Advertisement
Cancer Progress and Priorities

Cancer Progress and Priorities: Lung Cancer

Matthew B. Schabath and Michele L. Cote
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-0221 Published October 2019

Introduction

In the United States, lung cancer is the second most common diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death. Although tobacco smoking is the major risk factor accounting for 80% to 90% of all lung cancer diagnoses, there are numerous other risk factors that have been identified as casually associated with lung cancer etiology. However, there are few causally linked risk factors for lung cancer diagnosed among never smokers, which, if considered a unique reportable category, is the 11th most common cancer and the 7th leading cause of cancer-related death. Lung cancer survival has only marginally improved over the last several decades, but the availability of screening and early detection by low-dose CT and advances in targeted treatments and immunotherapy will likely decrease mortality rates and improve patient survival outcomes in the near future.

Descriptive Epidemiology

Incidence

Globally, lung cancer has been the most common diagnosed cancer for the last several decades (1, 2). In 2018, there was an estimated 2.1 million new lung cancer diagnoses accounting for 12% of the global cancer burden (1, 2). Among men, lung cancer remains the most common cancer diagnosis with approximately 1.37 million diagnoses in 2018, with the highest incidence rates in Micronesia (54.1 per 100,000), Polynesia (52.0 per 100,000), Central and Eastern Europe (49.3 per 100,000), and Eastern Asia (47.2 per 100,000). Among women, incidence rates are generally lower than men with approximately over 725,000 new lung cancer diagnoses in 2018. Geographic variations in incidence rates differ for women compared with men (Fig. 1A and B), which are attributed to historical differences in cigarette smoking. Among women, the highest incidence rates occur in North America (30.7 per 100,000), Northern Europe (26.9 per 100,000), and Western Europe (25.7 per 100,000).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Age-standardized rates (ASR) for lung cancer incidence worldwide. A, Age-standardized incidence rates for lung cancer among males using data from GLOBOCAN, 2018. Lung cancer incidence among males is highest in Micronesia, Polynesia, Central and Eastern Europe, and Eastern Asia and lowest in most of Africa. B, Age-standardized incidence rates for lung cancer among females using data from GLOBOCAN, 2018. Lung cancer incidence among females is highest in North America, Northern Europe, Western Europe, and Australia/New Zealand and lowest in most of Africa. Data source: GLOBOCAN 2018. Graph production: IARC (http://gco.iarc.fr/today), World Health Organization.

In the United States, lung cancer is the second most common cancer in men after prostate cancer and the second most common cancer in women after breast cancer (3, 4). In 2019, an estimated 228,150 new cases of lung cancer are expected. The incidence rate among men is 71.3 per 100,000 and for women it is 52.3 per 100,000. Although the incidence rate has been declining in men since the mid-1980s, incidence rates did not start declining for women until the mid-2000s because of historical sex-specific differences of smoking uptake and cessation. The decline in incidence has gained momentum in the past decade with rates decreasing from 2011 to 2015 by nearly 3% per year in men and 1.5% per year in women. Geographically, lung cancer incidence is higher in the Midwest, East, and South with the highest rates observed in the South for both men and women (Fig. 2A and B).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Age-adjusted lung cancer incidence rates in the United States. A, Age-adjusted lung cancer incidence rates for males in the United States, 2011–2015, using data from U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. B, Age-adjusted lung cancer incidence rates for females in the United States, 2011–2015, using data from U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. Among both males and females, lung cancer incidence is higher in the Midwest and East and the highest rates are observed in the South, while the lowest rates are generally found in Western states. Data source: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. U.S. Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool, based on November 2017 submission data (1999–2015): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute (www.cdc.gov/cancer/dataviz), June 2018.

Mortality.

The global geographical patterns in lung cancer–related deaths closely follow those in incidence because of poor survival and the high fatality rate of this disease (Fig. 3A and B). Worldwide, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in men and the second-leading cause in women. In 2018, an estimated 1.8 million deaths occurred (1.2 million in men and 576,100 in women), accounting for 1 in 5 cancer-related deaths worldwide (1, 2). The geographic variations by country/region between men and women are largely attributed to historic patterns in tobacco smoking and maturity of the tobacco epidemic (2).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Estimated age-standardized rates (ASR) for lung cancer mortality worldwide. A, Age-standardized mortality rates for lung cancer among males using data from GLOBOCAN, 2018. Lung cancer mortality among males is highest in Eastern Europe, Western Asia, Northern Africa, and specific countries in Eastern Asia and lowest in most of Africa. B, Age-standardized mortality rates for lung cancer among females using data from GLOBOCAN, 2018. Lung cancer mortality among females in North America, Northern Europe, Western Europe, and Australia/New Zealand and lowest in most of Africa. Data source: GLOBOCAN 2018. Graph production: IARC (http://gco.iarc.fr/today), World Health Organization.

In the United States, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death among both men and women (3, 4). In 2019, an estimated 142,670 deaths are expected to occur, or about 23.5% of all cancer-related deaths. The mortality rate among men is 51.6 per 100,000 and 34.4 per 100,000 for women. Because of reductions in smoking, the lung cancer–related death rate has declined 48% since 1990 in men and by 23% since 2002 in women. From 2012 to 2016, the death rate dropped by about 4% per year in men and 3% per year in women. Geographically, lung cancer mortality follows a pattern similar to incidence, including the highest rates observed in the South (Fig. 4A and B).

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Age-adjusted lung cancer mortality rates in the United States. A, Age-adjusted lung cancer mortality rates for males in the United States, 2011–2015, using data from U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. B, Age-adjusted lung cancer mortality rates for females in the United States, 2011–2015, using data from U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. Among both males and females, lung cancer morality is higher in the Midwest, East, and South and lowest in most Mountain states and California. Data source: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. U.S. Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool, based on November 2017 submission data (1999–2015): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute (www.cdc.gov/cancer/dataviz), June 2018.

Survival

Despite substantial improvements in survival in recent years for most other cancer types in the United States, there have only been small improvements in 5-year survival among patients diagnosed with lung cancer (Fig. 5). This lack of improvement is primarily because the majority of patients are diagnosed with late-stage disease where the survival rates are dismal (Fig. 6). The 5-year relative survival rate for all lung cancers [non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) combined] is 19%, and the 5-year survival is higher for NSCLC (23%) than SCLC (6%; refs. 3, 4).

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Temporal trends in 5-year relative percent survival for lung and bronchus cancer. Observed and modeled trends in lung and bronchus cancer 5-year survival from 1975–2015 using data from SEER 18 (https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html).

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

Percent of lung cancer cases at diagnosis and 5-year relative survival by stage. The percentage of lung cancer cases diagnosed in the United States by stage and their respective 5-year survival rates using data from SEER 18 (https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html). “Localized” is confined to the primary site, “regional” has spread to the regional lymph nodes, and “distant” is a cancer that has metastasized. “Unknown,” which accounts for 4% of diagnoses and has an 8.2% 5-year survival, is not shown.

Despite the high mortality rates and poor survival outcomes associated with a lung cancer diagnosis, the next generation of targeted therapies and the emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated durable long-term survival in subsets of patients. As such, these therapies may hold the key in improving lung cancer patient outcomes leading to curable lung cancer among early-stage diagnoses and a chronic and manageable disease for patients with advanced and metastatic disease.

Histologic Classification

Lung cancer tumors are divided into two broad histologic categories: NSCLC and SCLC. NSCLC represents more than 80% to 85% of lung cancers of which approximately 40% are adenocarcinoma, 25% to 30% are squamous cell carcinoma, and 10% to 15% are large cell carcinomas (Fig. 7; refs. 5–7). Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) was a distinct histologic classification representing a subgroup of adenocarcinomas and has been replaced with adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, and invasive adenocarcinoma of the lung (8). Other less common histologic subtypes include adenosquamous carcinoma, pleomorphic sarcomatoid carcinoma, large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, and carcinoid tumor.

Figure 7.
Figure 7.

Histologic classification of lung cancer. The two major lung cancer histologic categories (NSCLC and small cell lung carcinoma) and the most common histologic subtypes among NSCLC (adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and large cell carcinoma).

Among women, adenocarcinoma has been the most frequently diagnosed histologic subtype since at least the 1970s (Fig. 8A). Among men, the incidence rate of lung adenocarcinoma has been on the rise since the 1970s, and the incidence rate for lung adenocarcinoma surpassed squamous cell carcinoma around 1994 (Fig. 8B). The incidence rate for squamous cell carcinomas has been on the decline since the early 1980s. This temporal shift in histologic diagnoses is largely attributed to the widespread use of filtered cigarettes and increasing amounts of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in tobacco (9). Regarding the former, earlier in the 20th century, most mass-produced cigarettes were nonfiltered, which discouraged deep inhalation and combusted tobacco smoke exposed primarily in the trachea and bronchus, resulting in observed higher rates of squamous cell carcinoma diagnoses especially among men (10). When filtered cigarettes were introduced, combusted tobacco smoke dispersed deeper into the respiratory tree due to deeper inhalation resulting in adenocarcinomas with a more peripheral distribution (11). The introduction of so-called “light” filtered cigarettes and changing tobacco blends, which decreased nicotine but increased nitrates and N-nitrosamines, had the paradoxical effect of increasing, rather than decreasing, lung cancer risk due to promotion of deeper and more frequent inhalation of combusted tobacco smoke (10, 11).

