Lung cancer mortality attributable to smoking: a multi-scenario analysis with variable lag periods

Purpose: The estimation of smoking-attributable mortality (SAM) is subject to the acceptance of different assumptions that may influence the estimates. We aimed to assess lung cancer mortality attributable to smoking by using both a prevalence-independent method (PIM) and a prevalence-dependent meth...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Santiago Pérez, María Isolina, Guerra Tort, Carla, López Vizcaíno, Esther, Martín Gisbert, Lucía, Teijeiro, Ana, García, Guadalupe, Rey Brandariz, Julia, Ruano Raviña, Alberto, Pérez Ríos, Mónica
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2025
País:España
Institución:Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (USC)
Repositorio:Minerva. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:dnet:minerva_____::548b5a402247535ab2d876e5f492bff5
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/10347/46381
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Lung cancer
Mortality
Prevalence
Smoking
Tobacco
32 Ciencias médicas
Descripción
Sumario:Purpose: The estimation of smoking-attributable mortality (SAM) is subject to the acceptance of different assumptions that may influence the estimates. We aimed to assess lung cancer mortality attributable to smoking by using both a prevalence-independent method (PIM) and a prevalence-dependent method (PDM) with different lags between exposure (smoking prevalence) and outcome (lung cancer mortality). Methods: We estimated the population attributable fractions (PAF) and the lung cancer SAM by sex and age group (35-64, 65-84 years), year-by-year from 2011 to 2020, in four scenarios in Spain. In three of these scenarios, a PDM was applied using different lags: no lag, a 15-year lag and a 20-year lag. In the fourth scenario, a PIM was applied. Results: In the period 2011-2020 in Spain, the SAM was higher when the 20-year lag PDM was considered (173,526 deaths) and lower when no lag PDM or a PIM was applied (161,249 and 157,390 deaths, respectively). In men, the PAFs were similar between the no lag PDM and the PIM (86.7 % and 87.3 %, respectively). However, when a PDM 15-year or 20-year lag was considered, the PAF increased to 91.0 % and 92.3 %, respectively. In women, the lowest PAF was obtained with the PIM (57.3 %), and the highest with the PDM 20-year lag (79.4 %). Conclusions: SAM estimates differ depending on the methods and lags used. Applying a 15-year or 20-year lag PDM yields higher SAM estimates than when no lag PDM or a PIM is used. Therefore, when feasible, smoking prevalence data that incorporate a lag of 15 or 20 years between exposure and result should be used for accurate estimates