). Faster metabolizers by CYP2A6 (*1/*1, n = 89) genotype also had higher puff volumes than slower metabolizers (defined as any of *2, *4, *9, *12 variants, n = 19); means were 816.8 mL (SD = 292.0) versus 643.3 mL (SD = 206.9), respectively (F = 6.04, P = 0.02; results the same when the 5 non-European ancestry subjects were excluded).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Association of the NMR with total puff volume and NNAL. A, NMR quartiles versus total puff volume (mL). Results are mean ± SD (F = 2.62, P = 0.05). Post hoc comparisons indicate a significant difference between the first and third quartiles (P = 0.042) and the first and fourth quartiles (P = 0.016). B, NMR quartiles versus NNAL. Results are mean ± SD (F = 3.59, P = 0.02). Post hoc comparisons indicate a significant difference between the first and third quartiles (P = 0.001) and the first and fourth quartiles (P = 0.033).

Mean total NNAL was 1.47 pmol/mg creatinine (SD = 0.79; range, 0.10–4.2). There was a significant main effect of the NMR (F = 3.59, P = 0.02); smokers in the third quartile (P = 0.001) and fourth quartile (P = 0.033) had higher total NNAL levels than those in the first quartile (Table 1; Fig. 1B). A similar, nonsignificant difference was seen in genotypic fast versus slow metabolizers [1.54 pmol/mg creatinine (SD = 0.92) versus 1.34 pmol/mg creatinine (SD = 0.68), P = 0.35). Results were unchanged when the nicotine dependence (FTND) covariate was replaced with smoking rate.

Linear regression analysis indicated a positive association between log-transformed NMR and total puff volume (beta = 321.2, t = 2.35, P = 0.024, R2 = 0.051); and log-transformed NMR and total NNAL (beta = .831, t = 2.41, P = 0.02, R2 = 0.052). Stepwise regression analysis indicated that the total puff volume by daily cigarette consumption product was positively associated with total NNAL level (beta = 2.538×10−5, t = 2.94, P = 0.004), controlling for sex (P = 0.02), years smoking (P = 0.04), and menthol (P = 0.16); the overall model was significant [F(4,104) = 4.85, P = 0.001, R2 = 0.16].

Discussion

This study is the first to show that a heritable biomarker of nicotine clearance, the NMR, predicts total cigarette puff volume and overall carcinogen exposure based on total NNAL. Compared with the slowest metabolizers (first quartile), smokers in the third and fourth quartiles exhibited 23% and 28% increases in cigarette puff volume, respectively, and total NNAL levels that are 61% and 53% higher, respectively. These results are consistent with our previous study (26) and current results showing increased puff volume among fast metabolizers by CYP2A6 genotype. Results potentially could be interpreted as faster metabolizers take greater puffs to obtain a desired, greater level of nicotine, or that slow metabolizers smoke less intensely to avoid excessive or toxic nicotine levels. We suggest that it is more likely that faster metabolizers smoke more to obtain a desired level of nicotine, as there is little support for slow metabolizers reporting nausea when learning to smoke (27) and in high-dose transdermal nicotine studies, continued smoking did not lead to signs of nicotine toxicity (28).

The availability of a phenotypic measure of CYP2A6 activity, such as the NMR, is useful as it captures both genetic, such as yet unidentified alleles or other genes, and environmental influences, such as estrogen levels (25), on CYP2A6 activity and nicotine clearance, and NMR can be measured noninvasively (e.g., saliva) without additional drug administration (29, 30).

Cigarette smoking causes the majority of lung cancer cases (31) and total NNAL is a biomarker for one of the most prevalent systemic lung carcinogens in tobacco (32, 33). Yet, there is substantial variability in lung cancer risk at a given level of smoking (34, 35). This may be attributable to individual differences in the amount of toxin exposure per cigarette, and in activation in carcinogens (13). Because lung cancer can take years to develop, the identification of practical biomarkers to improve risk assessment would be of great value.

There are some limitations of this study. Although puff volume is reliable and stable (19, 20), repeated assessments, rather than the single assessment here, may better reflect daily smoking patterns. Participants in this study were restricted to treatment-seeking smokers who smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day, and may not represent the general smoking population. One might postulate that because slow metabolizers have lower daily cigarette consumption, a high percentage may have not met study inclusion criteria (26). Therefore, these findings should also be replicated in a population-based sample. Lastly, a more comprehensive biomarker panel that includes not only the NMR, but also information on cigarette brand features (e.g., filter ventilation; ref. 6), and diurnal variations in smoking patterns (36) may provide a more refined assessment of risk from smoking. Such measures could potentially enhance risk assessment in epidemiologic studies and, if replicated, could be translated in the future to clinical practice.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

N. Benowitz, commerical research grant, Pfizer; R. Tyndale, ownership interest, Nicogen; C. Lerman, consultant, Novartis.