Figure 8.
Figure 8.

Age-adjusted incidence rates (per 100,000) for lung and bronchus cancer by year of diagnosis and histology. A, Age-adjusted incidence rates among females for lung and bronchus cancer by year of diagnosis and histology using SEER 9, 1973–2015. B, Age-adjusted incidence rates among males for lung and bronchus cancer by year of diagnosis and histology using SEER 9, 1973–2015. The incidence rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. population.

Although the binary division of lung cancer into NSCLC and SCLC is still widely applied and relevant, advances in genomic profiling has resulted in a paradigm shift whereby lung cancers are also characterized and classified by tumor biomarkers and genetic alterations, such as gene expression, mutations, amplifications, and rearrangements (Table 1), that are critical to tumor growth and survival and can be exploited with specific targeted agents or immune-checkpoint blockades (12–14).

View this table:
Table 1.

Frequency of somatic mutations and alterations in NSCLC

Disparities

Males versus females

Although the terms "sex" and "gender" have been historically interchangeable in medical research, their uses are distinct as sex is conventionally based on anatomy and physiology, whereas gender typically refers to identity, behavior, or socially constructed roles. As such, research in potential lung cancer disparities has not disentangled sex versus gender. Nonetheless, the established differences in lung cancer incidence and mortality rates between males and females are attributed to historic patterns in tobacco smoking as noted above. To address potential sex-specific differences in lung cancer risk, O'Keeffe and colleagues (15) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies on the sex-specific association of smoking with the risk of fatal and nonfatal lung cancer. By restricting the analyses to cohort studies, the goal was to minimize bias often present in case–control studies. Data from 99 cohort studies representing more than 7 million individuals and over 50,000 incident cases of lung cancer found no evidence for sex-specific differences for risk of smoking-related lung cancer. Specifically, the authors reported a pooled adjusted lung cancer relative risk of 6.99 for females and 7.33 for males and found no evidence of publication bias or differences across major predefined participant and study subtypes. The female-to-male ratio of relative risk was 0.99, 1.11, and 0.94, for light, moderate, and heavy smoking, respectively. The authors acknowledge that “…these data may yet underestimate the true relative risk of smoking-related lung cancer in women, given later uptake and lower intensity of smoking in women.”

Regarding sex-specific lung cancer among never smokers, there is compelling historic evidence (16–18) that suggests a higher risk, incidence, and mortality among never-smoking females versus never-smoking males. Conversely, a multi-institutional registry-based study (19) of over 12,000 patients with lung cancer found that the proportion of patients with lung cancer who reported themselves as never smokers increased over time, but the observed increase was independent of sex.

Race and ethnicity

Racial and ethnic differences in lung cancer incidence, mortality, and survival outcomes are well-documented and are largely attributed to inequalities in wealth (i.e., socioeconomic status) leading to differences in risk factor exposures and barriers to high-quality prevention, early detection, and treatment (4). Analyses from the American Cancer Society (4) revealed that lung cancer incidence for non-Hispanic Black men (85.4 per 100,000) is higher than non-Hispanic White men (74.3 per 100,000) and Hispanic men (39.2 per 100,000). However, the incidence for non-Hispanic Black women (49.2 per 100,000) and Hispanic women (24.6 per 100,000) is lower than non-Hispanic White women (57.4 per 100,000). Similar trends were noted for lung cancer mortality. Black patients with lung cancer (16%) have overall lower 5-year relative survival rate than Whites (19%), which is consistent for localized (52% vs. 56%) and regional disease (27% vs. 30%), but not for distant disease (5% vs. 5%). Black patients with lung cancer are more frequently diagnosed with distant disease compared with White patients (61% vs. 57%) and less frequently diagnosed with localized disease (13% vs. 17%).

Socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a broad term for the social standing or “class” of an individual or group of people and is often measured based on highest attained education, income, and occupation. SES is associated with health and disease through multiple interacting pathways in terms of resources, physical and psychosocial stressors, and health-related behaviors and risk factors. SES is strongly associated with some lung cancer risk factors, including tobacco smoking behavior, whereby uptake may be higher among those with low SES and quit attempts are less likely to be successful (20). Results from the American Cancer Society found that cancer mortality is 28% higher overall in poor counties than affluent counties in the United States and >40% higher among men in poor counties (4). A pooled analysis of 17,021 cases and 20,885 controls found that, after adjusting for smoking, low SES based on International Socio-Economic Index was associated with an 84% increased risk of lung cancer among men and a 54% increased risk among women (21). Lung cancer risk was still elevated but somewhat attenuated when SES was assessed using the European Socio-economic Classification. The authors concluded that the strong associations emphasizes the need for further exploration of the pathways from SES to lung cancer and “clarifying these pathways could then contribute to further understanding of lung cancer etiology and shape prevention approaches.”

LGBTQ individuals

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) community, also referred to as sexual and gender minorities, is a diverse and medically underserved population that has been historically marginalized (22–25). The sparse but growing body of evidence demonstrates the LGBTQ population may be an ignored epidemic (26) associated with increased risk and poorer outcomes for certain cancers, including lung cancer (27–32). Prior studies linking Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data with the United States Census (31) and California Cancer Registry with the California Health Interview Survey (30) provided evidence that gay men have higher incidence and mortality rates for lung cancer, and lesbian females have lower incidence and mortality rates from lung cancer compared with the general population. In the bisexual community, men have a lower incidence of lung cancer, whereas bisexual women have higher incidence of lung cancer. The lung cancer disparities among LGBTQ individuals may be attributed, in part, to higher prevalence of tobacco smoking among this population (33–35). To date, there are no published risk estimates for the association between tobacco smoking and lung cancer among LGBTQ individuals. Another potential risk modifier is human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, in which gay and bisexual individuals account for over 67% of all HIV diagnoses (36) and incidence of lung cancer among HIV-infected patients is significantly higher than the general population (37). HIV and lung cancer are discussed below.

Risk Factors

Causative and putative lung cancer risk factors that are discussed below are summarized in Table 2.

View this table:
Table 2.

Established and putative risk lung cancer risk factors

Tobacco smoking

Unequivocally, tobacco smoking is the most important and prevalent lung cancer risk factor. A rare disease at the beginning of the 20th century, lung cancer was one of the first diseases to be causally linked to tobacco smoking (38). Throughout most of the 20th century in the United States, lung cancer incidence and mortality increased as the per capita in cigarette consumption increased (Fig. 9) and as successive generations of first male and then female smokers began smoking at earlier ages. Men predominantly began smoking manufactured cigarettes earlier in the 20th century, during and after World War II. Although few women smoked regularly before World War II, average age at initiation continued to decrease and per capita in cigarette consumption increased through the 1960s (39). Tobacco consumption fell drastically in the United States following publication of the landmark 1964 U.S. Surgeon General's Report that concluded cigarette smoking is causally related to lung cancer in men (10).

Figure 9.
Figure 9.

Trends in cigarette and lung cancer–related death rates. The temporal trends in cigarette use versus lung cancer death rates for both males and females in the United States using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data sources from National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017, and CDC Report on Consumption of Combustible and Smokeless Tobacco — United States, 2000–2015, page 1359.

Tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, including at least 69 established carcinogens and other toxicants associated with major diseases (40). Although only around 15% of smokers develop lung cancer, 80% to 90% of lung cancer diagnoses are attributed to tobacco smoking in the United States (3). The relative risk of lung cancer is estimated to be about 20-fold higher than that of a lifetime never smoker, and the magnitude of lung cancer risk is related to smoking intensity (i.e., cigarettes smoked per day and number of years smoked; refs. 40–42). Numerous lung cancer risk models (43–48) are available as web-based tools (49) that provide risk assessment based on demographic information, including smoking history and intensity.

Exposure to secondhand smoke

Secondhand smoke, or side-stream smoke, is an indirect carcinogenic exposure resulting from the burning of tobacco products. From 1988 to 2014, secondhand smoke exposure among never smokers in the United States significantly declined from 87.5% to 25.2%, attributed to tobacco control efforts and smoke-free laws and policies in workplaces and public places (50). However, there has been no change in secondhand smoke exposure between 2011 to 2012 and between 2013 to 2014 with an estimated 1 in 4 never smokers, or about 58 million people, exposed to secondhand smoke from 2013 to 2014 (50). Carcinogens that have been measured in secondhand smoke include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, nitrosamines, and aromatic amines. Studies have shown that nicotine and its metabolite cotinine as well as DNA adducts from tobacco carcinogens are present in the urine of never smokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke (51). A 2006 report from the U.S. Surgeon General on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke (52) concluded there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and stated, “The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location.” A meta-analysis published in 2018 of 12 studies found that secondhand smoke exposure compared with never smokers without such exposure was associated with a 25% increased risk of lung cancer (53). A separate meta-analysis that assessed the association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in Japanese nonsmokers found a 28% increased risk (54).

Electronic cigarettes

Electronic nicotine delivery systems, also referred to as electronic cigarettes and e-cigarettes, allow for the delivery of nicotine to the lung epithelium via an electronic device. Although a patent for this type of device was first issued in 1965, mass production of e-cigarettes did not occur until 2003 and became widely available in 2005 in the United States. Today in the United States, there are over 460 different brands on the market with over 7,700 flavors (55, 56), and prevalence of e-cigarette use among adults is estimated to be between 2.6% and 4.5% (57–61). Of particular concern is the uptake of e-cigarette use among youth ages 12 to 18 years, with the 2017 National Youth Tobacco Survey reporting 11.7% of high school students and 3.3% of middle school students using e-cigarettes within the last month. One year later, 20.8% of high school students and 4.9% of middle school students reported using e-cigarettes within the last month, representing increases of 78% and 48%, respectively (62). In addition, e-cigarette use among U.S. youths is associated with increased risk of initiation of traditional cigarette use (63, 64). Within the next 10 years, it is anticipated that total sales of e-cigarettes are to exceed tobacco products (65). Although there are various configurations, these devices typically include a mouthpiece and a battery-operated heating element to heat fluid contained in a replaceable cartridge or reservoir that contains a mixture of liquid nicotine, flavorings, and other chemical solvents (66). Propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin are the two major solvents in e-cigarettes and studies have shown that vapors from these solvents contain toxic and carcinogenic carbonyl compounds, including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and acrolein (62, 67). Studies have also shown that e-cigarette use is associated with increased oxidative stress, which seems to mediate the adverse effects of e-cigarettes. Oxidative stress develops in e-cigarette–exposed human bronchial and lung epithelial cells that can result in adverse intermediate events, including inflammation, cytotoxicity, and increased endothelial cell permeability (68, 69). A model has been proposed for the role of oxidative stress in mediating adverse effects of e-cigarettes leading to cancer, cardiopulmonary pathogenesis, and neurodegenerative disorders (65). Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that e-cigarettes generate acute deleterious effects on lung function (70, 71). Cumulatively, data suggest that vapor produced from e-cigarettes contains potentially harmful compounds and may lead to adverse effects on human health. Although data suggest that e-cigarettes may be a less harmful alternative to conventional cigarettes, at present, there are no data regarding the long-term cancer risk associated with low-level exposure to the detected carcinogens (72).

Other tobacco use

Although cigarettes remain the most prevalent form of tobacco use in the United States, other tobacco products, including pipes, cigars, and water pipes (e.g., hookah), are still common and have been associated with increased risk and mortality of lung cancer. Christensen and colleagues (73) identified 357,420 individuals who were never, current, or former users of cigars, pipes, and cigarettes by linking data from the National Longitudinal Mortality Study and the Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey. After excluding nearly 49,000 individuals who reported multiple tobacco product use, risk of lung cancer–related death among daily users was highest among cigarette users (12.7-fold increased risk), followed by daily cigar use (4.2-fold increased risk), and then daily pipe users (1.7-fold increased risk). A meta-analysis (74) of 287 epidemiologic studies of lung cancer found that pipe use only was associated with a 3.3-fold increased risk of lung cancer and cigar use only was associated with a 2.95-fold increased risk. A recent pooled analysis (75) of five prospective cohort studies from the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cohort Consortium that had collected data on cigar and pipe smoking found a 2.7-fold increased risk of lung cancer cigar use only and a 1.9-fold increased risk for pipe use only. A meta-analysis (76) of 13 case–control studies reported a 4.6-fold increased risk of lung cancer among those using water pipes only. While the risk of lung cancer and death is lower for individuals using these products compared with those who smoke cigarettes, it should be noted that these are not safer alternatives to cigarette smoking as the lower point estimates are likely attributed to lower smoking intensity and perhaps lesser degrees of inhalation of these products.

Cannabis

Although the terms cannabis and marijuana are frequently used interchangeably, cannabis is the generic term that includes cannabinoids, hemp, and marijuana derived from the Cannabis sativa plant (77). In the United States, smoked cannabis is estimated to be the most commonly inhaled drug after tobacco with an estimated 7,000 new users a day (78). As of early 2019, 30 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico have legalized marijuana use for medical purposes and 20 states and the District of Columbia have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use (79). However, smoked cannabis contains many of the same chemical toxins and carcinogens as tobacco smoke, including acetaldehyde, acrolein, ammonia, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, phenols, nitrosamines, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (80). In addition, regular smoking of marijuana alone is associated with adverse effects on the respiratory system similar to that of cigarette smoking (81, 82). However, despite the evidence of adverse biological effects, to date there is no conclusive evidence that suggests cannabis smoking is associated with an increased incidence of lung cancer. A pooled analysis from the International Lung Cancer Consortium of 2,159 lung cancer cases and 2,985 controls found little evidence for an increased risk of lung cancer among habitual or long-term cannabis smokers (83). However, it should be noted that studies to date have been limited by sample size, self-report, and confounding (e.g., many marijuana users also report tobacco use). Marijuana use is prevalent among youth in the United States, as data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that prevalence of past-year use was between 12% and 16% for adolescents ages 12 to 17 years between 2002 and 2014 (84). In addition, over the last decade, fewer adolescents perceive “moderate” or “regular” use of marijuana as a health risk (85, 86). As the association between smoked cannabis and lung cancer is still undefined and marijuana use is prevalent, more research will be required in the future to characterize the association between smoked cannabis and risk of lung cancer and for other diseases.

Radon

Because tobacco smoking is a potent and prevalent risk factor, secondary causes of lung cancer are often diminished in perceived importance. However, there are numerous other exposures that are causally linked to lung cancer risk. Radon is an invisible, odorless, tasteless radioactive gas that is found in soil and produced naturally during the radioactive decay of thorium and uranium. All humans are exposed to radon gas and there are substantial geographic variations globally and throughout the United States. Worldwide, 3% to 14% of lung cancers are attributed to radon exposure and the variance is attributed to geographic differences in radon concentration and on the method of calculation (87). In the United States, radon exposure is estimated to be the second leading cause of lung cancer and responsible for over 21,000 or 13% of lung cancer–related deaths each year (87, 88). Published meta-analyses have reported that indoor radon exposure is associated with a 14% to 29% increased risk of lung cancer (89–91).

Occupational exposures

Occupational exposure to carcinogens is estimated to account for 5% to 10% of lung cancers (41, 88, 92), of which asbestos exposure is historically the most common. Asbestos is a commercial term for a group of naturally occurring mineral silicate fibers, including amphiboles (crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite) and chrysotile (the sole serpentine fiber). Asbestos is found on all continents, has been used commercially since the 19th century, and is still used in some countries today in numerous applications, including insulation, textile, cement, and roofing (93). Although the mechanisms involved in asbestos-associated diseases are complex and the molecular pathways involved are not fully established, direct and indirect cellular and molecular effects likely contribute to lung cancer etiology, including oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, genetic and epigenetic alterations, and cellular toxicity and fibrosis (94). A meta-analysis of 14 case–control studies conducted in Europe and Canada that included 17,705 lung cancer cases and 21,813 controls found ever-exposure to asbestos was associated with a 24% increased risk in men and 12% increased risk in women (95). There are substantial synergistic effects (96) between asbestos exposure and tobacco smoking on lung cancer risk and morality (95, 97, 98).

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluates carcinogenicity for a wide range of human exposures. Agents classified as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1; ref. 99) that have sufficient evidence of causing lung cancer in humans include numerous occupational-related exposures, including arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and diesel exhaust, and specific occupations, including aluminum production, coal gasification, coke production, underground hematite mining, iron and steel founding, painting, and rubber production (reviewed in ref. 100).

History of noninfectious-related respiratory diseases

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis, is an irreversible chronic inflammatory condition that leads to fixed narrowing of small airways and alveolar wall destruction. The long-standing inflammatory reaction in the bronchi is accompanied by a continual cycle of injury and repair and therefore could play a key role in lung carcinogenesis. In the United States, over 15 million people reported ever receiving a diagnosis of COPD in 2015 and is the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer (101). Tobacco smoking is the major risk factor for COPD (102), so it is expected to find a positive association between COPD and lung cancer. Published meta-analyses have reported a 2- to 3-fold risk of lung cancer associated with a history of COPD, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis (103–105). A pooled analysis from the International Lung Cancer Consortium found that a history of emphysema conferred a 2.44-fold increased risk of lung cancer (106).

Asthma is a common childhood disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide (107). Asthma is characterized by chronic inflammation of the lungs and presents with airway hyper-reactivity, excessive mucous formation, and respiratory obstruction. Asthma has been suspected as a potential risk factor for lung cancer because inflammation also plays a pivotal role in the lung cancer pathogenesis. A pooled analysis published in 2012 of 16 studies in the International Lung Cancer Consortium concluded that increased risk between asthma and lung cancer may not reflect a causal effect because the increased incidence was largely observed in small cell and squamous cell lung carcinomas, primarily within 2 years of asthma diagnosis, and the association was weak among never smokers (108). However, a meta-analysis published in 2017 that included 18 studies with over 16 million individuals (109) found that asthma was significantly associated with a 44% increased risk of lung cancer and a 28% increased risk among never smokers. Subgroup analyses also demonstrated significant increases for non-Hispanic Whites, Asians, males, and females.

