Cannabis smoking and lung cancer risk: Pooled analysis in the International Lung Cancer Consortium
Zhang et al.·International Journal of Cancer
Kein Nutzen nachgewiesenGRADEModerat159 Zitate
Stichproben = 5.144 Pat.
KontrolleNicht-gewohnheitsmäßige oder…
EndpunktLungenkrebsrisiko
Verblindungn.a.
DesignGepoolte Fall-Kontroll-Analyse
Cannabinoidvollspektrum
Applikationinhalativ
”Kernaussage
Es fand sich kein signifikanter Zusammenhang zwischen habituellem Cannabis-Rauchen und Lungenkrebsrisiko, obwohl ein möglicher Effekt bei sehr hohem Konsum nicht ausgeschlossen werden kann.
Zusammenfassung
Gepoolte Analyse k=6 Fall-Kontroll-Studien (International Lung Cancer Consortium), n=2.159 Lungenkrebsfälle + 2.985 Kontrollen; habitueller vs. nie-Konsum OR=0.96 (95% CI: 0.66–1.38); ≥1 Joint/Tag OR=0.88 (95% CI: 0.63–1.24); ≥10 Joint-Jahre OR=0.94 (95% CI: 0.67–1.32). Adenokarzinom OR=1.73 (95% CI: 0.75–4.00). Ergebnis: wenig Evidenz für erhöhtes Lungenkrebsrisiko durch Cannabis-Rauchen; schwache positive Assoziation bei kumulativem Konsum nicht ausgeschlossen.
P
PopulationErwachsene mit Lungenkarzinom und Kontrollen aus 6 Fall-Kontroll-Studien (USA, Kanada, UK, Neuseeland); n=2.159 Fälle, n=2.985 Kontrollen
I
InterventionCannabis-Rauchen (habituell vs. nicht-habituell/nie; ≥1 Joint-Äquivalente/Tag; ≥10 Joint-Jahre)
C
KontrolleNicht-gewohnheitsmäßige oder Nie-Cannabiskonsumenten
O
OutcomeGepoolte OR für habituelles vs. nicht-habituelles/Nie-Rauchen: 0,96 (95%-KI: 0,66–1,38); kein signifikant erhöhtes Lungenkrebsrisiko; für Adenokarzinom OR 1,73 (95%-KI: 0,75–4,00) – nicht signifikant
Vertrauen in die Evidenz
Sehr niedrigNiedrigModeratHoch
Moderat
Dritte von vier GRADE-Stufen, die Effektschätzung ist wahrscheinlich verlässlich.
To investigate the association between cannabis smoking and lung cancer risk, data on 2,159 lung cancer cases and 2,985 controls were pooled from 6 case-control studies in the US, Canada, UK, and New Zealand within the International Lung Cancer Consortium. Study-specific associations between cannabis smoking and lung cancer were estimated using unconditional logistic regression adjusting for sociodemographic factors, tobacco smoking status and pack-years; odds-ratio estimates were pooled using random effects models. Subgroup analyses were done for sex, histology and tobacco smoking status. The shapes of dose-response associations were examined using restricted cubic spline regression. The overall pooled OR for habitual versus nonhabitual or never users was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.66-1.38). Compared to nonhabitual or never users, the summary OR was 0.88 (95%CI: 0.63-1.24) for individuals who smoked 1 or more joint-equivalents of cannabis per day and 0.94 (95%CI: 0.67-1.32) for those consumed at least 10 joint-years. For adenocarcinoma cases the ORs were 1.73 (95%CI: 0.75-4.00) and 1.74 (95%CI: 0.85-3.55), respectively. However, no association was found for the squamous cell carcinoma based on small numbers. Weak associations between cannabis smoking and lung cancer were observed in never tobacco smokers. Spline modeling indicated a weak positive monotonic association between cumulative cannabis use and lung cancer, but precision was low at high exposure levels. Results from our pooled analyses provide little evidence for an increased risk of lung cancer among habitual or long-term cannabis smokers, although the possibility of potential adverse effect for heavy consumption cannot be excluded.