91008461173Cancer Causes ControlCancer Causes ControlCancer causes & control : CCC0957-52431573-722523572327373309110.1007/s10552-013-0207-zNIHMS466206ArticleRisk of colorectal cancer associated with active smoking among female teachersHurleySusansusan.hurley@cpic.orgCancer Prevention Institute of California, 2001 Center Street, Suite 700, Berkeley, CA 94704, USAGoldbergDebbieCancer Prevention Institute of California, 2001 Center Street, Suite 700, Berkeley, CA 94704, USANelsonDavid O.Cancer Prevention Institute of California, 2001 Center Street, Suite 700, Berkeley, CA 94704, USALuYaniDepartment of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010, USAHendersonKatherineDepartment of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010, USABernsteinLeslieDepartment of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010, USAReynoldsPeggyCancer Prevention Institute of California, 2001 Center Street, Suite 700, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA; Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA2572013104201372013017201424712911304© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 20132013Purpose

The objective of this study was to examine the risk of colorectal cancer associated with active smoking among members of the California Teachers Study (CTS), a large cohort of female public school employees for whom highly detailed smoking information is available.

Methods

The analysis was conducted among the 122,264 CTS participants who lived in California at cohort entry in 1995/1996, had no prior history of colorectal cancer, and provided detailed smoking information. 1,205 cases of invasive colorectal cancer prospectively diagnosed in 1995–2009 were identified from the California Cancer Registry, including 650 in the proximal colon, 267 in the distal colon, and 288 in the rectum. Hazard ratios and 95 % confidence intervals were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, stratified by age at cohort entry, and adjusted for race/ethnicity.

Results

Compared to never smokers, current smokers had an approximately 30 % increased risk of colorectal cancer. Overall, a slightly elevated risk was also noted for former smokers. Among former smokers, risks appeared to remain elevated for up to 20 years following cessation. Risks among former and current smokers increased with greater intensity and duration of smoking. Little evidence for heterogeneity in risk was noted for colon versus rectal cancer or for different subsites within the colon.

Conclusions

These results provide convincing evidence that heavy and/or long-term smoking is a risk factor for cancers of the colon and rectum. Such evidence should be considered when updating screening guidelines to include targeting people with long active smoking histories.

SmokingColorectal cancerColon cancerRectal cancerRiskWomen
Background

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third most deadly among both US women and men [1]. It is estimated that approximately 143,000 cases of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed and 52,000 people will die from this disease in 2012 [1]. While colorectal cancer is less common than either prostate cancer or breast cancer, colorectal cancer prognosis is substantially worse with a five-year survival rate of 64 %, primarily due to late stage at diagnosis [1]. Since the symptoms of colorectal cancer often do not present until late in the disease process, screening is critical to early detection and better survival. Current screening guidelines recommend that regular screening begins at age 50 years for those considered at ‘average’ risk, with earlier and more frequent screening recommended for those with a strong family history or known genetic risk factors [2]. Given that the majority of patients with colorectal cancer do not have a family history or genetic risk factor, defining targeted screening strategies that account for lifestyle-related factors could increase the number of early diagnoses and ultimately increase survival rates [24].

The role of smoking in the etiology of colorectal cancer has been the source of considerable debate. Reviews by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. Surgeon General, published in 2002 and 2004, respectively, concluded that the evidence was insufficient to identify smoking as a risk factor for colorectal cancer [5, 6]. Evidence has been accumulating over the last 10 years, and in its forthcoming report, IARC states the evidence is now “sufficient” to classify smoking as a human colorectal carcinogen [7]. Despite this new assessment, some unanswered questions regarding smoking and colorectal cancer risk remain including: the importance of timing versus overall duration and/or intensity of smoking; the degree to which smoking cessation results in reduction of risk; and whether risks vary by anatomic site (colon vs. rectal) and within subsites of the colon [811]. Furthermore, it has been suggested that smoking-related risks may be limited to or stronger in men [9]. These are important questions to answer in order to improve the understanding of the etiologic mechanisms by which smoking affects risk and to inform primary and secondary prevention efforts.

The current analysis was conducted to evaluate the risk of colorectal cancer in a large prospective cohort of California women for whom extensive lifetime smoking histories have been collected. Due to the large size of the cohort and long length of cancer follow-up, which spans nearly 15 years, we had the opportunity to estimate risks by anatomic site and subsite and to evaluate a variety of details with respect to timing, duration, and dose of exposures.

Materials and methodsStudy population

The study population for these analyses was drawn from the California Teachers Study (CTS) cohort, a large ongoing prospective study of female professional school employees in California. Participants in the CTS are 133,479 women who responded to a 1995 mailing to all 329,000 active and retired female enrollees in the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS). A full description of the CTS cohort is described elsewhere [12].

For the present analyses, CTS participants were excluded (in sequence) for the following reasons: lived outside California at baseline (n = 8,867); had an unknown history of prior cancer (n = 662); requested their data only be used for breast cancer analyses (n = 18); had a prior history of invasive or in situ colorectal cancer (n = 899); or had missing or unknown active smoking status (n = 769). The resulting study population was comprised of 122,264 women.

Use of human subjects' data in this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at all participating institutions and the California Health and Human Services Agency, Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects.

Outcome assessment

The CTS cohort is followed annually for cancer diagnosis, death, and change of address. Cancer outcomes are identified through annual linkages with the California Cancer Registry (CCR), a legally mandated statewide population-based cancer reporting system [13]. Mortality files, as well as reports from relatives, are used to ascertain date and cause of death. Address changes for continued follow-up are obtained by several methods including annual mailings, notifications of moves received from participants, and linkages to nationwide consumer reporting companies and the U.S. Postal Service National Change of Address database.

Women diagnosed with incident invasive carcinomas of the large bowel (International Classification of Disease Oncology codes C18.0, C18.2–C18.9 and C26.0 for cancer of the colon and C19.9 and C20.9 for cancer of the rectum) between the date they joined the cohort in 1995–1996 and 2009 comprised the case group. The anatomic subsites within the colon were further classified into proximal (C18.0, C18.2–C18.5) and distal (C18.6–C18.9, C26.0). Information on stage of diagnosis was also extracted from the CCR data and characterized as localized, regional, distant, and unspecified.