History of infectious-related respiratory diseases

Pneumococcal disease is an umbrella term for a group of syndromes caused by a variety of organisms resulting in varied manifestations and sequelae (110, 111). Most commonly, pneumococcal disease is an infection caused by the Streptococcus pneumoniae bacterium that can infect the lungs (pneumonia), bloodstream (bacteremia), and tissues and fluids surrounding the brain and spinal cord (meningitis). In the United States, approximately 400,000 hospitalizations from pneumococcal pneumonia occur annually (112). Pneumonia is a putative lung cancer risk factor through several possible mechanisms from mediators of chronic local inflammation, including elevated reactive oxygen species that can cause DNA damage and somatic mutations, antiapoptotic signaling, and increased angiogenesis (112). Published meta-analyses have reported a history of pneumonia was associated with a 30% to 40% increased risk of lung cancer risk (104, 113) and a pooled analysis from the International Lung Cancer Consortium reported a 57% increased risk (106). However, such findings should be interpreted with caution because reverse causality cannot be ruled out as pulmonary infections can be a result of a weakened immune system due to lung cancer (104). Furthermore, the timing of a pneumonia diagnosis can coincide with or confound the diagnosis of lung cancer, and pneumonia may be a complication of lung cancer such as postobstructive pneumonia (114).

Chlamydia pneumonia (C. pneumoniae) is the most commonly occurring intracellular bacterial pathogen and is responsible for sinusitis, pharyngitis, and pneumonia (115). Its transmission occurs via respiratory secretions and may increase risk of lung cancer through mediators of inflammation similar to those speculated for pneumonia (116) as described above. A meta-analysis (117) of 12 studies, including 2,595 lung cancer cases and 2,585 controls, reported that C. pneumoniae infection was associated with a 1.5-fold increased risk of lung cancer. C. pneumoniae infection was significantly associated with a 1.2-fold increased risk of lung cancer in prospective studies and a 2.2-fold increased risk in retrospective studies. When the definition of chronic infection was defined by antibody titer, the IgA ≥ 16 cutoff group was associated with a 1.2-fold increased risk and the IgA ≥ 64 cutoff group was associated with a 2.4-fold increased risk. Tuberculosis is a communicable infectious disease transmitted by cough aerosol and is caused by the Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacterium. Although tuberculosis primarily affects the lungs, it can affect other parts of the body. Worldwide incidence of tuberculosis has slowly declined over the past decade; in 2013, an estimated 9 million incident cases of tuberculosis (126 cases per 100,000) were reported with more than 60% of the burden concentrated in the 22 high-burden countries (118). The United States is a low-incidence country with an annual incidence of 30 tuberculosis cases per 1 million (119). Tuberculosis can induce chronic inflammation and pulmonary fibrosis, leading to higher rates of genetic alterations and mutations, and may be the factors responsible for the role of tuberculosis on lung cancer risk (120). A pooled analysis from the International Lung Cancer Consortium and a meta-analysis reported that previous history of tuberculosis was associated with a 48% and 76% increased risk of lung cancer, respectively (104, 106).

HIV

Individuals who are infected with HIV are at increased risk for many cancers, attributed to many factors, including HIV-related immunosuppression, which impairs control of oncogenic viral infections, mediators of inflammation, and coinfection with oncogenic viruses such as hepatitis B and C (121–123). Lung cancer is a leading non-acquired immunity deficiency syndrome (AIDS) defining cancer (NADC) and is the most frequent cause of cancer-related death among persons infected with HIV (124). Although adults with HIV are more likely to smoke cigarettes than the general adult population (125), when accounting for smoking, elevated incidence of lung cancer among HIV-infected persons has been observed (126). The HIV/AIDS Cancer Match (HACM) Study used linked data collected by U.S. HIV and cancer registries to describe cancer risk in HIV-infected people in the United States relative to the general population (127). Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) were used to test for differences by AIDS status and over time. Among 448,258 HIV-infected people, lung cancer was the second common individual cancer type (11.6%), and lung cancer risk was elevated 2-fold.

Other lifestyle factors

There is also compelling evidence that other factors may be associated with an increased risk of lung cancer for both smokers and never smokers, including poor diet and low body mass index (128–136).

Inherited genetics

In 2004, the Genetic Epidemiology of Lung Cancer Consortium revealed the first evidence for a major susceptibility locus influencing lung cancer risk to a region on 6q23–25 (137). With the arrival of genome-wide association (GWA) studies about 17 years ago, it is now possible to interrogate the human genome more comprehensively for associations between inherited single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and human disease. GWA studies have successfully identified genetic factors significantly associated with lung cancer susceptibility with varying strengths of association evidence and some loci have been refined to specific subgroups, including sex, ethnicity, smoking status, and histologic subtypes (138, 139). Data from these large GWA studies could be leveraged toward development of risk models based on polygenic risk scores defined by the combination of SNPs that yield the best predictive model (140).

Lung Cancer among Never Smokers

Globally, approximately 25% of lung cancer diagnoses are among never smokers (141), and approximately 60% to 80% of women diagnosed with NSCLC are never smokers. In East and South Asia, a high proportion of female lung cancers occur among never smokers (142). In the United States, although smoking rates and the incidence of lung cancer have declined over the last several decades, the incidence of lung cancer among never smokers (LCANS) has been on the rise. Approximately 10% to 20% of all lung cancer diagnoses occur in never smokers in the United States, and if considered a separate reportable category, LCANS is the 11th most common cancer and the 7th leading cause of cancer-related deaths.

Many of the exposures associated with lung cancer risk have been found to be risk factors for both smokers and never smokers. Nonetheless, risk factors found to be associated with LCANS include secondhand smoke, cooking fumes, ionizing radiation, radon gas, inherited genetic susceptibility, occupational exposures, preexisting lung disease, and oncogenic viruses (reviewed in ref. 143). Among all risk factors, advanced age is the most significant contributor to LCANS. Even if the incidence of LCANS remains constant over time, the number of lung cancer–related deaths among never smokers is expected to increase significantly in the following decades as the prevalence of smoking continues to decline as the population age structure continues to shift to older ages (143). Thus, lung cancer will continue to be a substantial public health burden in the United States in spite of the significant improvements in tobacco control and early detection.

The histology of LCANS is most likely to be adenocarcinoma, and molecular profiling studies have found that the tumor genome of LCANS is significantly different from the genome of lung cancers arising in smokers. Mutations in TP53, KRAS, and STK11 are more frequent in tobacco smokers with lung cancer, whereas EGFR and HER2 mutations and the ALK-ELM4 fusion are more common among LCANS (144). Revealing and understanding differences at the molecular level among LCANS may identify the etiologic processes involved in tumorigenesis and reveal important therapeutic strategies for targeting key oncogenic events. As such, the National Cancer Institute has launched “Sherlock Lung: A Molecular Epidemiologic Study of Lung Cancer in Never Smokers” (145), with the goal of tracing lung cancer etiology in never smokers by analyzing molecular data in conjunction with histologic features to develop an integrated molecular, histologic, and radiologic classification of LCANS.

Prevention

Most lung cancers are preventable and could be mitigated by reducing smoking initiation among adolescents and increasing smoking cessation among adults. Fortunately, smoking rates have steadily declined in the United States since the 1960s (10). In 2016, the prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults was 15.5%, which was substantially declined from 20.9% in 2005 (146). Although primary prevention (smoking prevention and cessation) mitigates risk and mortality, former smokers remain at significant risk of dying from lung cancer (Fig. 10; ref. 147). As such, early detection is currently the only option for those who have already quit smoking and among those individuals who are at high risk. Lung cancer will likely remain a major public health burden globally throughout the 21st century and advances in risk assessment, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment will be imperative in improving outcomes of this disease (148).

Figure 10.
Figure 10.

Lung cancer mortality by smoking status. Lung cancer mortality (per 100,000) among current smokers, former smokers, and never smokers based on published figures that were adapted from Halpern and colleagues (ref. 147; J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:457–464). Former smokers are presented by age-at-quit.

Screening and Early Detection

As described earlier, the majority of patients with lung cancer are diagnosed with advanced stage disease, where the prospects for cure are limited. However, local therapy for early-stage disease is associated with substantially improved overall survival. Until recently, a modality for the successful detection of early-stage lung cancer has been elusive. In 2011, results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality for individuals screened by low-dose helical CT (LDCT) compared with standard chest radiography in a high-risk population of 53,454 current and former smokers ages 55 to 74 years (149). Screen-detected incidence lung cancers diagnosed following a positive screen at 1 or 2 years after the baseline screen accounted for 58% of all LDCT-detected lung cancers in the NLST, were 2.7-fold higher in the LDCT arm versus the chest radiography arm, and were associated with a favorable stage shift from advanced to more early-stage lung cancers (149). In addition, in the LDCT arm, a subset of screen-detected incidence lung cancers where their antecedent screens were positive prior to the screen of the cancer diagnosis were associated with improved 5-year survival compared with prevalent lung cancers (150) that are usually diagnosed when patients develop symptoms in a “real world setting.” Following publication of the NLST results, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in December 2013 and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) in February 2015 issued recommendations for annual LDCT screening for eligible high-risk individuals (151, 152). Both the USPSTF and CMS guidelines recommend smoking cessation interventions for individuals who enter a lung cancer screening program. Novel smoking cessation strategies tailored to the lung cancer screening setting will likely amplify the survivorship gains expected from screening alone (153).

Despite the conclusive benefits shown by the NLST and the recommendations and implementation of lung cancer screening in the United States, European nations have not yet issued similar recommendations because of the absence of proven benefit in randomized clinical trials conducted in Europe (154). However, in 2018 the initial results of the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzo ek (NELSON) trial (155) were presented at the 19th World Conference on Lung Cancer of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and indicated significant reductions in lung cancer mortality. Moreover, two additional randomized trials conducted in Italy (156) and Germany (157) were published in 2019 providing additional confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy. The Multicentric Italian Lung Detection (MILD) trial (156), in which 4,099 participants ages 49 to 75 years with a smoking history of ≥ 20 pack-years were prospectively randomized to undergo LDCT screening for a median period of 6 years (n = 2,376) or to a control arm with no screening intervention (n = 1,723). Landmark analysis that considered only individuals alive with no lung cancer diagnosis after 5 years from randomization revealed a 58% reduction in lung cancer mortality and a 32% reduction in all-cause mortality after the fifth year of screening. The German Lung cancer Screening Intervention (LUSI), a randomized trial (157) of 4,052 long-term smokers ages 50 to 69 years comparing five annual rounds of LDCT screening (n = 2,029) versus a control arm without screening (n = 2,023), found a 26% reduction in lung cancer mortality over an average observation time of 8.8 years after randomization. The cumulative evidence based on the results of the NLST, the MILD trial, the LUSI trial, and anticipated publication of the NELSON trial has demonstrated substantial beneficial mortality reductions associated with LDCT screening.

Future Directions

Over the last several decades, substantial progress has been made across the cancer control continuum in terms of etiology, prevention, early detection, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end of life; however, lung cancer is still a major public health burden globally and in the United States. Etiologically, concerted efforts are needed to identify causal risk factors for lung cancer among never smokers and to identify never smokers at the greatest risk for lung cancer who perhaps can benefit from a lung cancer screening program. In addition, the impact of marijuana and e-cigarettes on lung cancer risk needs to be clarified. From a prevention standpoint, additional research is needed to identify potential agents that can reduce lung cancer risk especially among former smokers. Precision-based risk and screening should be explored to identify individuals who would benefit most from entering a lung cancer screening program. Advancements in screening technology and biomarkers in the screening setting could reduce false positives and overdiagnosis and improve nodule management. Further research is needed on the feasibility and efficacy of providing smoking cessation treatment in the lung cancer screening setting. Biomarkers that are highly predictive of negative responses to targeted therapies and immunotherapy are a significant unmet clinical need because there are subgroups of patients who may not respond to these specific treatments. This is particularly salient in the subsets of patients that may experience treatment-induced rapid disease progression, which can be rapid and lethal. Finally, more research is needed to personalize treatment plans that minimize adverse survivorship issues and lead to improved quality of life for lung cancer survivors.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: M.B. Schabath, M.L. Cote

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: M.B. Schabath, M.L. Cote

Study supervision: M.B. Schabath

Acknowledgments

This manuscript is dedicated to the memory of Grace C. Schabath (1941–2019). This work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant U01 CA200464 (to M.B. Schabath).

Footnotes

  • Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2019;28:1563–79

  • Received February 25, 2019.
  • Revision received May 23, 2019.
  • Accepted August 9, 2019.
  • Published first October 1, 2019.

