smokers

Link between coffee and dental care – lower your oral cancer risk

Source: blogjam.eu
Author: Jenny L McCoy

Studies have already shown that coffee may benefit dental care by reducing the risk of developing cavities. Now there’s even more good news for java junkies. Researchers have discovered that drinking a lot of coffee actually lowers your risk of mouth and throat cancer.

According to the findings featured in WebMD, people who drink more than four servings of coffee daily have nearly a 40% lower chance of contracting mouth or throat cancer when compared to people who don’t drink coffee. For those who drank less than five cups of coffee daily, the level of protection fell to still significant 4% lower odds for contracting mouth and throat cancer for each cup of coffee consumed each day. Protection for oral and pharyngeal cancer was evident, but protection against cancer of the larynx was not.

Coffee’s protective effect was shown to remain intact even for drinkers and smokers, despite the fact that tobacco and alcohol consumption are linked to head and neck cancers. Additionally, the protection effect didn’t demonstrate a boost by consuming fruits and vegetables, which are also known to protect against head and neck cancers.

The researchers at the University of Milan reached these findings when they analyzed nine studies comparing 5,139 people with head and neck cancer to 9,028 people without cancer.

So, which ingredient in coffee is responsible for reducing the risk of oral cancer? The study dismissed caffeine as a likely possibility since drinking tea, even in mass quantities, was not protective.

The researchers pointed out that coffee contains hundreds of chemicals. Of those, cafestol and kahweol have anti-cancer properties. However, future studies will have to determine more decidedly if these chemicals actually protect against cancer in people.

Previous studies in Wired Magazine have credited Trigonelline, an alkaloid, in coffee as a cavity-fighting agent. While the ingredient is recognized for giving coffee its taste, it’s also proven to prevent craters from forming in teeth, averting the cavity-causing bacterium Streptococcus from attaching to teeth.

The American Dental Association reminds us that coffee alone cannot create optimal dental health. In fact, excess coffee can stain teeth. The ADA recommends traditional dental care that includes brushing twice daily, flossing each day, eating a balanced diet, and regularly visiting the dentist.

August, 2012|Oral Cancer News|

CDC says graphic anti-smoking ads work, more on way

Source: USA Today

The federal government says its graphic ad campaign showing diseased smokers has been such a success that it is planning another round next year to nudge more Americans to kick the habit.

The ads, which ran for 12 weeks in spring and early summer, aimed to get 500,000 people to try to quit and 50,000 to kick the habit long-term.

“The initial results suggest the impact will be even greater than that,” says Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which spearheaded the $54 million campaign. The ads showed real Americans talking about how smoking caused their paralysis, lung removal and amputations.

He says it’s the first time the U.S. government has paid for anti-smoking ads, although some media ran them free.

The CDC doesn’t have a tally yet on how many people actually tried to quit, but it says the ads generated 192,000 extra calls — more than double the usual volume — to its national toll-free quit line, 800-QUIT-NOW, and 417,000 new visitors to smokefree.gov, its website offering cessation tips. That’s triple the site’s previous traffic.

“We do plan to do another (campaign) next year,” Frieden says, adding that he has no details yet on the ads or their timing. He says the amount the CDC spent this year is a pittance compared with the $10 billion the tobacco industry spends annually to market its products.

The nation’s two largest tobacco companies, Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, declined to comment on the ads. Both reported solid second-quarter 2012 earnings.

Frieden says the print, broadcast and online ads struck a chord. “What we heard from people is they wished they’d seen them years ago.”

Christi Leigh Sims, 42, says she was shocked into action by the ad showing a woman whose throat cancer caused her to lose her teeth, hair and larynx, and resulted in a hole in her throat. So in late March, Sims quit — cold turkey — after about 20 years of smoking.

“I wanted to change my life now before it was too late,” says Sims, a mother of two from Arlington, Texas. “I didn’t want to look or live like that.” The ad shows a woman getting dressed with a wig and false teeth.

“We made the danger accessible and realistic,” says Eric Asche, who works for the anti-smoking group Legacy and who consulted with the CDC on the ads. “When you personalize a story, it’s powerful.”

Too powerful for some. The ads “are shocking, disgusting and too provocative — and they’ve crossed the line,” wrote stay-at-home dad Joel Mathis in a Scripps Howard News Service column. “The non-smoking majority is being subjected to an assault on our senses.”

Glenn Leshner, a University of Missouri researcher who has studied the effectiveness of anti-smoking ads in a lab setting, says they draw more attention when they feature either a health threat or disgusting images. Yet when they have both, he’s found viewers start to withdraw.

Frieden, a physician who has treated many smokers, defends the ads.

“It’s important that everyone understands the impact of smoking,” he says.

He adds that most people don’t realize that smoking causes more than lung cancer and heart disease.

Health care costs are $2,000 more each year for smokers — about 20% of U.S. adults — than for non-smokers, Frieden says, and smoking remains the leading cause of preventable deaths.

“This campaign pulled back the curtain,” he says.

Click on this link to view the video: http://bcove.me/4yt906qq

This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

August, 2012|Oral Cancer News|

Robotic surgery vs. radiation therapy: study will find which better for throat cancer

Source: http://www.windsorstar.com/
Author: Beatrice Fantoni, The Windsor Star

In the first trial of its kind in the world, doctors in London, Ont., are comparing robotic surgery and radiation therapy to find out which method helps throat-cancer patients retain speech and swallowing functions – two very important functions that can have a serious effect on quality of life for cancer survivors.

Dr. Anthony Nichols and Dr. David Palma of the London Health Sciences Centre are working with 68 test subjects who have cancer of the back of the throat (also known as oropharyngeal cancer) and measuring the swallowing functions of each patient one year after treatment.

Because the cure rate for oropharyngeal cancer is pretty good, Nichols said, he and Palma want to focus on how to improve patients’ post-treatment quality of life.

In Canada, the standard way of treating oropharyngeal cancer is with a combination of radiation and chemotherapy. However, Nichols said, there can be some longterm side-effects with this treatment, such as dry mouth, hearing loss, taste changes and compromised swallowing function.

“The side-effects are more than what we’d like,” said Palma. “We want to improve the quality of life.”

Surgery using a robot is a newer treatment that could perhaps be more appropriate for some oropharyngeal cancer patients, Nichols said. London is currently the only site in Canada to offer what is known as transoral robotic surgery.

The robot sounds promising, Palma said, and so it warrants more study.

“We don’t really know if the ‘surgery first’ approach is best,” Palma said, at least when it comes to swallowing.

Nichols said that cancer of the back of throat is “dramatically” on the rise in Canada partly because of the growing prevalence of the human papilloma virus.

Since the mid-1990s, the number of cases has more than doubled.

Although oropharyngeal cancer was mostly seen in older patients who were heavy smokers and drinkers, Nichols said, doctors are seeing more and more cases caused by HPV, and those cases are usually in young and otherwise healthy patients.

The trial is randomized. The patients will be randomly assigned either radiation therapy or robotic surgery.

Then, to figure out which treatment is better, Nichols and Palma will collect information about each patient’s quality of life, side-effects and survival.

Palma said they expect to have results in about five years.

August, 2012|Oral Cancer News|

Cancer Patients Who Smoke Report Worse Pain, Symptoms

Source: MedScapeToday.com

February 24, 2012 (Palm Springs, California) — Cancer patients who smoke experience more severe symptoms than nonsmoking cancer patients and are also at greater risk of misusing opioids, a new study shows.

“Our findings show a profile of higher levels of physical symptoms (pain, fatigue, poor appetite, and insomnia) and psychological symptoms (depression and anxiety) among smokers than non-smokers,” report Diane Novy, PhD, from the Pain Management Center at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and colleagues.

The findings underscore the importance of smoking cessation for this patient population, she told Medscape Medical News, even though it’s unclear if there is a causal effect.

“We don’t know the cause. They may smoke more because of the pain,” she said in an interview. However, studies also show that smoking has been known to increase certain types of pain such as back pain, and nerve pain, she added. “If we can motivate them to stop smoking, I think they’re better off.”

The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 28th Annual Meeting.

Pain, Fatigue, Insomnia

The study included 486 cancer patients (52% female), with a mean age of 55 years, who were referred to the Pain Management Center for uncontrolled pain. Ninety-four patients were smokers, and the rest (n = 356), classified as nonsmokers, were former smokers or never-smokers. The patients were diagnosed with a wide range of cancers, the most common being gastrointestinal (18.5%), followed by hematologic (15%) and head and neck cancer (14.6%).

The most common cancer among the smokers was head and neck cancer (22.3% vs 12.8% in nonsmokers), and the most common cancer in nonsmokers was gastrointestinal (19.9% vs 12.8% in smokers). Lung cancer was slightly less common among smokers than nonsmokers (10.6% vs 11.5%).

As part of their intake, patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP).

The ESAS showed that pain, fatigue, insomnia, appetite, depression, and anxiety were all statistically significantly worse in smokers than nonsmokers.

Specifically, on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 10, smokers reported the following:

  • a median pain level of 6.5 compared with 5 in nonsmokers (P < .001);
  • a median fatigue level of 8 compared with 7 in nonsmokers (P < .001);
  • a median depression level of 5 compared with 3 in nonsmokers (P < .001);
  • a median anxiety level of 6 compared with 3 in nonsmokers (P < .001);
  • a median level of 5 for poor appetite compared with 3 in nonsmokers (P = .023); and
  • a median insomnia level of 6 compared with 4 in nonsmokers (P = .026).

In addition, the SOAPP suggested that smokers were at greater risk for opioid misuse than were nonsmokers. Smokers reported more frequent mood swings than nonsmokers (26.6% vs 12.5%; P = .002) and were more likely to admit to occasional use of medication in a manner other than how it was prescribed (39.4% vs 19.6%; P < .001), occasional use of illegal drugs in the past 5 years (13.8% vs 2.6%; P < .001), and past legal problems or arrest (25.5% vs 8.2%; P < .001).

Further, among the smokers, 51% reported that they smoke within an hour of waking — an indication of higher risk for opioid misuse compared with smokers who delay their first cigarette.

Taken together, the findings point to the importance of extra caution when managing pain in cancer patients, said Dr. Novy.

“With cancer patients, opioids will always be the mainstay of treatment,” she said. With smokers, “we might change the route of delivery, so it might be a fentanyl patch that the patient can’t misuse, or it might be an opioid that does not have as much addiction potential like methadone, or maybe nerve blocks or other procedures.”

Smoking cessation should also be emphasized, she added. “When we work with patients and we’re able to say smokers seem to experience more pain and more of a symptom burden… for some patients it is an amazing wake-up call.”

On the basis of her results she suggests a clinical interview that explores a patient’s pain coping mechanisms and smoking triggers could help to inform treatment.

“For example, if expectation of analgesic benefit appeared to be an important smoking motivator, challenging these expectations and increasing coping self-efficacy would be reasonable treatment goals,” she reported.

If future studies confirm that smoking is associated with depression symptoms, treatment of depression would be appropriate.

Bi-Directional Interaction

The study by Dr. Novy and colleagues “makes an important contribution to a small, but rapidly growing scientific literature regarding complex and potentially bi-directional interactions between pain and smoking,” commented Joseph W. Ditre, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Texas A & M University in College Station.

“There is growing empirical and clinical interest in purported associations between tobacco smoking and the aggravation of cancer symptoms and treatment side effects, such as pain,” said Dr. Ditre, who recently published findings very similar to those of the current study.

“The current findings are highly consistent with the results of our 2011 study, which showed that continued smoking despite a cancer diagnosis was associated with greater pain severity and interference from pain,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“Some researchers have suggested that other factors (eg, depression) may be responsible for observed relations between smoking and increased pain,” he noted. “Thus, it would be interesting to know whether the current findings remain significant after accounting for sociodemographic, disease-specific, and psychiatric factors. Also, to get a better sense of whether continued smoking may increase pain and functional impairment in a causal fashion, future research should investigate longitudinal relations between continued smoking, smoking abstinence, and pain-related outcomes among persons with cancer.”

He said he agreed with Dr. Novy that smoking cessation should be emphasized in this population.

“Interestingly, our 2011 study showed a negative correlation between pain ratings and number of years since quitting smoking, suggesting that quitting smoking may confer benefit with respect to pain reporting,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Conversely, there is some question as to whether abstaining from smoking may increase pain in the short term (perhaps via removal of a preferred coping strategy, or via direct neurobiological processes).

“That said, smoking cessation is clearly indicated for persons with cancer, not just because smoking may increase pain, but because persistent smoking has been associated with impaired healing, reduced treatment efficacy, and increased risk for developing a second primary cancer,” Dr. Ditre added. “Thus, the advantages of quitting smoking likely greatly outweigh potential disadvantages, especially with respect to cancer-related outcomes.”

The study was supported by funding from the American Cancer Society and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Novy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ditre and his coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

February, 2012|Oral Cancer News|

Erlotinib dose doubled for smokers with head/neck cancer

Source: www.oncologyreport.com
Author: Miriam E. Tucker

Giving smokers a higher, short-course dose of erlotinib before definitive surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck resulted in favorable responses for the first patients evaluated in a small pilot study.

Investigators gave 300 mg of erlotinib (Tarceva) to smokers daily and 150 mg daily to nonsmokers who had a waiting period of more than 14 days before scheduled surgery for head and neck cancer. Seven of the 10 patients evaluated so far had partial responses and 3 had stable disease, according to a poster presented at a head and neck cancer symposium sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology. The study was based on recent data in non–small cell lung cancer

(NSCLC) patients showing that smokers metabolize erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, twice as quickly as do nonsmokers (J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:1220-6), said lead author Dr. Mercedes Porosnicu of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston Salem, N.C. That study established the maximum tolerated dose of erlotinib at 300 mg daily in NSCLC patients who smoke.

Dr. Poroniscu’s presentation included the case study of a smoker with a very large oral cavity tumor protruding through his lips. He was described as being in significant pain and unable to eat or chew. The first CT scan showed a tumor of at least 8 cm and there was “significant metabolic activity” on PET scan.

“At 6 days of erlotinib treatment, his tumor was obviously smaller and he could chew, eat, and talk. Metabolic activity on PET scan dropped to 44% compared to initial tumor metabolic activity,” Dr. Porosnicu said. “At the end of 14 days’ treatment, his tumor was at least 20% smaller, and he had gained 5 pounds. His surgery wasn’t delayed, and the only treatment-related toxicity was a minimal skin rash.”

A total of 12 patients have been treated to date, for an average of 18.2 days, she reported. Nine were smokers and three were nonsmokers. All patients, smokers and nonsmokers, tolerated the erlotinib dose well with no serious adverse events and no delays in the scheduled time of surgical intervention. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities.

Of 10 evaluable patients (including 8 smokers who received 300 mg), 7 (including 5 smokers) showed a partial response, as defined by at least a 20% reduction in maximum tumor diameter. The other three patients (all smokers) showed stable disease. Two of the 12 treated patients received shorter duration treatment but nonetheless displayed good responses.

January, 2012|Oral Cancer News|

British throat cancer Europe’s highest thanks to obesity and alcohol

Source: www.lifeinsurance.co.uk
Author: Lana Clements

The UK suffers the highest rate of throat cancer in Europe, double the average rate, according to new analysis by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF). Britain’s high level of alcohol consumption and obesity are blamed for the figures.

Using World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates, the WCRF found that around six out of every 100,000 people develop throat cancer in the UK, while the European average stands at about three.

The findings come as the British Liver Trust reports a 74% increase of liver cancer deaths in England and Wales since 1997 as ten people a day now die from the disease.

Liver and throat cancer are both strongly linked to obesity and alcohol consumption, while throat cancer is also linked to smokers and liver cancer to hepatitis B.

Andrew Langford, chief executive of the British Liver Trust, attacked the government over the UK’s strategy towards liver damage: “At the moment all we are seeing are weak policies or no action at all.

“Our government-led alcohol policies are a joke and despite nearly every other developed nation having universal vaccination for hepatitis B we are still debating whether we should, while this debate continues many are being infected and for some this will lead to them dying of liver cancer.”

According to the British Liver trust, liver cancer survival rates have not improved during the last three decades, even though scientific treatment has moved forward, because of the advanced stage of the disease at diagnosis.

The Department of Health responded to both sets of cancer figures by admitting that while the number of smokers has fallen, more needs to be done to maintain the progress and to tackle obesity and alcohol consumption.

November, 2011|Oral Cancer News|

Although Most Smokers Want to Quit… Only a Fraction Actually Do

Source: The Wall Street Journal
Author: Betsy McKay

 

More than two-thirds of American smokers want to quit, but only a fraction actually do, underscoring a need for more services, messages, and access to medications to help them kick the habit, according to a new government report out today.

Nearly 69% of adult smokers wanted to quit in 2010 and more than half tried, but only 6.2% succeeded, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Those who try to quit can double or triple their chances with counseling or medications, but most of those who did try to quit in 2010 didn’t use either. Nor did they receive advice on how to quit from a doctor.