Grant Support

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health: P50 CA/DA84718, CA143187 (C.E. Lerman), U01 DA020830 (N.L. Benowitz, R.F. Tyndale, C.E. Lerman), R01 CA120594 (A.A. Strasser) and R01 CA130961 (A.A. Strasser); and Canadian Institutes of Health Research: MOP86471 (R.F. Tyndale).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

  • Received June 24, 2010.
  • Revision received November 19, 2010.
  • Accepted December 11, 2010.
  • ©2011 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ray R,
    2. Tyndale RF,
    3. Lerman C
    . Nicotine dependence pharmacogenetics: role of genetic variation in nicotine-metabolizing enzymes. J Neurogenet 2009;23:252–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Messina ES,
    2. Tyndale RF,
    3. Sellers EM
    . A major role for CYP2A6 in nicotine C-oxidation by human liver microsomes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1997;282:1608–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Nakajima M,
    2. Kwon JT,
    3. Tanaka N,
    4. Zenta T,
    5. Yamamoto Y,
    6. Yamamoto H
    ., et al. Relationship between interindividual differences in nicotine metabolism and CYP2A6 genetic polymorphism in humans. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69:72–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Strasser AA,
    2. Tang KZ,
    3. Sanborn PM,
    4. Zhou JY,
    5. Kozlowski LT
    . Behavioral filter vent blocking on the first cigarette of the day predicts which smokers of light cigarettes will increase smoke exposure from blocked vents. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2009;17:405–12
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Benowitz NL,
    2. Jacob P III,
    3. Herrera B
    . Nicotine intake and dose response when smoking reduced-nicotine content cigarettes. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006;80:703–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Djordjevic MV,
    2. Stellman SD,
    3. Zang E
    . Doses of nicotine and lung carcinogens delivered to cigarette smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:106–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Strasser AA,
    2. Pickworth WB,
    3. Patterson F,
    4. Lerman C
    . Smoking topography predicts abstinence following treatment with nicotine replacement therapy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:1800–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Strasser AA,
    2. O'Connor RJ,
    3. Mooney ME,
    4. Wileyto EP
    . Digital image analysis of cigarette filter stains as an indicator of compensatory smoking. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:2565–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Dempsey D,
    2. Tutka P,
    3. Jacob P III,
    4. Allen F,
    5. Schoedel K,
    6. Tyndale RF
    . Nicotine metabolite ratio as an index of cytochrome P450 2A6 metabolic activity. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004;76:64–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Benowitz NL,
    2. Hukkanen J,
    3. Jacob P III
    . Nicotine chemistry, metabolism, kinetics and biomarkers. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2009;192:29–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Lea RA,
    2. Dickson S,
    3. Benowitz NL
    . Within-subject variation of the salivary 3HC/COT ratio in regular daily smokers: prospects for estimating CYP2A6 enzyme activity in large-scale surveys of nicotine metabolic rate. J Anal Toxicol 2006;30:386–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Benowitz NL,
    2. Pomerleau OF,
    3. Pomerleau CS,
    4. Jacob P III
    . Nicotine metabolite ratio as a predictor of cigarette consumption. Nicotine Tob Res 2003;5:621–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  13. 13.↵
    1. Tyndale RF,
    2. Sellers EM
    . Variable CYP2A6-mediated nicotine metabolism alters smoking behavior and risk. Drug Metab Dispos 2001;29:548–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. London S,
    2. Idle J,
    3. Daly A,
    4. Coetzee G
    . Genetic variation of CYP2A6, smoking, and risk of cancer. Lancet 1999;353:898–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Schnoll RA,
    2. Patterson F,
    3. Wileyto EP,
    4. Tyndale RF,
    5. Benowitz N,
    6. Lerman C
    . Nicotine metabolic rate predicts successful smoking cessation with transdermal nicotine: a validation study. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2009;92:6–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Heatherton TF,
    2. Kozlowski LT,
    3. Frecker RC,
    4. Fagerstrom KO
    . The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict 1991;86:1119–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Lerman C,
    2. Jepson C,
    3. Wileyto EP,
    4. Patterson F,
    5. Schnoll R,
    6. Mroziewicz M,
    7. et al.
    Genetic variation in nicotine metabolism predicts the efficacy of extended-duration transdermal nicotine therapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2010.3.
  18. 18.↵
    1. Carmella SG,
    2. Han S,
    3. Fristad A,
    4. Yang Y,
    5. Hecht SS
    . Analysis of total 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) in human urine. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:1257–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Strasser AA,
    2. Ashare RL,
    3. Kozlowski LT,
    4. Pickworth WB
    . The effect of filter vent blocking and smoking topography on carbon monoxide levels in smokers. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2005;82:320–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Lee E,