Exposure assessmentActive Smoking Information

Highly detailed information on active smoking was collected on the baseline questionnaire in 1995–1996. Active smoking status was defined as having reported ever smoking 100 or more cigarettes and women were categorized as never, former, or current smokers. Among ever smokers (former or current smokers), details of smoking intensity and duration were also collected and categorized as follows: age of smoking initiation (≤15, 16–19, 20–24, ≥25, unknown); smoking intensity (average number of cigarettes per day, <10, 10–19, ≥20, unknown); total number of smoking years (<10, 10–19, 20–29, 30–39, ≥40, unknown); number of smoking pack-years (≤10, 11–20, 21–30, ≥31, unknown); and years since quitting smoking among former smokers (<5, 5–9, 10–19, ≥20, unknown). Because we did not have information about changes in smoking behavior during the follow-up of the study, for the variables that reflect time (e.g., number of smoking years, pack-years, and years since quitting), we created alternate variables to add time of follow-up to the time reported at baseline. These alternate variables were used in sensitivity analyses in which we estimated risks further accounting for time since study entry, assuming that smoking status had not changed during the follow-up period.

Covariate information

Data on potential confounders were gathered from information reported on two self-administered mailed surveys and included information on: age at baseline, race/ethnicity, menopausal status at cohort entry, family history of colon cancer, personal history of colorectal polyps, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, hormone therapy use, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alcohol consumption, passive smoking exposures, and dietary factors (calcium, folate, iron, vitamin D, fat, fiber, caloric intake, consumption of red meat, organ meat, pork, processed meat, poultry, and fish/shellfish) collected from a modified Block questionnaire [14, 15].

Follow-up

Person-months at risk was calculated as the number of months between the time a woman joined the cohort (i.e., the date she completed her baseline questionnaire) and the earliest of four dates: the date of her invasive colorectal cancer diagnosis; the date of her first non-California residential address (lasting 4 months or longer); the date of her death; or December 31, 2009. Women who were diagnosed with in situ colorectal cancer during the follow-up period were censored at the time of their diagnoses.

Statistical analysis

Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard rate ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) for each smoking variable, using ages at the start and end of follow-up to define time on study. Initially, we calculated hazard ratios both with and without inclusion of passive smokers in the referent category of never smokers. Because these two alternative approaches yielded virtually identical point estimates, we chose to use all never smokers (regardless of passive smoking exposure) as our referent category for all the smoking variables as it provided a larger group for comparison. Examination of Kaplan–Meier survival curves and log-minus-log survival plots indicated no apparent violation of the underlying assumption of proportional hazards upon which the Cox regression model is predicated [16]. All initial models were stratified by age at baseline (in single year increments) and adjusted for race/ethnicity (White (referent group), Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Other). Assessment of important covariates was conducted by individually adding each of the potential confounders to the models and evaluating whether the addition changed the regression coefficient for the smoking variable by 10 % or more. Furthermore, we used random forests techniques to identify potential confounders, taking into account both multiple testing and potential interactions [17]. As neither of these approaches identified any confounders beyond age and race/ethnicity, the final multivariable models only included adjustment for race/ethnicity and were stratified by age at baseline.

To evaluate whether smoking-related risks varied by anatomic site (colon vs. rectum) and subsites within the colon (proximal vs. distal), we tested for interactions in marginal competing risk models of the type described by Therneau [18]. Specifically, we built models stratified by site/subsite with and without inclusion of an interaction term for the smoking variable of interest and the site/sub-site and then compared the −2Log likelihood of the nested models to determine whether the interaction model fits significantly better. To evaluate whether smoking-related risks were different for pre/peri-menopausal versus post-menopausal women at baseline, we compared the log-likelihood ratios for models with and without interaction terms for menopausal status and the smoking exposure variables. Tests for significance of each effect individually were calculated only on a data set in which the effect was not coded as missing. Significance tests for individual effects were performed as follows. First, an “overall” (partial) likelihood ratio test was performed by comparing a model in which the term was treated as a categorical effect (Model A), to a model without the term (Model C). If the underlying effect was ordinal, a second “linear test for trend” was performed, comparing a model that treated the effect as numeric, coding never smokers as zero and using the median value in each level as a weight (Model B), to Model C. If that test proved statistically significant at the 0.05 level, then a second “residual” likelihood ratio test was performed comparing Model A to Model B, to detect the existence of an additional nonlinear component of trend. All models were run using the PHREG procedure in SAS Version 9.3. No formal p value adjustments for multiple testing were performed.

Results

1,205 women with invasive colorectal cancer were prospectively diagnosed between 1995/1996 (when they joined the cohort) and 2009 among the 122,264 CTS participants eligible for this study. The tumor characteristics of the cases in our study are summarized in Table 1. Forty-two percent were diagnosed at the localized stage; 37 % were diagnosed at the regional stage; and 17 % were diagnosed at the distant stage. The majority of cases were cancers of the colon (n = 917; 76 %), 71 % of which were diagnosed in the proximal colon. These tumor characteristics are similar to those observed in the general US population of non-Hispanic white women [19].

The demographic characteristics and smoking behaviors of the 122,264 study participants are summarized in Table 2. The study population predominantly includes white (87 %), middle-aged women, ranging in age from 22 to 104 years with approximately half between the ages of 40 and 59 years at cohort entry in 1995/1996. As expected, cases tended to be older than non-cases, and marginally more likely to be non-Hispanic white. Nearly two-thirds of the study population were life-long never smokers, 29 % were former smokers, and only 5 % were current smokers upon joining the cohort. Compared to women who did not develop colorectal cancer, cases were more likely to be former or current smokers and to smoke more cigarettes/day, for more years, resulting in more pack-years of smoking.

The risks of colorectal cancer associated with active smoking, stratified by age and adjusted for race/ethnicity, are presented in Table 3. Compared to never smokers, current smokers had a significantly elevated risk of colorectal cancer (HR = 1.28, 95 % CI = 1.00–1.63), while former smokers exhibited a more modest, non-significant risk elevation (HR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 0.97–1.24). Risks increased with increasing smoking intensity (p value for linear trend = 0.02), years of smoking (p value for linear trend = 0.02), and pack-years (p value for linear trend = 0.01). Among former smokers, all point estimates of risk were elevated except among those women who had quit 20 or more years prior to the study. While risk estimates based on the reported years of cessation prior to baseline were only modestly elevated and not statistically significant for most categories of cessation duration, the results were more dramatic in our sensitivity analyses in which we added years of follow-up to the time since quitting reported at baseline. In these analyses, we observed increased risk estimates for all durations of cessation, with the exception of those who had at least 20 years of smoking cessation (HR = 0.86, 95 % CI = 0.75–1.00 for 20+ years; HR = 2.10, 95 % CI = 1.67–2.66 for 10–19 years; HR = 12.3, 95 % CI = 8.12–18.6 for 5–9 years; HR = 25.5, 95 % CI = 10.4–62.9 for <5 years). While hazard ratios tended to increase for categories representing earlier ages at smoking initiation, all confidence intervals included one and the test for linear trend was not significant (p value = 0.33).

Overall smoking-related risk estimates were similar for colon and rectal cancer (Table 3) and, with the exception of pack-years, the formal tests for heterogeneity of effect between the two sites yielded p values >0.05. The risk of colon cancer appeared to increase with increasing pack-years [HR for 31+ pack-years = 1.51, 95 % CI = 1.21–1.88, p (linear trend <0.01)], while rectal cancer was not associated with increasing pack-years [HR for 31+ pack-years = 0.89, 95 % CI 0.54–1.47, p (linear trend = 0.58)], p (heterogeneity) = 0.04. Notably, the number of rectal cancers, especially in the highest exposure smoking group, was quite small (n = 17).

Table 4 presents the hazard ratios for smoking associated with tumors of the proximal and distal colon separately. While point estimates of risk generally tended to be higher for cancers of the distal colon, formal tests for heterogeneity of effect across subsites of the colon did not detect any evidence for heterogeneity (p values ranged from 0.50 to 0.95). The number of cases with distal colon cancer, however, tended to be quite small, especially among the highest exposure group of smokers (Table 4).

Risk analyses, stratified by menopausal status at baseline, provided no evidence of heterogeneity in risk with point estimates similar for pre/peri-menopausal and post-menopausal women and all likelihood ratio tests yielding p values greater than 0.05 (data not shown).

Because we did not identify any factors beyond age and race as significant confounders, we did not extensively evaluate potential effect modifiers. However, in response to a recent report from the GEECO pooled analysis that both fruit consumption and BMI were modest effect modifiers of the relationship between smoking and colorectal cancer risk [20], we specifically examined these relationships in our study population by adding multiplicative interaction terms between these factors and smoking and used the likelihood ratio test to evaluate the significance of effect modification. While we found no evidence for an interaction with fruit consumption (likelihood ratio p value = 0.64), we did see a marginally significant interaction between BMI and pack-years of smoking (p = 0.05). However, contrary to the findings from the GEECO pooled analysis which reported stronger smoking-related risks among overweight and obese women, we saw no evidence of this in our data. The hazard ratios for ≥31 pack-years were 1.63 (95 % CI = 1.23–2.18) for women with BMI ≤25 kg/m2 women; 1.53 (95 % CI = 1.07–2.09) for women with BMI 25–29 kg/m2; and 1.70 (95 % CI = 1.06–2.74) for women with BMI≥30.

Discussion

Our results add convincing evidence to the growing body of literature that active smoking increases the risk of colorectal cancer, especially among smokers with the most intense and/or longest duration of exposure. Importantly, our findings indicate that this effect is not confined to men but is apparent in women as well. Our results also add to the sparse and mixed literature regarding the degree to which smoking-related risks may vary by anatomic site or subsite within the colon.

The colorectal cancer risk estimates for smoking status from our study (HR = 1.28 for current smokers; HR = 1.10 for former smokers) are consistent with findings from a number of recently published pooled and meta-analyses on this topic in which summary measures of risk have ranged from 1.12 to 1.26 for current smokers and 1.18 to 1.20 for former smokers [811, 20]. The marginally lower risk estimate for former smokers in the current study is likely a reflection of the fact that nearly half of the former smokers in our study population quit smoking more than 20 years before joining the cohort, by which time their risk appears to no longer be elevated.

While our analyses showed a linear trend of increasing risk with increasing measures of dose and duration (i.e., cigarettes/day, years of smoking, and pack-years), risk estimates only achieved statistical significance at the 0.05 level among the heaviest smokers (≥20 cigs/day) and after a duration of 40 years or 31 pack-years of smoking, regardless of whether duration of smoking was estimated at baseline or incorporated time on study [as part of our sensitivity analyses (data not shown)]. These results are consistent with the notion originally suggested by Giovannucci that a 35-year induction period may be required before an effect can be seen [21]. This long latency period has been offered as an explanation for the lack of an effect reported in early studies on this topic in the US, especially among women, who did not start smoking en masse until the latter half of the 1900s and thus lacked sufficient latency for an effect to emerge in studies conducted prior to 1990 [21].

The degree to which smoking-related colorectal cancer risks are similar among men and women has been a matter of debate. Initially, the preponderance of data seemed to suggest that the effect of smoking was either limited to, or at least stronger, among men than among women [21]. Explanations offered for this apparent difference have included both limitations in exposure potential (given the apparent long latency) as well as real sex-related biologic differences potentially arising from differential interactions between smoking and protective endogenous estrogens, body mass index, and/or abdominal adiposity [11]. Two recent meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies on this topic reported that risks for current smoking continued to be higher among men than among women [9, 11], although only one found these differences to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level [11]. In contrast, a meta-analyses that included both cohort and case–control studies published during the same time period reported no evidence for differences in risk by sex [8]. More recent findings, however, from The European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer (EPIC) [22] and the Cancer Prevention Study II(CPS-II) [23], both of which reported no differences in risk by sex, were not included in these meta-analyses. Regardless of whether risks are higher in men than in women, there is now convincing evidence that risks are apparent in women. Along with the elevated risks found in our study and those reported among the female participants in the EPIC and CPS-II cohorts, elevated risks also have been reported among members of the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study [24] and the Women's Health Initiative [25], both large well-conducted prospective cohort studies among women. The Norwegian study, however, only observed an effect for rectal but not colon cancer, a finding that also was reported among members of the Canadian Breast Screening Study over 10 years ago [26].

The issue of whether the risk of colorectal cancer associated with smoking varies by anatomic site and subsite within the colon is of growing interest. Because only 20–30 % of colorectal cancers occur in the rectum, sample sizes typically have been insufficient to examine risks separately for rectal cancer. Combining cancers of the colon and rectum, however, assumes a constancy of risk across the sites that may not be appropriate and could mask important effects. Evidence that tumors of the colon and rectum, as well as subsites within the colon, may have distinct etiologies is growing [2729]. Segments of the large bowel differ with respect to their embryonic origins and their physiologic functions [28]. The ability of the colorectal mucosa to metabolize carcinogens appears to vary by site and antigen expression differs by tumor site within the colon [30]. A number of risk factors including physical activity, alcohol intake, and certain dietary factors appear to have differential effects within subsites of the colon and rectum [28, 29, 31].

The evidence to date for differential effects of active smoking on risk of rectal versus colon cancer is somewhat mixed. While some studies have observed no differences in risk between anatomic sites [22, 3236], the preponderance of studies seems to suggest risk may be slightly higher for rectal than for colon cancer [8, 10, 11, 25, 26, 3743]. In contrast, our results provide little evidence for differential effects of smoking on the risk for tumors of the colon and rectum. In fact, if any differences exist, the risks in our study appear to be marginally stronger for colon than for rectal cancer. For pack-years of smoking, our findings suggested an increasing risk associated with increasing pack-years for colon cancer but not for rectal cancers (p for heterogeneity = 0.04). For all other smoking exposure variables, p values evaluating heterogeneity in risk across sites were ≥0.35. These analyses, however, were likely limited by the small number of rectal cancer cases, especially within the highest exposure categories (n = 17 for ≥31 pack-years). Our finding of a marginally stronger risk for colon compared to rectal cancer, however, is consistent with an emerging literature suggesting that smoking-related risks are stronger for some molecularly defined colorectal tumor subtypes, including microsatellite instability (MSI)-high and CpG island methylator (CIMP)-positive tumors, both of which are more common in women and more commonly occur in the colon, rather than the rectum [4446]. Unfortunately, we did not have available information on molecular subtypes.

The literature examining smoking-related risks by sub-sites within the colon is even more sparse [22, 39, 43, 47]. Two studies reported higher point estimates of smoking-related risks for tumors of the proximal colon than for tumors of the distal colon [47, 48]. A recent case–control study conducted in Hawaii suggested effects might vary by site and subsite differently in men and women with smoking-related effects stronger in the distal colon and rectum among women but not among men [49]. Results from our study, which overall tended to generate point estimates of risk slightly higher (albeit not statistically significant at the 0.05 level) for tumors of the distal compared to those of the proximal colon, are consistent with those reported in the Hawaiian study. Given the dearth of data on this issue, it is an important area for future inquiry. Clarification of risks, and how they might vary by site and subsite, could help elucidate etiologic mechanisms underlying risk. Furthermore, how risks vary by site and subsite within the colon could help inform the on-going debate over optimal screening guidelines which currently recommend for average risk individuals the less invasive and less expensive sigmoidoscopy that only allows examination of the rectum and distal colon over colonos-copy which examines the entire large bowel.

Our findings suggest that earlier age at smoking initiation incurs a larger risk than smoking that is started later in life (HR = 1.22 for smoking initiation ≤15 years of age; HR = 0.90 for smoking initiation ≥25 years of age). Due to the relatively few cases who started smoking prior to age 16 (n = 39) or at 25 years or later (n = 53), our study was underpowered to fully evaluate this issue. Our findings, however, are consistent with the handful of studies that have examined risks associated with age at smoking initiation[22, 25, 47, 5054], most of which have reported increased risks with earlier ages at initiation [25, 47, 50, 5255]. Interestingly, the most recent and one of the largest studies conducted to date reported no association between age at smoking initiation and colorectal cancer risk among members of the EPIC cohort [22]. In a recent meta-analysis, Liang reported that for each 10-year delay in smoking initiation, there was a 4.4 % reduction in risk ratios for colorectal cancer [10].

Finally, the issue of whether colorectal cancer risks diminish with increasing duration of smoking cessation is an important one, both in terms of helping to understand the mechanisms by which smoking increases risks, as well as to inform public health messaging. In his review of the literature over a decade ago, Giovannucci concluded that after smoking cessation, some colorectal cancer risk appears to persist indefinitely [21]. More recent data, however, including our own, suggest that while increased colorectal cancer risks do persist for many years after quitting, they do eventually approach those of non-smokers. Five recent studies have reported that risks declined to those of never smokers after prolonged periods of cessation, perhaps as long as 20–30 years [22, 23, 25, 35, 56]. While the lack of information on changes in smoking behavior during the 14 years of follow-up precludes our ability to precisely define the period of smoking cessation among the former smokers in our study, our primary results and even more so, the results from our sensitivity analyses, support the notion that only after at least 20 years of cessation does the risk of colorectal cancer return to that of life-time non-smokers. A recently published pooled analysis from the GEECO study reported that the excess risk associated with smoking disappeared immediately after quitting for proximal colon and rectal cancer, but persisted for nearly 20 years for distal colon cancer [20]. Our analyses provided no evidence of differences in risk reduction following cessation by site or subsite, but as stated earlier, our study was not ideally suited to evaluate this question given the lack of information about changes in smoking behavior during the follow-up of our cohort.

Our study has a number of limitations worth noting. While our analysis showed no evidence that risk estimates were different for post- compared to pre/peri-menopausal women, given that both menopausal status and smoking behaviors are highly age-dependent, our ability to evaluate this issue may have been compromised by the high degree of collinearity between these variables.

While an abundance of information on colorectal cancer risk factors has been collected on the CTS cohort, unfortunately information on colorectal cancer screening practices is not available. Statewide population data indicate that women who smoke may be less likely to undergo regular colorectal cancer screening [57]. If smokers in the CTS are also less likely to undergo colorectal cancer screening than their non-smoking counterparts, this could bias our results. The CTS, however, is comprised of women with generally good health care access and utilization with high rates of mammography and cervical cancer screening [12]. To evaluate this issue, we examined whether the distribution of stage at diagnosis and self-reported history of colorectal polyps varied by smoking status in our study population. No significant differences in stage at diagnosis were observed and both current and former smokers were slightly more likely to report a history of polyps than were never smokers. Since worse adherence to colorectal cancer screening guidelines among smokers would most likely result in later stages at diagnosis and decrease the likelihood of discovery of colorectal polyps, these analyses provide reassuring, although indirect, evidence that our results are not likely due to bias introduced by our inability to control for colorectal screening practices.

Another constraint of our study was the inability to account for differences in genetic susceptibility to tobacco exposures. While the issue of genetic polymorphisms has not yet been widely addressed in the literature on tobacco exposures and colorectal cancer, some data suggest that risk may vary by polymorphisms in genes that affect the metabolism of smoking-related carcinogens [46, 55, 5863]. Unfortunately, it was beyond the scope of the current study to incorporate information on potentially relevant genetic polymorphism. While lack of such data precludes our ability to examine whether individuals with certain polymorphisms may be more or less susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke, it does not impact the validity of the results as presented.

Overall, our study makes an important contribution to the increasingly convincing body of evidence that active smoking is a risk factor for colorectal cancer. Our results are particularly compelling given some of the unique strengths of our study, including the focus on women and the prospective design, which avoids the potential for recall bias common to studies of well-recognized carcinogens such as smoking. Furthermore, we were able to account for a wide spectrum of potential confounders including highly detailed dietary information, alcohol consumption, BMI, physical activity, medication, and hormone use, as well passive smoking exposures. Because none of these variables changed the coefficients for any of our smoking-related variables in our regression analyses, our final models did not include adjustment for these factors. Although not presented in this manuscript, we also ran regression models that included all potential confounders (as listed in above methods section) as covariates simultaneously. The smoking-related hazard ratios generated from these models remained essentially the same, albeit with marginally wider confidence intervals (data not shown). Given that the primary reason for IARC's prior reluctance to conclude that smoking was a colorectal carcinogen was “principally because of concern about confounding by other risk factors” [6], our results provide some reassurance that the results from earlier studies that did not have the ability to adequately adjust for potential con-founders were likely not biased due to residual confounding.

The results presented from the current analysis, in the context of the growing body of evidence that smoking increases the risk of colorectal cancer, should be considered when evaluating colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Because colorectal cancer is often a silent disease with the presentation of no early symptoms, screening is critical to early detection and better survival. There has been an emerging interest in tailoring screening recommendations to include information on lifestyle factors that might place individuals at an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Long-term heavy smoking should be one such factor to consider in this regard.

This research was funded by grant 18XT-0108 from the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program and National Cancer Institute grants R01 CA77398 and K05 CA136967. The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contract HHSN261201000036C awarded to the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, contract HHSN261201000035C awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract HHSN261201000034C awarded to the Public Health Institute; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement #1U58 DP000807-01 awarded to the Public Health Institute. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and endorsement by the State of California Department of Public Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their Contractors and Subcontractors is not intended nor should be inferred. We express our appreciation to all the participants in the California Teachers Study and to the researchers, analysts and staff who have contributed so much for the success of this research project. We also thank Pam Horn-Ross and Alison Canchola for technical support with the dietary data and Ha Van for administrative support. The authors would like to thank the CTS Steering Committee members who are responsible for the formation and maintenance of the cohort within which this study was conducted but who did not directly contribute to the current paper: Hoda Anton-Culver, Christina A. Clarke, Dennis Deapen, James V. Lacey Jr, Huiyan Ma, Susan L. Neuhausen, Fredrick Schumacher, Sophia S. Wang, and Argyrios Ziogas.

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

American Cancer Society (ACS)2012Cancer facts and figures 2012Atlanta, GA USAZismanALNickolovABrandREGorchowARoyHK2006Associations between the age at diagnosis and location of colorectal cancer and the use of alcohol and tobacco: implications for screeningArch Intern Med166662963416567601GiovannucciE2004Should smokers be considered a high-risk group for colorectal cancer?Dig Liver Dis361064364515506660JoshuCEParmigianiGColditzGAPlatzEA2012Opportunities for the primary prevention of colorectal cancer in the United StatesCancer Prev Res (Phila)5113814510.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-032221955521U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)2004The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon GeneralU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Smoking and HealthAtlanta, GA, USAWorld Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)2002Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking: IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans83IARC PressLyonWorld Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)2012IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humansA review of human carcinogens: personal habits and indoor combustions100ELyon, FranceBotteriEIodiceSBagnardiVRaimondiSLowenfelsABMaisonneuveP2008Smoking and colorectal cancer: a meta-analysisJAMA300232765277810.1001/jama.2008.83919088354HuxleyRRAnsary-MoghaddamACliftonPCzernichowSParrCLWoodwardM2009The impact of dietary and lifestyle risk factors on risk of colorectal cancer: a quantitative overview of the epidemiological evidenceInt J Cancer125117118010.1002/ijc.2434319350627LiangPSChenTYGiovannucciE2009Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysisInt J Cancer124102406241510.1002/ijc.2419119142968TsoiKKPauCYWuWKChanFKGriffithsSSungJJ2009Cigarette smoking and the risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studiesClin Gastroenterol Hepatol76682688e68168510.1016/j.cgh.2009.02.01619245853BernsteinLAllenMAnton-CulverHDeapenDHorn-RossPLPeelDPinderRReynoldsPSullivan-HalleyJWestDWrightWZiogasARossRK2002High breast cancer incidence rates among California teachers: results from the California Teachers Study (United States)Cancer Causes Control13762563512296510California Cancer Registry (CCR) Home Pagehttp://www.ccrcal.org/Accessed Nov 2010BlockGHartmanAMDresserCMCarrollMDGannonJGardnerL1986A data-based approach to diet questionnaire design and testingAm J Epidemiol12434534693740045Horn-RossPLHoggattKJWestDWKroneMRStewartSLAntonHBernsteiCLDeapenDPeelDPinderRReynoldsPRossRKWrightWZiogasA2002Recent diet and breast cancer risk: the California Teachers Study (USA)Cancer Causes Control13540741512146845KatzMHHauckWW1993Proportional hazards (Cox) regressionJ Gen Intern Med8127027118120690LunettaKLHaywardLBSegalJVan EerdeweghP2004Screening large-scale association study data: exploiting interactions using random forestsBMC Genet53210.1186/1471-2156-5-3215588316TherneauTMGrambschPM2000Modeling survival data: extending the cox modelSpringerNew YorkCressRDMorrisCEllisonGLGoodmanMT2006Secular changes in colorectal cancer incidence by subsite, stage at diagnosis, and race/ethnicity, 1992–2001Cancer1075 Suppl1142115210.1002/cncr.2201116835912GongJHutterCBaronJABerndtSCaanBCampbellPTCaseyGChanATCotterchioMFuchsCSGallingerSGio-vannucciEHarrisonTHayesRHsuLJiaoSLinYLindorNMNewcombPPflugeisenBPhippsAIRohanTSchoenRSeminaraDSlatteryMLStellingDThomasFWarnickGWhiteEPotterJPetersU2012A pooled analysis of smoking and colorectal cancer: timing of exposure and interactions with environmental factorsCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev21111974198510.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-069223001243GiovannucciE2001An updated review of the epidemiological evidence that cigarette smoking increases risk of colorectal cancerCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev10772573111440957LeufkensAMVan DuijnhovenFJSiersemaPDBoshuizenHCVrielingAAgudoAGramITWeiderpassEDahmCOvervadKTjonnelandAOlsenABoutron-RuaultMCClavel-ChapelonFMoroisSPalliDGrioniSTuminoRSacerdoteCMattielloAHermanSKaaksRSteffenABoeingHTrichopoulouALagiouPTrichopoulosDPeetersPHvan GilsCHvan KranenHLundEDumeauxVEngesetDRodriguezLSanchezMJChirlaqueMDBarricarteAManjerJAlmquistMvan GuelpenBHallmansGKhawKTWarehamNTsilidisKKStraifKLeon-RouxMVineisPNoratTRiboliEBueno-de-MesquitaHB2011Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition studyClin Gastroenterol Hepatol9213714410.1016/j.cgh.2010.10.01221029790HannanLMJacobsEJThunMJ2009The association between cigarette smoking and risk of colorectal cancer in a large prospective cohort from the United StatesCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev18123362336710.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-066119959683GramITBraatenTLundELe MarchandLWeiderpassE2009Cigarette smoking and risk of colorectal cancer among Norwegian womenCancer Causes Control20689590310.1007/s10552-009-9327-x19274482PaskettEDReevesKWRohanTEAllisonMAWilliamsCDMessinaCRWhitlockESatoAHuntJR2007Association between cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer in the Women's Health InitiativeJ Natl Cancer Inst99221729173518000222TerryPDMillerABRohanTE2002Prospective cohort study of cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer risk in womenInt J Cancer99348048311992421InoueMTajimaKHiroseKHamajimaNTakezakiTHiraiTKatoTOhnoY1995Subsite-specific risk factors for colorectal cancer: a hospital-based case-control study in JapanCancer Causes Control6114227718730SchottenfeldDFraumeniJF2006Cancer epidemiology and prevention3rdOxford University PressNew YorkWeiEKGiovannucciEWuKRosnerBFuchsCSWillettWCColditzGA2004Comparison of risk factors for colon and rectal cancerInt J Cancer108343344214648711BufillJA1990Colorectal cancer: evidence for distinct genetic categories based on proximal or distal tumor locationAnn Intern Med113107797882240880ChyouPHNomuraAMStemmermannGN1996A prospective study of colon and rectal cancer among Hawaii Japanese menAnn Epidemiol642762828876837HookerCMGallicchioLGenkingerJMComstockGWAlbergAJ2008A prospective cohort study of rectal cancer risk in relation to active cigarette smoking and passive smoke exposureAnn Epidemiol181283517900927OtaniTIwasakiMYamamotoSSobueTHanaokaTInoueMTsuganeS2003Alcohol consumption, smoking, and subsequent risk of colorectal cancer in middle-aged and elderly Japanese men and women: Japan Public Health Center-based prospective studyCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev12121492150014693743TverdalAThelleDStensvoldILerenPBjartveitK1993Mortality in relation to smoking history: 13 years' follow-up of 68,000 Norwegian men and women 35–49 yearsJ Clin Epidemiol4654754878501474Verla-TebitELillaCHoffmeisterMBrennerHChang-ClaudeJ2006Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer risk in Germany: a population-based case-control studyInt J Cancer119363063516496385WakaiKHayakawaNKojimaMTamakoshiKWatanabeYSuzukiKHashimotoSTokudomeSToyoshimaHItoYTamakoshiA2003Smoking and colorectal cancer in a non-Western population: a prospective cohort study in JapanJ Epidemiol13632333214674660JiBTDaiQGaoYTHsingAWMcLaughlinJKFraumeniJFJChowWH2002Cigarette and alcohol consumption and the risk of colorectal cancer in Shanghai, ChinaEur J Cancer Prev11323724412131657MinamiYTatenoH2003Associations between cigarette smoking and the risk of four leading cancers in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan: a multi-site case-control studyCancer Sci94654054714529588NewcombPAStorerBEMarcusPM1995Cigarette smoking in relation to risk of large bowel cancer in womenCancer Res5521490649097585528NyrenOBergstromRNystromLEngholmGEkbomAAdamiHOKnutssonAStjernbergN1996Smoking and colorectal cancer: a 20-year follow-up study of Swedish construction workersJ Natl Cancer Inst8818130213078797770SandlerRSSandlerDPComstockGWHelsingKJShoreDL1988Cigarette smoking and the risk of colorectal cancer in womenJ Natl Cancer Inst8016132913333172257TerryPEkbomALichtensteinPFeychtingMWolkA2001Long-term tobacco smoking and colorectal cancer in a prospective cohort studyInt J Cancer91458558711251986LuchtenborgMWhiteKKWilkensLKolonelLNLe Marc-handL2007Smoking and colorectal cancer: different effects by type of cigarettes?Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev1671341134717626999LimsuiDVierkantRATillmansLSWangAHWeisenbergerDJLairdPWLynchCFAndersonKEFrenchAJHaileRWHarnackLJPotterJDSlagerSLSmyrkTCThibodeauSNCerhanJRLimburgPJ2010Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer risk by molecularly defined subtypesJ Natl Cancer Inst102141012102210.1093/jnci/djq20120587792PoynterJNHaileRWSiegmundKDCampbellPTFigueiredoJCLimburgPYoungJLe MarchandLPotterJDCotterchioMCaseyGHopperJLJenkinsMAThibodeauSNNewcombPABaronJA2009Associations between smoking, alcohol consumption, and colorectal cancer, overall and by tumor microsatellite instability statusCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev18102745275010.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-051719755657SlatteryMLPotterJDSamowitzWBiglerJCaanBLeppertM1998NAT2, GSTM-1, cigarette smoking, and risk of colon cancerCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev712107910849865425LimburgPJVierkantRACerhanJRYangPLazovichDPotterJDSellersTA2003Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer: long-term, subsite-specific risks in a cohort study of postmenopausal womenClin Gastroenterol Hepatol1320221015017492LeufkensAMvan DuijnhovenFJSiersemaPDBoshuizenHCVrielingAAgudoAGramITWeiderpassEDahmCOvervadKTjonnelandAOlsenABoutron-RuaultMCClavel-ChapelonFMoroisSPalliDGrioniSTuminoRSacerdoteCMattielloAHermanSKaaksRSteffenABoeingHTrichopoulouALagiouPTrichopoulosDPeetersPHvan GilsCHvan KranenHLundEDumeauxVEngesetDRodriguezLSanchezMJChirlaqueMDBarricarteAManjerJAlmquistMvan GuelpenBHallmansGKhawKTWarehamNTsilidisKKStraifKLeon-RouxMVineisPNoratTRiboliEBueno-de-MesquitaHB2011Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer risk in the EPIC studyClin Gastroenterol Hepatol9213714421029790Le MarchandLWilkensLRKolonelLNHankinJHLyuLC1997Associations of sedentary lifestyle, obesity, smoking, alcohol use, and diabetes with the risk of colorectal cancerCancer Res5721478747949354440AkhterMNishinoYNakayaNKurashimaKSatoYKuriyamaSTsubonoYTsujiI2007Cigarette smoking and the risk of colorectal cancer among men: a prospective study in JapanEur J Cancer Prev16210210717297385LuchtenborgMWeijenbergMPde GoeijAFWarkPABrinkMRoemenGMLentjesMHde BruineAPGoldbohmRAvan ‘t VeerPvan den BrandtPA2005Meat and fish consumption, APC gene mutations and hMLH1 expression in colon and rectal cancer: a prospective cohort study (The Netherlands)Cancer Causes Control1691041105410.1007/s10552-005-0239-016184469TsongWHKohWPYuanJMWangRSunCLYuMC2007Cigarettes and alcohol in relation to colorectal cancer: the Singapore Chinese Health StudyBr J Cancer96582182710.1038/sj.bjc.660362317311023KimHJLeeSMChoiNKKimSHSongHJChoYKParkBJ2006Smoking and colorectal cancer risk in the Korean elderlyJ Prev Med Public Health39212312916615266HeinemanEFZahmSHMcLaughlinJKVaughtJB1994Increased risk of colorectal cancer among smokers: results of a 26-year follow-up of US veterans and a reviewInt J Cancer5967287387989109LuchtenborgMWeijenbergMPKampmanEvan MuijenGNRoemenGMZeegersMPGoldbohmRAvan ‘t VeerPde GoeijAFvan den BrandtPA2005Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer: APC mutations, hMLH1 expression, and GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphismsAm J Epidemiol161980681510.1093/aje/kwi11415840612ZhaoJHalfyardBRoebothanBWestRBuehlerSSunZSquiresJMcLaughlinJRParfreyPSWangPP2010Tobacco smoking and colorectal cancer: a population-based case-control study in Newfoundland and LabradorCan J Public Health101428128921033532California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) AskCHIShttp://www.chis.ucla.edu/main/default.aspAccessed 4 jan 2008BenjaminiYHochbergY1995Controlling the false recovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testingJ R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol)571289300KohWPNelsonHHYuanJMVan den BergDJinAWangRYuMC2011Glutathione S-transferase (GST) gene polymorphisms, cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer risk among Chinese in SingaporeCarcinogenesis32101507151110.1093/carcin/bgr17521803734LillaCVerla-TebitERischAJagerBHoffmeisterMBrennerHChang-ClaudeJ2006Effect of NAT1 and NAT2 genetic polymorphisms on colorectal cancer risk associated with exposure to tobacco smoke and meat consumptionCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev1519910716434594RudolphAHeinRHoffmeisterMForstiAHemminkiKRischABrennerHChang-ClaudeJ2012Copy number variations of GSTT1 and GSTM1, colorectal cancer risk and possible effect modification of cigarette smoking and menopausal hormone therapyInt J Cancer10.1002/ijc.27428SamadderNJVierkantRATillmansLSWangAHLynchCFAndersonKEFrenchAJHaileRWHarnackLJPotterJDSlagerSLSmyrkTCThibodeauSNCerhanJRLimburgPJ2012Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer risk by KRAS mutation status among older womenAm J Gastroenterol10.1038/ajg.2012.21SlatteryMLEdwardsSCurtinKSchafferDNeuhausenS2003Associations between smoking, passive smoking, GSTM-1, NAT2, and rectal cancerCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev12988288914504199
Tumor characteristics among 1,205 invasive cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed in 122,264 CTS participants, 1995–2009
Tumor characteristicsn%
Stage
Localized50442
Regional44337
Distant20817
Unspecified504
Colon91776
Proximal
 Cecum27122
 Ascending colon18716
 Hepatic flexure565
 Transverse colon1069
 Splenic flexure302
  Total proximal65071
Distal
 Descending colon353
 Sigmoid19416
 Large intestine, NOS383
  Total distal26729
Rectal28824
Recto sigmoid junction907
Rectum19816
Demographic and smoking exposure characteristics among 122,264 CTS participants, by case status
CaseNon-caseTotalp value (χ 2)