The findings suggest more needs to be done to help smokers quit — particularly certain segments of the population with low quit rates, said Tim McAfee, director of the public health agency’s Office on Smoking and Health, in an interview.

Nearly 76% of African-American smokers wanted to quit last year, and 59% tried — well above the national average, said McAfee. But a mere 3.2% succeeded, which is the lowest rate among measured races and ethnicities. American smokers with college degrees had a far higher rate of success at quitting — 11.4% — than smokers with fewer than 12 years of schooling, who had only a 3.2% success rate.

Still, McAfee said, there are some encouraging signs. For example, the percentage of young adults between the ages of 25 and 44 who want to quit has climbed over the past decade. “We think that’s incredibly important and the influence perhaps of large policy shifts in the U.S.” such as smoke-free laws and excise taxes, he said. (By contrast, interest in quitting in some other countries, such as China, is low.)

State Medicaid programs are now required as part of health reform to pay for smoking cessation services for pregnant women, and the federal government also now allows states to provide coverage for medicines and counseling for other Medicaid recipients.

But “we lost some momentum” in enacting smoke-free laws, McAfee said. Twenty-five states and Washington, D.C., have comprehensive smoke-free laws in place but none has been added to the list so far in 2011. The most recent state to go smoke-free was South Dakota, last November.

A court-ordered temporary halt earlier this week to a government plan to put graphic warning labels on cigarette packs could also set back efforts to get people to smoke, McAfee said.

That’s not only because the images — such as one of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a hole in his throat — are meant to discourage smoking, but the planned labels also include telephone quitline information. A federal judge ordered the temporary halt after tobacco companies argued it would violate their constitutional right to free speech.

November, 2011|Oral Cancer News|

What accounts for racial differences in head/neck cancer?

Source: www.drbicuspid.com
Author: DrBicuspid Staff

Why are African-Americans more likely than Caucasians not only to be diagnosed with head and neck cancer, but also to die from the disease? While the answer isn’t a simple one, differences in lifestyle, access to care, and tumor genetics may be partly to blame, according to a new study from Henry Ford Hospital.

The study, which was presented September 14 at the American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation’s annual meeting in San Francisco, also found that African-Americans are more likely to be past or current smokers, one of the primary risk factors for head and neck cancer.

“We’re really trying to understand why African-Americans with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma do so poorly,” said lead author Maria Worsham, PhD, director of research in the department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery at Henry Ford, in a news release. “Using a comprehensive set of risk factors that are known to have some bearing on the disease, we’re able to gain a better understanding of what contributes to racial differences and work to help improve patient care.”

This year alone, it’s estimated that 52,140 new cases of head and neck cancer will be diagnosed, and roughly 11,460 will die in 2011 from oral cavity and pharyngeal and laryngeal cancers, she and her team members noted.

African-Americans are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and have a worse five-year survival rate than Caucasians. It’s unknown whether significant biological rather than socioeconomic differences account for some of the disparities in outcomes.

To get at the root of these differences, Worsham and her team used a large Detroit multiethnic group of 673 patients with HNSCC. Most notably, 42% of the study group was African-American.

The researchers took a broad approach to the study, examining many of the intertwined variables influencing health and disease to look for differences among African-Americans and Caucasians. In all, the study focused on 136 risk factors, including demographics (age, race, gender), smoking and alcohol use, access to care, and type of cancer treatment (radiation and/or surgery). Tumor characteristics, including stage, biology, and genetics, also were examined.

Among the study findings:

  • While 88% of African-Americans in the study had medical insurance, the majority had Medicare or Medicaid instead of private health insurance.
  • African-Americans also were more likely to be unmarried or living alone, both of which previous studies suggest have a negative impact on quality of life and survival.
  • In terms of cancer treatment, African-Americans in this study were more than two times more likely than Caucasians to receive radiation therapy. The study showed fewer African-Americans (43%) opted for surgery than Caucasians (49%).
  • African-American tumors were six to seven times more likely to present with lymphocytic response.
  • Compared to Caucasian tumors, African-American tumors were almost two times more likely to have loss of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) gene and gain of the small inducible cytokine A3 (SCYA3) gene. CDKN2A is important to cell cycle regulation, and the SCYA3 gene product has dual roles of tumor lymph node metastasis and local host defense against tumors in HNSCC.
September, 2011|Oral Cancer News|

Students can’t commit to quitting

Source: www.gcsunade.com
Author: Lindsay Peterson

A Georgia College student steps outside, pauses and inhales, filling his lungs with acetone, ammonia, arsenic, benzene, butane, formaldehyde, lead and turpentine – just 8 of the more than 50 carcinogens found in the average cigarette.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of the 46 million smokers in the U.S., college students are among the highest percentage of smokers. Almost 22 percent of adults ages 18-24 smoke, according to 2009 CDC data.