References

  1. 1.↵
    American Cancer Society. Global cancer facts & figures. 4th edition. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2018.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bray F,
    2. Ferlay J,
    3. Soerjomataram I,
    4. Siegel RL,
    5. Torre LA,
    6. Jemal A
    . Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2019. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2019.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD,
    3. Jemal A
    . Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:7–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Rami-Porta R,
    2. Bolejack V,
    3. Giroux DJ,
    4. Chansky K,
    5. Crowley J,
    6. Asamura H,
    7. et al.
    The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: the new database to inform the eighth edition of the TNM classification of lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9:1618–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Chansky K,
    2. Detterbeck FC,
    3. Nicholson AG,
    4. Rusch VW,
    5. Vallieres E,
    6. Groome P,
    7. et al.
    The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: external validation of the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the eighth edition of the TNM classification of lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2017;12:1109–21.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Wahbah M,
    2. Boroumand N,
    3. Castro C,
    4. El-Zeky F,
    5. Eltorky M
    . Changing trends in the distribution of the histologic types of lung cancer: a review of 4,439 cases. Ann Diagn Pathol 2007;11:89–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Travis WD,
    2. Brambilla E,
    3. Riely GJ
    . New pathologic classification of lung cancer: relevance for clinical practice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:992–1001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Song MA,
    2. Benowitz NL,
    3. Berman M,
    4. Brasky TM,
    5. Cummings KM,
    6. Hatsukami DK,
    7. et al.
    Cigarette filter ventilation and its relationship to increasing rates of lung adenocarcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017;109:1–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: a report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2014. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Lewis DR,
    2. Check DP,
    3. Caporaso NE,
    4. Travis WD,
    5. Devesa SS
    . U.S. lung cancer trends by histologic type. Cancer 2014;120:2883–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Pao W,
    2. Girard N
    . New driver mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:175–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Hirsch FR,
    2. Scagliotti GV,
    3. Mulshine JL,
    4. Kwon R,
    5. Curran WJ Jr.,
    6. Wu YL,
    7. et al.
    Lung cancer: current therapies and new targeted treatments. Lancet 2017;389:299–311.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Zhu QG,
    2. Zhang SM,
    3. Ding XX,
    4. He B,
    5. Zhang HQ
    . Driver genes in non-small cell lung cancer: characteristics, detection methods, and targeted therapies. Oncotarget 2017;8:57680–92.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. O'Keeffe LM,
    2. Taylor G,
    3. Huxley RR,
    4. Mitchell P,
    5. Woodward M,
    6. Peters SAE
    . Smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer in women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2018;8:e021611.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Thun MJ,
    2. Hannan LM,
    3. Adams-Campbell LL,
    4. Boffetta P,
    5. Buring JE,
    6. Feskanich D,
    7. et al.
    Lung cancer occurrence in never-smokers: an analysis of 13 cohorts and 22 cancer registry studies. PLoS Med 2008;5:e185.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Freedman ND,
    2. Leitzmann MF,
    3. Hollenbeck AR,
    4. Schatzkin A,
    5. Abnet CC
    . Cigarette smoking and subsequent risk of lung cancer in men and women: analysis of a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:649–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Zang EA,
    2. Wynder EL
    . Differences in lung cancer risk between men and women: examination of the evidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:183–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Pelosof L,
    2. Ahn C,
    3. Gao A,
    4. Horn L,
    5. Madrigales A,
    6. Cox J,
    7. et al.
    Proportion of never-smoker non-small cell lung cancer patients at three diverse institutions. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017;109:1–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Hiscock R,
    2. Bauld L,
    3. Amos A,
    4. Fidler JA,
    5. Munafo M
    . Socioeconomic status and smoking: a review. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2012;1248:107–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Hovanec J,
    2. Siemiatycki J,
    3. Conway DI,
    4. Olsson A,
    5. Stucker I,
    6. Guida F,
    7. et al.
    Lung cancer and socioeconomic status in a pooled analysis of case-control studies. PLoS One 2018;13:e0192999.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Fredriksen-Goldsen KI,
    2. Kim HJ,
    3. Barkan SE,
    4. Muraco A,
    5. Hoy-Ellis CP
    . Health disparities among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults: results from a population-based study. Am J Public Health 2013;103:1802–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Lisy K,
    2. Peters MDJ,
    3. Schofield P,
    4. Jefford M
    . Experiences and unmet needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people with cancer care: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Psychooncology 2018;27:1480–9.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Matthews AK,
    2. Breen E,
    3. Kittiteerasack P
    . Social determinants of LGBT cancer health inequities. Semin Oncol Nurs 2018;34:12–20.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Simoni JM,
    2. Smith L,
    3. Oost KM,
    4. Lehavot K,
    5. Fredriksen-Goldsen K
    . Disparities in physical health conditions among lesbian and bisexual women: a systematic review of population-based studies. J Homosex 2017;64:32–44.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Boehmer U,
    2. Elk R
    . LGBT populations and cancer: is it an ignored epidemic? LGBT Health 2015;3:1–2.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Quinn GP,
    2. Sanchez JA,
    3. Sutton SK,
    4. Vadaparampil ST,
    5. Nguyen GT,
    6. Green BL,
    7. et al.
    Cancer and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) populations. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:384–400.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Waterman L,
    2. Voss J
    . HPV, cervical cancer risks, and barriers to care for lesbian women. Nurse Pract 2015;40:46–53.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Graham R,
    2. Berkowitz B,
    3. Blum R,
    4. Bockting W,
    5. Bradford J,
    6. de Vries B,
    7. et al.
    The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: building a foundation for better understanding. Washington, DC: NIH; 2011. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13128/the-health-of-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-people-building.
  30. 30.↵
    1. Boehmer U,
    2. Miao X,
    3. Maxwell NI,
    4. Ozonoff A
    . Sexual minority population density and incidence of lung, colorectal and female breast cancer in California. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004461.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Boehmer U,
    2. Ozonoff A,
    3. Miao X
    . An ecological approach to examine lung cancer disparities due to sexual orientation. Public Health 2012;126:605–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Gonzales G,
    2. Zinone R
    . Cancer diagnoses among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: results from the 2013–2016 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Causes Control 2018;29:845–54.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Conron KJ,
    2. Mimiaga MJ,
    3. Landers SJ
    . A population-based study of sexual orientation identity and gender differences in adult health. Am J Public Health 2010;100:1953–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Dilley JA,
    2. Spigner C,
    3. Boysun MJ,
    4. Dent CW,
    5. Pizacani BA
    . Does tobacco industry marketing excessively impact lesbian, gay and bisexual communities? Tob Control 2008;17:385–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    Smoking and health: report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1964. Available from: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-SMOKINGANDHEALTH/summary.
  36. 36.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV surveillance report, 2016. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html.
  37. 37.↵
    1. Hou W,
    2. Fu J,
    3. Ge Y,
    4. Du J,
    5. Hua S
    . Incidence and risk of lung cancer in HIV-infected patients. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2013;139:1781–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Thun MJ
    . Early landmark studies of smoking and lung cancer. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:1200.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Thun MJ,
    2. Carter BD,
    3. Feskanich D,
    4. Freedman ND,
    5. Prentice R,
    6. Lopez AD,
    7. et al.
    50-year trends in smoking-related mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2013;368:351–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    National Toxicology Program. Tobacco-related exposures. In: Report on carcinogens. Fourteenth Ed. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 2016. p. 1–6. Available from: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc14.
  41. 41.↵
    1. Alberg AJ,
    2. Brock MV,
    3. Ford JG,
    4. Samet JM,
    5. Spivack SD
    . Epidemiology of lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143:e1S–e29S.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Peto J
    . That the effects of smoking should be measured in pack-years: misconceptions 4. Br J Cancer 2012;107:406–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Spitz MR,
    2. Hong WK,
    3. Amos CI,
    4. Wu X,
    5. Schabath MB,
    6. Dong Q,
    7. et al.
    A risk model for prediction of lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:715–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Markaki M,
    2. Tsamardinos I,
    3. Langhammer A,
    4. Lagani V,
    5. Hveem K,
    6. Roe OD
    . A validated clinical risk prediction model for lung cancer in smokers of all ages and exposure types: a HUNT study. EBioMedicine 2018;31:36–46.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    1. Hoggart C,
    2. Brennan P,
    3. Tjonneland A,
    4. Vogel U,
    5. Overvad K,
    6. Ostergaard JN,
    7. et al.
    A risk model for lung cancer incidence. Cancer Prev Res 2012;5:834–46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Marcus MW,
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Raji OY,
    4. Duffy SW,
    5. Field JK
    . LLPi: Liverpool lung project risk prediction model for lung cancer incidence. Cancer Prev Res 2015;8:570–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Tammemagi MC,
    2. Church TR,
    3. Hocking WG,
    4. Silvestri GA,
    5. Kvale PA,
    6. Riley TL,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of the lung cancer risks at which to screen ever- and never-smokers: screening rules applied to the PLCO and NLST cohorts. PLoS Med 2014;11:e1001764.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control & Population Sciences. Lung cancer risk prediction models. Available from: https://epi.grants.cancer.gov/cancer_risk_prediction/lung.html.
  49. 49.↵
    Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. Available from: http://lungcancerrisk.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/.
  50. 50.↵
    1. Tsai J,
    2. Homa DM,
    3. Gentzke AS,
    4. Mahoney M,
    5. Sharapova SR,
    6. Sosnoff CS,
    7. et al.
    Exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers - United States, 1988–2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67:1342–6.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    1. Hackshaw AK
    . Lung cancer and passive smoking. Stat Methods Med Res 1998;7:119–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    Office on Smoking and Health (US). The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2006. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44324/.
  53. 53.↵
    1. Kim AS,
    2. Ko HJ,
    3. Kwon JH,
    4. Lee JM
    . Exposure to secondhand smoke and risk of cancer in never smokers: a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15. pii: E1981.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    1. Hori M,
    2. Tanaka H,
    3. Wakai K,
    4. Sasazuki S,
    5. Katanoda K
    . Secondhand smoke exposure and risk of lung cancer in Japan: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2016;46:942–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Villanti AC,
    2. Johnson AL,
    3. Ambrose BK,
    4. Cummings KM,
    5. Stanton CA,
    6. Rose SW,
    7. et al.
    Flavored tobacco product use in youth and adults: findings from the first wave of the PATH Study (2013–2014). Am J Prev Med 2017;53:139–51.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    1. Zhu SH,
    2. Sun JY,
    3. Bonnevie E,
    4. Cummins SE,
    5. Gamst A,
    6. Yin L,
    7. et al.
    Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation. Tob Control 2014;23:3–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    1. Mirbolouk M,
    2. Charkhchi P,
    3. Kianoush S,
    4. Uddin SMI,
    5. Orimoloye OA,
    6. Jaber R,
    7. et al.
    Prevalence and distribution of E-cigarette use among U.S. adults: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2016. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:429.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    1. Jaber RM,
    2. Mirbolouk M,
    3. DeFilippis AP,
    4. Maziak W,
    5. Keith R,
    6. Payne T,
    7. et al.
    Electronic cigarette use prevalence, associated factors, and pattern by cigarette smoking status in the United States from NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) 2013–2014. J Am Heart Assoc 2018;7. pii: e008178.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    1. Bao W,
    2. Xu GF,
    3. Lu JC,
    4. Snetselaar LG,
    5. Wallace RB
    . Changes in electronic cigarette use among adults in the United States, 2014–2016. J Am Med Assoc 2018;319:2039–41.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    1. Jaber RM,
    2. Saxena A,
    3. Nasir K,
    4. Mirbolouk M,
    5. Maziak W,
    6. DeFilippis A,
    7. et al.
    Electronic cigarette use prevalence and pattern by cigarette smoking status among United States adults: findings from NHANES 2013–2014. Tob Control 2017;26:e117–e26.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    1. Syamlal G,
    2. Jamal A,
    3. King BA,
    4. Mazurek JM
    . Electronic cigarette use among working adults - United States, 2014. MMWR Morbid Mortal W 2016;65:557–61.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    1. Kosmider L,
    2. Sobczak A,
    3. Fik M,
    4. Knysak J,
    5. Zaciera M,
    6. Kurek J,
    7. et al.
    Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors: effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. Nicotine Tob Res 2014;16:1319–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Leventhal AM,
    2. Strong DR,
    3. Kirkpatrick MG,
    4. Unger JB,
    5. Sussman S,
    6. Riggs NR,
    7. et al.
    Association of electronic cigarette use with initiation of combustible tobacco product smoking in early adolescence. JAMA 2015;314:700–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Soneji S,
    2. Barrington-Trimis JL,
    3. Wills TA
    . Association between initial use of e-cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking among adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr 2017;171:788–97.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    1. Cai H,
    2. Wang C
    . Graphical review: the redox dark side of e-cigarettes; exposure to oxidants and public health concerns. Redox Biol 2017;13:402–6.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    1. Unger M,
    2. Unger DW
    . E-cigarettes/electronic nicotine delivery systems: a word of caution on health and new product development. J Thorac Dis 2018;10:S2588–92.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    1. Dautzenberg B,
    2. Garelik D
    . Patients with lung cancer: are electronic cigarettes harmful or useful? Lung Cancer 2017;105:42–8.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    1. Scheffler S,
    2. Dieken H,
    3. Krischenowski O,
    4. Forster C,
    5. Branscheid D,
    6. Aufderheide M
    . Evaluation of E-cigarette liquid vapor and mainstream cigarette smoke after direct exposure of primary human bronchial epithelial cells. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015;12:3915–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Lerner CA,
    2. Sundar IK,
    3. Yao H,
    4. Gerloff J,
    5. Ossip DJ,
    6. McIntosh S,
    7. et al.
    Vapors produced by electronic cigarettes and e-juices with flavorings induce toxicity, oxidative stress, and inflammatory response in lung epithelial cells and in mouse lung. PLoS One 2015;10:e0116732.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Flouris AD,
    2. Chorti MS,
    3. Poulianiti KP,
    4. Jamurtas AZ,
    5. Kostikas K,
    6. Tzatzarakis MN,
    7. et al.
    Acute impact of active and passive electronic cigarette smoking on serum cotinine and lung function. Inhal Toxicol 2013;25:91–101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Vardavas CI,
    2. Anagnostopoulos N,
    3. Kougias M,
    4. Evangelopoulou V,
    5. Connolly GN,
    6. Behrakis PK
    . Short-term pulmonary effects of using an electronic cigarette: impact on respiratory flow resistance, impedance, and exhaled nitric oxide. Chest 2012;141:1400–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Drummond MB,
    2. Upson D
    . Electronic cigarettes. Potential harms and benefits. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014;11:236–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Christensen CH,
    2. Rostron B,
    3. Cosgrove C,
    4. Altekruse SF,
    5. Hartman AM,
    6. Gibson JT,
    7. et al.
    Association of cigarette, cigar, and pipe use with mortality risk in the US population. JAMA Intern Med 2018;178:469–76.
    OpenUrl
  74. 74.↵
    1. Lee PN,
    2. Forey BA,
    3. Coombs KJ
    . Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer. BMC Cancer 2012;12:385.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Malhotra J,
    2. Borron C,
    3. Freedman ND,
    4. Abnet CC,
    5. van den Brandt PA,
    6. White E,
    7. et al.
    Association between cigar or pipe smoking and cancer risk in men: a pooled analysis of five cohort studies. Cancer Prev Res 2017;10:704–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    1. Waziry R,
    2. Jawad M,
    3. Ballout RA,
    4. Al Akel M,
    5. Akl EA
    . The effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking on health outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:32–43.
    OpenUrl
  77. 77.↵
    1. Jett J,
    2. Stone E,
    3. Warren G,
    4. Cummings KM
    . Cannabis use, lung cancer, and related issues. J Thorac Oncol 2018;13:480–7.
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.↵
    1. Azofeifa A,
    2. Mattson ME,
    3. Schauer G,
    4. McAfee T,
    5. Grant A,
    6. Lyerla R
    . National estimates of marijuana use and related indicators - National Survey on Drug Use and Health, United States, 2002–2014. MMWR Surveill Summ 2016;65:1–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    National Conference of State Legislatures. Marijuana laws. Available from: http://www.ncsl.org/bookstore/state-legislatures-magazine/marijuana-deep-dive.aspx.
  80. 80.↵
    1. Moir D,
    2. Rickert WS,
    3. Levasseur G,
    4. Larose Y,
    5. Maertens R,
    6. White P,
    7. et al.
    A comparison of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco cigarette smoke produced under two machine smoking conditions. Chem Res Toxicol 2008;21:494–502.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Mohite PN,
    2. Zeriouh M,
    3. Saez DG,
    4. Popov AF,
    5. Sabashnikov A,
    6. Zych B,
    7. et al.
    Influence of history of cannabis smoking in selected donors on the outcomes of lung transplantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017;51:142–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Martinasek MP,
    2. McGrogan JB,
    3. Maysonet A
    . A systematic review of the respiratory effects of inhalational marijuana. Respir Care 2016;61:1543–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. 83.↵
    1. Zhang LR,
    2. Morgenstern H,
    3. Greenland S,
    4. Chang SC,
    5. Lazarus P,
    6. Teare MD,
    7. et al.
    Cannabis smoking and lung cancer risk: pooled analysis in the International Lung Cancer Consortium. Int J Cancer 2015;136:894–903.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. SMA 17-5044, NSDUH Series H-52). Rockville, MD: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available from: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/.
  85. 85.↵
    1. Miech RA,
    2. Johnston L,
    3. O'Malley PM,
    4. Bachman JG,
    5. Schulenberg J,
    6. Patrick ME
    . Trends in use of marijuana and attitudes toward marijuana among youth before and after decriminalization: the case of California 2007–2013. Int J Drug Policy 2015;26:336–44.
    OpenUrl
  86. 86.↵
    1. Miech R,
    2. Johnston L,
    3. O'Malley PM
    . Prevalence and attitudes regarding marijuana use among adolescents over the past decade. Pediatrics 2017;140. pii: e20170982.
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.↵
    World Health Organization. WHO handbook on indoor radon: a public health perspective. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2009:1–94.
  88. 88.↵
    1. Driscoll T,
    2. Nelson DI,
    3. Steenland K,
    4. Leigh J,
    5. Concha-Barrientos M,
    6. Fingerhut M,
    7. et al.
    The global burden of disease due to occupational carcinogens. Am J Ind Med 2005;48:419–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    1. Garzillo C,
    2. Pugliese M,
    3. Loffredo F,
    4. Quarto M
    . Indoor radon exposure and lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. Transl Cancer Res 2017;6:S934–43.
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.↵
    1. Lubin JH,
    2. Boice JD Jr.
    . Lung cancer risk from residential radon: meta-analysis of eight epidemiologic studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:49–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    1. Zhang ZL,
    2. Sun J,
    3. Dong JY,
    4. Tian HL,
    5. Xue L,
    6. Qin LQ,
    7. et al.
    Residential radon and lung cancer risk: an updated meta- analysis of case-control studies. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012;13:2459–65.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    1. Dela Cruz CS,
    2. Tanoue LT,
    3. Matthay RA
    . Lung cancer: epidemiology, etiology, and prevention. Clin Chest Med 2011;32:605–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    1. Albin M,
    2. Magnani C,
    3. Krstev S,
    4. Rapiti E,
    5. Shefer I
    . Asbestos and cancer: an overview of current trends in Europe. Environ Health Perspect 1999;107:289–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    1. Huang SX,
    2. Jaurand MC,
    3. Kamp DW,
    4. Whysner J,
    5. Hei TK
    . Role of mutagenicity in asbestos fiber-induced carcinogenicity and other diseases. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2011;14:179–245.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.↵
    1. Olsson AC,
    2. Vermeulen R,
    3. Schuz J,
    4. Kromhout H,
    5. Pesch B,
    6. Peters S,
    7. et al.
    Exposure-response analyses of asbestos and lung cancer subtypes in a pooled analysis of case-control studies. Epidemiology 2017;28:288–99.
    OpenUrl
  96. 96.↵
    1. Case BW
    . Asbestos, smoking, and lung cancer: interaction and attribution. Occup Environ Med 2006;63:507–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  97. 97.↵
    1. Hammond EC,
    2. Selikoff IJ,
    3. Seidman H
    . Asbestos exposure, cigarette smoking and death rates. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1979;330:473–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. 98.↵
    1. Reid A,
    2. de Klerk NH,
    3. Ambrosini GL,
    4. Berry G,
    5. Musk AW
    . The risk of lung cancer with increasing time since ceasing exposure to asbestos and quitting smoking. Occup Environ Med 2006;63:509–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. 99.↵
    International Agency for Research on Cancer. Agents classified by the IARC Monographs volumes 1–123; 2019. Available from: https://monographs.iarc.fr/agents-classified-by-the-iarc/.
  100. 100.↵
    1. Field RW,
    2. Withers BL
    . Occupational and environmental causes of lung cancer. Clin Chest Med 2012;33:681–703.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. Croft JB,
    2. Wheaton AG,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. Xu F,
    5. Lu H,
    6. Matthews KA,
    7. et al.
    Urban-rural county and state differences in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67:205–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    1. MacNee W
    . Pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2005;2:258–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    1. Zhang X,
    2. Jiang N,
    3. Wang L,
    4. Liu H,
    5. He R
    . Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and risk of lung cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Oncotarget 2017;8:78044–56.
    OpenUrl
  104. 104.↵
    1. Brenner DR,
    2. McLaughlin JR,
    3. Hung RJ
    . Previous lung diseases and lung cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2011;6:e17479.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. 105.↵
    1. Wang H,
    2. Yang L,
    3. Zou L,
    4. Huang D,
    5. Guo Y,
    6. Pan M,
    7. et al.