    2. Malson JL,
    3. Waters AJ,
    4. Moolchan ET,
    5. Pickworth WB
    . Smoking topography: reliability and validity in dependent smokers. Nicotine Tob Res 2003;5:673–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  21. 21.↵
    1. Strasser AA,
    2. Lerman C,
    3. Sanborn PM,
    4. Pickworth W,
    5. Feldman E
    . New lower nicotine cigarettes produce compensatory smoking and increased carbon monoxide exposure. Drug Alcohol Depend 2007;86:294–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Benowitz NL,
    2. Jacob P III,
    3. Bernert JT,
    4. Wilson M,
    5. Wang L,
    6. Allen F,
    7. et al.
    Carcinogen exposure during short-term switching from regular to “light” cigarettes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1376–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Lerman C,
    2. Tyndale RF,
    3. Patterson F,
    4. Wileyto EP,
    5. Shields PG,
    6. Pinto A,
    7. et al.
    Nicotine metabolite ratio predicts efficacy of transdermal nicotine for smoking cessation, Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006;79:600–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Patterson F,
    2. Schnoll RA,
    3. Wileyto EP,
    4. Pinto A,
    5. Epstein LH,
    6. Shields PG,
    7. et al.
    Toward personalized therapy for smoking cessation: a randomized placebo-controlled trial of bupropion. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;84:320–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Benowitz NL,
    2. Lessov-Schlaggar CN,
    3. Swan GE,
    4. Jacob P III
    . Female sex and oral contraceptive use accelerate nicotine metabolism. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006;79:480–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Strasser AA,
    2. Malaiyandi V,
    3. Hoffmann E,
    4. Tyndale R,
    5. Lerman C
    . An association of CYP2A6 genotype and smoking topography. Nicotine Tob Res 2007;9(4):511–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Audrain-McGovern J,
    2. Al Koudsi N,
    3. Rodriguez D,
    4. Wileyto EP,
    5. Shields PG,
    6. Tyndale RF
    . The role of CYP2A6 in the emergence of nicotine dependence in adolescents. Pediatrics 2007;119:264–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. Benowitz NL,
    2. Zevin S,
    3. Jacob P III
    . Suppression of nicotine intake during ad libitum cigarette smoking by high dose transdermal nicotine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1998;287:958–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Swan GE,
    2. Benowitz NL,
    3. Lessov CN,
    4. Jacob P III,
    5. Tyndale RF,
    6. Wilhelmsen K
    . Nicotine metabolism: the impact of CYP2A6 on estimates of additive genetic influence. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2005;15:115–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Benowitz NL,
    2. Dains KM,
    3. Dempsey D,
    4. Herrera B,
    5. Yu L,
    6. Jacob P III
    . Urine nicotine metabolite concentrations in relation to plasma cotinine during low-level nicotine exposure. Nicotine Tob Res 2009;11:954–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. International Agency for Research on Canerer (IARC)
    . Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Lyon, France: IARC; 2004.
  32. 32.↵
    1. Hecht SS
    . Cigarette smoking and lung cancer: chemical mechanisms and approaches to prevention. Lancet Oncol 2002;3:461–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Hecht SS
    . Tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1194–210.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. United States Department of Health and Human Services
    . The health consequences of smoking: a report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2004.
  35. 35.↵
    1. Godtfredsen NS,
    2. Prescott E,
    3. Osler M
    . Effect of smoking reduction on lung cancer risk. JAMA 2005;294:1505–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Muscat JE,
    2. Stellman SD,
    3. Caraballo RS,
    4. Richie JP Jr
    . Time to first cigarette after waking predicts cotinine levels. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:3415–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 20 (2)
February 2011
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Nicotine Metabolite Ratio Predicts Smoking Topography and Carcinogen Biomarker Level
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Nicotine Metabolite Ratio Predicts Smoking Topography and Carcinogen Biomarker Level
Andrew A. Strasser, Neal L. Benowitz, Angela G. Pinto, Kathy Z. Tang, Stephen S. Hecht, Steve G. Carmella, Rachel F. Tyndale and Caryn E. Lerman
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev February 1 2011 (20) (2) 234-238; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0674

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Nicotine Metabolite Ratio Predicts Smoking Topography and Carcinogen Biomarker Level
Andrew A. Strasser, Neal L. Benowitz, Angela G. Pinto, Kathy Z. Tang, Stephen S. Hecht, Steve G. Carmella, Rachel F. Tyndale and Caryn E. Lerman
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev February 1 2011 (20) (2) 234-238; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0674
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Grant Support
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Urinary Melatonin in Relation to Breast Cancer Risk
  • Endometrial Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Cross-Cancer GWAS
  • Risk Factors of Subsequent CNS Tumor after Pediatric Cancer
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement