Smoking Rolling and Cancer

Another recent stimulating conversation raised the following question: Do people whose livelihoods depend on hand rolling cigars have higher rates of cancer in their fingers or hands? Or, in other words, does handling tobacco affect your risk of certain cancers?

Unfortunately, there isn't much information out there on the subject. But here at the Bayblab we don't take "I don't know" for an answer, so rather than disappoint our reader here's what the literature has to say:

First off, most of the relevant research out there deals with cigarettes not cigars, but they seem a reasonable proxy to answer the original question. Secondly, there is very little dealing with rolling and not smoking.

Some background on roll-your-own (RYO) cigarettes - Compared to factory made cigarettes, smokers of RYO are exposed to similar carcinogen levels as measured by post-smoke metabolic markers. This is true both unadjusted and adjusted for variable such as puff duration, BMI and age. However in Canada, where 17% of smokers use RYO cigarettes, those smokers are less likely to quit, more addicted to nicotine and heavier smokers.

Smoking is known to have cutaneous effects such as poor wound healing, premature skin aging and of course oral cancers. Association with melanoma is inconclusive. However, in studies of melanomas on the palms and soles, there is actually in inverse correlation with smoking.

Again, this all has to do with smoking an not rolling. Presumably smokers have more skin contact with tobacco and tobacco smoke than non-smokers - think of the telltale yellow fingertips - yet have reduced incidence of melanomas in this area. This suggests that dermal contact with tobacco, while contributing to several other conditions, doesn't increase the risk of cancer in the finger or hand. Taking this, and despite the dearth of data on rolling alone, I will tentatively say that the people hand rolling your cigars on your next trip to Cuba are not at considerable increased risk of 'finger cancer'. But I will await the definitive study.


To read more about cancer and cancer research, check out the latest edition of the Cancer Research Blog Carnival that went up at Health and Life on Friday.

More moles means longer life?

According to the American Academy of Dermatology "the majority of moles show up during the first two decades of a person’s life while about one in every 100 babies are born with moles." This means that in fact as you age you get fewer moles not more as one would have guessed.

Moles are usually associated with UV exposure and cancer risk: "A basic reference chart used for consumers to spot suspicious moles is found in the mnemonic, A-B-C-D. The letters stand for Asymmetry, Border, Color and Diameter. Sometimes, the letter E (for Evolving) is added. According to the American Academy of Dermatology, if a mole starts changing in size, color, shape or, especially, if the border of a mole develops ragged edges or becomes larger than a pencil eraser, it would be an appropriate time to consult with a physician. Other warning signs include a mole -- even if smaller than a pencil eraser -- that is different than the others and begins to crust over, bleed, itch, or becomes inflamed. "

However a new study involving twins in AACR's Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention journal, shows that more moles later in life means longer life expectancy: "In the study, researchers found those with more than 100 moles had longer telomeres than those with fewer than 25.The difference between the two mole groups was equivalent to six to seven years of ageing. " . After checking out some pictures of Aubrey De Grey I don't see any moles on his face!

Vitamin D Supplementation the Answer for Cancer?

This weekend the Globe and Mail published a piece on what promise to be the blockbuster findings of a study done by researchers in Nebraska:

"A four-year clinical trial involving 1,200 women found those taking the vitamin had about a 60-per-cent reduction in cancer incidence, compared with those who didn't take it, a drop so large -- twice the impact on cancer attributed to smoking -- it almost looks like a typographical error."

The women were apparently given 1,100 IU of vitamin D3 per day over the four years.

These claims are exciting but given their grandeur must also be greeted with skepticism. I am therefore anxious to examine the data myself. Unfortunately the article failed to mention when, or in which peer-reviewed (I assume) journal these results will be published. However the article did cite one of the authors as Robert Heaney, MD, of Creighton University, who "has worked for over 45 years in the study of osteoporosis and calcium physiology, and has published more than 300 original papers, chapters, monographs, and reviews in scientific and educational fields".

Check back for updates here on the bayblab as more information becomes available.

Also, see the slashdot post for interesting discussion, including why vitamin D has nothing to do with the evolution of human skin colour.

Update: A representative from the Creighton University Medical Center has informed me that the principal author of the study is in fact Joan Lappe, PhD in Nursing and Associate Professor and Creighton.

Update 2: I have also been informed that the article will appear in the June edition of The Journal of Clinical Nutrition. However, upon my request (wherein I identified myself as a member of the cancer research community), the authors informed me that no further information will be made available until the study is published. Which leaves me scratching my head as to how the Globe and Mail got a hold of the results and chose to jump on the story when the results haven't even yet been made available to members of the scientific community for discussion and scrutiny. Interestingly, no other media outlet accessible to Google news has reported on the study to date.

Update 3: Interesting paper that Jim Wint pointed out is in fact real and recently appeared in Cell - see "Central Role of p53 in the Suntan Response and Pathologic Hyperpigmentation". Good to see even tanning bed proprietors are up on the scientific literature. I love it! (Haven't read the paper yet though, so can't say at this point whether I think it supports his claims.)

Update 4: I just bought 120, 000 IU of vitamin D3 at Shopper's Drug Mart for $6.99. Figured it couldn't hurt. Based on my previous experience with supplements, I'll take it faithfully for a couple of days then forget the whole thing.