    Association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer: a case-control study in Southern Chinese and a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2012;7:e46144.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. 106.↵
    1. Brenner DR,
    2. Boffetta P,
    3. Duell EJ,
    4. Bickeboller H,
    5. Rosenberger A,
    6. McCormack V,
    7. et al.
    Previous lung diseases and lung cancer risk: a pooled analysis from the International Lung Cancer Consortium. Am J Epidemiol 2012;176:573–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    1. Masoli M,
    2. Fabian D,
    3. Holt S,
    4. Beasley R
    , Global Initiative for Asthma Program. The global burden of asthma: executive summary of the GINA Dissemination Committee report. Allergy 2004;59:469–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  108. 108.↵
    1. Rosenberger A,
    2. Bickeboller H,
    3. McCormack V,
    4. Brenner DR,
    5. Duell EJ,
    6. Tjonneland A,
    7. et al.
    Asthma and lung cancer risk: a systematic investigation by the International Lung Cancer Consortium. Carcinogenesis 2012;33:587–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  109. 109.↵
    1. Qu YL,
    2. Liu J,
    3. Zhang LX,
    4. Wu CM,
    5. Chu AJ,
    6. Wen BL,
    7. et al.
    Asthma and the risk of lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017;8:11614–20.
    OpenUrl
  110. 110.↵
    1. Jain V,
    2. Bhardwaj A
    . Pneumonia, pathology. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2018.
  111. 111.↵
    1. Mackenzie G
    . The definition and classification of pneumonia. Pneumonia 2016;8:14.
    OpenUrl
  112. 112.↵
    1. Mantovani A,
    2. Allavena P,
    3. Sica A,
    4. Balkwill F
    . Cancer-related inflammation. Nature 2008;454:436–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. 113.↵
    1. Sogaard KK,
    2. Farkas DK,
    3. Pedersen L,
    4. Weiss NS,
    5. Thomsen RW,
    6. Sorensen HT
    . Pneumonia and the incidence of cancer: a Danish nationwide cohort study. J Intern Med 2015;277:429–38.
    OpenUrl
  114. 114.↵
    1. Schabath MB,
    2. Delclos GL,
    3. Martynowicz MM,
    4. Greisinger AJ,
    5. Lu C,
    6. Wu X,
    7. et al.
    Opposing effects of emphysema, hay fever, and select genetic variants on lung cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:412–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. 115.↵
    1. Blasi F,
    2. Tarsia P,
    3. Arosio C,
    4. Fagetti L,
    5. Allegra L
    . Epidemiology of Chlamydia pneumoniae. Clin Microbiol Infect 1998;4Suppl 4:S1–S6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  116. 116.↵
    1. Littman AJ,
    2. Jackson LA,
    3. Vaughan TL
    . Chlamydia pneumoniae and lung cancer: epidemiologic evidence. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:773–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  117. 117.↵
    1. Zhan P,
    2. Suo LJ,
    3. Qian Q,
    4. Shen XK,
    5. Qiu LX,
    6. Yu LK,
    7. et al.
    Chlamydia pneumoniae infection and lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:742–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. 118.↵
    1. Dheda K,
    2. Barry CE III.,
    3. Maartens G
    . Tuberculosis. Lancet 2016;387:1211–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. 119.↵
    1. LoBue PA,
    2. Mermin JH
    . Latent tuberculosis infection: the final frontier of tuberculosis elimination in the USA. Lancet Infect Dis 2017;17:e327–33.
    OpenUrl
  120. 120.↵
    1. Keikha M,
    2. Esfahani BN
    . The relationship between tuberculosis and lung cancer. Adv Biomed Res 2018;7:58.
    OpenUrl
  121. 121.↵
    1. Shiels MS,
    2. Engels EA
    . Evolving epidemiology of HIV-associated malignancies. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2017;12:6–11.
    OpenUrl
  122. 122.↵
    1. Dubrow R,
    2. Silverberg MJ,
    3. Park LS,
    4. Crothers K,
    5. Justice AC
    . HIV infection, aging, and immune function: implications for cancer risk and prevention. Curr Opin Oncol 2012;24:506–16.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  123. 123.↵
    1. Franzetti M,
    2. Ricci E,
    3. Bonfanti P
    . The pattern of non-AIDS-defining cancers in the HIV population: epidemiology, risk factors and prognosis. A review. Curr HIV Res 2019;17:1–12.
    OpenUrl
  124. 124.↵
    1. Sigel K,
    2. Makinson A,
    3. Thaler J
    . Lung cancer in persons with HIV. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2017;12:31–8.
    OpenUrl
  125. 125.↵
    1. Mdodo R,
    2. Frazier EL,
    3. Dube SR,
    4. Mattson CL,
    5. Sutton MY,
    6. Brooks JT,
    7. et al.
    Cigarette smoking prevalence among adults with HIV compared with the general adult population in the United States: cross-sectional surveys. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:335–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. 126.↵
    1. Engels EA,
    2. Brock MV,
    3. Chen J,
    4. Hooker CM,
    5. Gillison M,
    6. Moore RD
    . Elevated incidence of lung cancer among HIV-infected individuals. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1383–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  127. 127.↵
    1. Hernandez-Ramirez RU,
    2. Shiels MS,
    3. Dubrow R,
    4. Engels EA
    . Cancer risk in HIV-infected people in the USA from 1996 to 2012: a population-based, registry-linkage study. Lancet HIV 2017;4:e495–504.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  128. 128.↵
    1. Yang Y,
    2. Dong J,
    3. Sun K,
    4. Zhao L,
    5. Zhao F,
    6. Wang L,
    7. et al.
    Obesity and incidence of lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 2013;132:1162–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. 129.↵
    1. Smith L,
    2. Brinton LA,
    3. Spitz MR,
    4. Lam TK,
    5. Park Y,
    6. Hollenbeck AR,
    7. et al.
    Body mass index and risk of lung cancer among never, former, and current smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:778–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  130. 130.↵
    1. Wu SH,
    2. Liu Z
    . Soy food consumption and lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis using a common measure across studies. Nutr Cancer 2013;65:625–32.
    OpenUrl
  131. 131.↵
    1. Wu QJ,
    2. Xie L,
    3. Zheng W,
    4. Vogtmann E,
    5. Li HL,
    6. Yang G,
    7. et al.
    Cruciferous vegetables consumption and the risk of female lung cancer: a prospective study and a meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 2013;24:1918–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. 132.↵
    1. Song J,
    2. Su H,
    3. Wang BL,
    4. Zhou YY,
    5. Guo LL
    . Fish consumption and lung cancer risk: systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Cancer 2014;66:539–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. 133.↵
    1. Zhu H,
    2. Zhang S
    . Body mass index and lung cancer risk in never smokers: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2018;18:635.
    OpenUrl
  134. 134.↵
    1. Duan P,
    2. Hu C,
    3. Quan C,
    4. Yi X,
    5. Zhou W,
    6. Yuan M,
    7. et al.
    Body mass index and risk of lung cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2015;5:16938.
    OpenUrl
  135. 135.↵
    1. Yang JJ,
    2. Yu D,
    3. Takata Y,
    4. Smith-Warner SA,
    5. Blot W,
    6. White E,
    7. et al.
    Dietary fat intake and lung cancer risk: a pooled analysis. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:3055–64.
    OpenUrl
  136. 136.↵
    1. Sun Y,
    2. Li Z,
    3. Li J,
    4. Li Z,
    5. Han J
    . A healthy dietary pattern reduces lung cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients 2016;8:134.
    OpenUrl
  137. 137.↵
    1. Bailey-Wilson JE,
    2. Amos CI,
    3. Pinney SM,
    4. Petersen GM,
    5. de Andrade M,
    6. Wiest JS,
    7. et al.
    A major lung cancer susceptibility locus maps to chromosome 6q23-25. Am J Hum Genet 2004;75:460–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  138. 138.↵
    1. Bosse Y,
    2. Amos CI
    . A decade of GWAS results in lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2018;27:363–79.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  139. 139.↵
    1. McKay JD,
    2. Hung RJ,
    3. Han Y,
    4. Zong X,
    5. Carreras-Torres R,
    6. Christiani DC,
    7. et al.
    Large-scale association analysis identifies new lung cancer susceptibility loci and heterogeneity in genetic susceptibility across histological subtypes. Nat Genet 2017;49:1126–32.
    OpenUrl
  140. 140.↵
    1. Chatterjee N,
    2. Shi J,
    3. Garcia-Closas M
    . Developing and evaluating polygenic risk prediction models for stratified disease prevention. Nat Rev Genet 2016;17:392–406.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  141. 141.↵
    1. Parkin DM,
    2. Bray F,
    3. Ferlay J,
    4. Pisani P
    . Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:74–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. 142.↵
    1. de Groot PM,
    2. Wu CC,
    3. Carter BW,
    4. Munden RF
    . The epidemiology of lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2018;7:220–33.
    OpenUrl
  143. 143.↵
    1. McCarthy WJ,
    2. Meza R,
    3. Jeon J,
    4. Moolgavkar SH
    . Chapter 6: Lung cancer in never smokers: epidemiology and risk prediction models. Risk Anal 2012;32 Suppl 1:S69–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  144. 144.↵
    1. Rudin CM,
    2. Avila-Tang E,
    3. Harris CC,
    4. Herman JG,
    5. Hirsch FR,
    6. Pao W,
    7. et al.
    Lung cancer in never smokers: molecular profiles and therapeutic implications. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:5646–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  145. 145.↵
    National Cancer Institute. Sherlock-lung: a genomic epidemiologic study of lung cancer in never smokers. Available from: https://dceg.cancer.gov/research/cancer-types/lung/sherlock-lung-study.
  146. 146.↵
    1. Jamal A,
    2. Phillips E,
    3. Gentzke AS,
    4. Homa DM,
    5. Babb SD,
    6. King BA,
    7. et al.
    Current cigarette smoking among adults - United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67:53–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  147. 147.↵
    1. Halpern MT,
    2. Gillespie BW,
    3. Warner KE
    . Patterns of absolute risk of lung cancer mortality in former smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:457–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  148. 148.↵
    1. Schabath MB
    . Risk models to select high risk candidates for lung cancer screening. Ann Transl Med 2018;6:65.
    OpenUrl
  149. 149.↵
    1. Aberle DR,
    2. Adams AM,
    3. Berg CD,
    4. Black WC,
    5. Clapp JD,
    6. Fagerstrom RM,
    7. et al.
    Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395–409.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  150. 150.↵
    1. Schabath MB,
    2. Massion PP,
    3. Thompson ZJ,
    4. Eschrich SA,
    5. Balagurunathan Y,
    6. Goldof D,
    7. et al.
    Differences in patient outcomes of prevalence, interval, and screen-detected lung cancers in the CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial. PLoS One 2016;11:e0159880.
    OpenUrl
  151. 151.↵
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Final update summary: lung cancer screening. Available from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/lung-cancer-screening.
  152. 152.↵
    Centers for Medicare & Medicard Services. Decision memo for screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439N). Available from: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=274.
  153. 153.↵
    1. Minnix JA,
    2. Karam-Hage M,
    3. Blalock JA,
    4. Cinciripini PM
    . The importance of incorporating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2018;7:272–80.
    OpenUrl
  154. 154.↵
    1. Silva M,
    2. Pastorino U,
    3. Sverzellati N
    . Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in Europe: strength and weakness of diverse independent screening trials. Clin Radiol 2017;72:389–400.
    OpenUrl
  155. 155.↵
    1. De Koning H,
    2. Van der Aalst C,
    3. Ten Haaf K,
    4. Oudkerk M
    . Effects of volume CT lung cancer screening: mortality results of the NELSON randomised-controlled population based trial. J Thorac Oncol 2018;13:S185.
    OpenUrl
  156. 156.↵
    1. Pastorino U,
    2. Silva M,
    3. Sestini S,
    4. Sabia F,
    5. Boeri M,
    6. Cantarutti A,
    7. et al.
    Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD trial. Ann Oncol 2019;30:1162–9.
    OpenUrl
  157. 157.↵
    1. Becker N,
    2. Motsch E,
    3. Trotter A,
    4. Heussel CP,
    5. Dienemann H,
    6. Schnabel PA,
    7. et al.
    Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening-results from the randomized German LUSI trial. Int J Cancer 2019 Jun 4 [Epub ahead of print].
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 28 (10)
October 2019
Volume 28, Issue 10

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Cancer Progress and Priorities: Lung Cancer
Matthew B. Schabath and Michele L. Cote
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev October 1 2019 (28) (10) 1563-1579; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-0221
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Advertisement