Their professors are not far behind them in their smoking addiction. According to the CDC data, almost 22 percent of people ages 45-64 are smokers. In 2009, the CDC found that adults in the Southeast were among the most prevalent smokers in the United States.

While there are no hard statistics for the percentage of students and staff that smoke at GC, it is not uncommon to see a familiar gathering of smokers sitting outside any of the dorms.

Lauren Luker, junior mass communication major, started smoking in order to get a break at her job as a server.

“You couldn’t have a break unless it was a smoke break,” Luker said.

Now, eight years later, Luker is worried about the health of her lungs and is planning on quitting after several previous failed attempts.

However, quitting such an addictive habit is not always easy, as Luker knows.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine. Fortunately for GC students and staff who are interested in kicking their habit, there is a smoking cessation program held by GC three times a year.

Amy Whatley, the assistant director of the Wellness Programs, leads these free smoking cessation classes.

“(The classes) are held once every fall, spring and summer,” Whatley said.

However, this free program is not very popular among students.

“We’ve only had one student complete (the smoking cessation program) in the last three years,” Whatley said.

While the smoking cessation program is not very popular among GC students, the FDA is beginning a new advertising campaign that has been popular in other countries, such as Australia and Canada.

According to the FDA, as of September 2012, all packages of cigarettes must show graphic images of the effects of smoking and bold text warning of the dangers of smoking.

The graphics range from a man smoking through a hole in his throat to a mouth riddled with sores and rotting teeth – the cruel effects of oral cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society, other countries have had a great success rate with this controversial method. A positive correlation has been shown between people becoming more aware of the harmful effects of smoking and choosing to quit.

The hope is that after being confronted with the grim side effects, such as oral cancer or death, smokers will be more motivated to cut down on their smoking habit or quit altogether.

Currently, smoking is responsible for 20 percent of deaths in the U.S., and is the leading cause of preventable death.

But the human body is resilient and begins to heal itself just minutes after the last cigarette is smoked.

According to the American Cancer Society, just 20 minutes after quitting smoking, blood pressure is noticeably reduced.

Twelve hours after a person quits smoking, the carbon monoxide level in their blood drops to normal.

At nine months, the smoker’s fatigue and shortness of breath decreases.

One year after quitting, an ex-smoker’s risk of heart disease is half that of a smoker.

Ten years after quitting, the death rate for lung cancer is approximately half that of a continuing smoker.

Although university denizens find themselves among the most prone demographics of smokers, they can breathe more easily knowing that GC provides help for those who need it.

August, 2011|Oral Cancer News|

Morning smoking linked to higher risk of head and neck cancer

Source: www.nursingtimes.net
Author: staff

Smokers who light up first thing in the morning have a higher risk of developing head and neck cancer than those who wait that little bit longer for their first cigarette of the day, a study has suggested.

A research team from the Penn State College of Medicine in America investigated whether nicotine dependence, as characterised by the time smokers take to have their first cigarette after waking, affects smokers’ risk of lung, head and neck cancers independent of cigarette smoking frequency and duration.

They analysed 1,055 people with head and neck cancers and 795 who did not have cancer, all of whom were cigarette smokers.

Individuals who smoked 31 minutes to an hour after waking were 1.42 times more likely to develop head and neck cancer than those who waited more than hour before having a nicotine fix.

Those who waited less than half an hour to have their first cigarette of the day were 1.59 times as likely to develop head and neck cancer.

According to Cancer, a journal of the American Cancer Society, the results of the study may help identify smokers who have an especially high risk of developing cancer and would therefore benefit from targeted smoking interventions.

Dr Joshua Muscar, lead researcher, said: “These smokers have higher levels of nicotine and possibly other tobacco toxins in their body, and they may be more addicted than smokers who refrain from smoking for a half hour or more.”

August, 2011|Oral Cancer News|