(n = 1,205)(n = 121,059)(n = 122,264)



na%na%na%
Age at baseline (years)
<4028221,1081721,13617
40–491301132,0032632,13326
59–592261929,7052529,93124
60–693252720,0401720,36517
70–793382812,9261113,26411
80–89150124,78644,9364
≥9081491<1499<1<0.0001
Race/Ethnicity
White1,07189104,74987105,82087
Black4443,19433,2383
Hispanic2625,16045,1864
Asian/Pacific Islander2824,33644,3644
Other3633,62033,65630.0001
Active smoking status
Never7196080,2436680,96266
Former4143434,6832935,09729
Current7266,13356,2055<0.0001
Smoking intensity (average number of cigarettes per day)
Never smokers7196080,2436680,96266
<102051718,6781518,88315
10–191521312,2841012,43610
≥2011098,84878,9587<0.0001
Total number of smoking years
Never smokers7196080,2436680,96266
<1073610,330910,4039
10–1993810,100810,1938
20–299287,50167,5936
30–398375,62255,7055
≥4010284,42044,5224<0.0001
Number of smoking pack-years
Never smokers7196080,2436680,96266
≤102021719,8441620,04616
11–205857,05067,1086
21–305754,18634,2433
≥3111496,15056,2645<0.0001
Years since quitting smoking
Never smokers7196080,2436680,96266
≥202001715,5611315,76113
10–1910399,65389,7568
5–94033,89033,9303
<53633,16433,2003
Current smokers7266,13356,2055<0.0001
Age of smoking initiation
Never smokers7196080,2436680,96266
≤153934,32844,3674
16–192211820,0831720,30417
20–24130119,84989,9798
≥255343,71333,7663<0.0001

Numbers do not sum to total due to missing/unknown values

Risk of colorectal, colon and rectal cancer associated with active smoking among 122,264 CTS participants, estimated by Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for race/ethnicity and stratified by age
Smoking variableColorectal cancerColon cancerRectal cancerp (heterogeneity)



# casesaHR (95 % CI)b# casesaHR (95 % CI)b# casesaHR (95 % CI)b
Active smoking status
Never smokers7191.00 (referent)5481.00 (referent)1711.00 (referent)
Former4141.10 (0.97, 1.24)3161.10 (0.95, 1.26)981.10 (0.86, 1.42)
Current721.28 (1.00, 1.63)531.25 (0.94, 1.66)191.36 (0.85, 2.20)0.95
Smoking intensity (average number of cigarettes per day)
Never smokers7191.00 (referent)5481.00 (referent)1711.00 (referent)
<102051.04 (0.89, 1.21)1510.99 (0.83, 1.19)541.17 (0.86, 1.59)
10–191521.15 (0.97, 1.38)1131.13 (0.92, 1.39)391.23 (0.87, 1.75)
≥201101.23 (1.00, 1.50)901.33 (1.07, 1.67)200.90 (0.57, 1.44)0.45
Tests for effect
 Overallp = 0.14 (3 df)p = 0.07 (3 df)p = 0.49 (3 df)
 Linear trendp = 0.02 (1 df)p = 0.01 (1 df)p = 0.99 (1 df)
 Residualp = 0.90 (2 df)p = 0.93 (2 df)n/a
Total number of smoking years
Never smokers7191.00 (referent)5481.00 (referent)1711.00 (referent)
<10730.97 (0.76, 1.24)480.87 (0.65, 1.17)251.27 (0.83, 1.94)
10–19931.00 (0.81, 1.25)660.95 (0.73, 1.23)271.17 (0.78, 1.76)
20–29921.11 (0.89, 1.38)761.20 (0.94, 1.53)160.81 (0.49, 1.36)
30–39831.12 (0.89, 1.41)621.09 (0.84, 1.42)211.22 (0.77, 1.93)
≥401021.27 (1.03, 1.57)811.27 (1.00, 1.61)211.27 (0.80, 2.02)0.35
Tests for effect
 Overallp = 0.33 (5 df)p = 0.20 (5 df)p = 0.58 (5 df)
 Linear trendp = 0.02 (1 df)p = 0.04 (1 df)p = 0.40 (1 df)
 Residualp = 0.95 (4 df)p = 0.58 (4 df)n/a
Number of smoking pack–years
Never smokers7191.00 (referent)5481.00 (referent)1711.00 (referent)
≤102021.09 (0.94, 1.28)1441.03 (0.86, 1.24)581.29 (0.95, 1.73)
11–20580.74 (0.57, 0.97)370.62 (0.45, 0.87)211.13 (0.72, 1.78)
21–30571.19 (0.91, 1.56)461.26 (0.93, 1.70)110.96 (0.52, 1.78)
≥311141.37 (1.12, 1.67)971.51 (1.21, 1.88)170.89 (0.54, 1.47)0.04
Tests for effect
 Overallp<0.01 (4 df)p<0.01 (4 df)p = 0.51 (4 df)
 Linear trendp = 0.01 (1 df)p<0.01 (1 df)p = 0.58 (1 df)
 Residualp = 0.01 (3 df)p<0.01 (3 df)n/a
Years since quit smoking
Never smokers7191.00 (referent)5481.00 (referent)1711.00 (referent)
≥202000.98 (0.83, 1.14)1480.93 (0.78, 1.12)521.12 (0.82, 1.54)
10–191031.15 (0.94, 1.42)781.16 (0.92, 1.48)251.12 (0.73, 1.70)
5–9401.19 (0.86, 1.64)341.35 (0.95, 1.91)60.71 (0.32, 1.61)
<5361.44 (1.03, 2.01)271.44 (0.98, 2.12)91.43 (0.73, 2.79)
Current smokers721.28 (1.00, 1.63)531.25 (0.94, 1.66)191.36 (0.85, 2.20)0.59
Tests for effect
 Overallp = 0.16 (4 df)p = 0.10 (4 df)p = 0.65 (4 df)
 Linear trendp = 0.87 (1 df)p = 0.55 (1 df)p = 0.46 (1 df)
 Residualn/an/an/a
Age of smoking initiation
Never smokers7191.00 (referent)5481.00 (referent)1711.00 (referent)
≤15391.22 (0.88, 1.69)311.32 (0.92, 1.90)80.96 (0.47, 1.95)
16–192211.13 (0.97, 1.32)1641.12 (0.94, 1.33)571.17 (0.87, 1.59)
20–241301.10 (0.91, 1.32)941.03 (0.83, 1.28)361.32 (0.92, 1.90)
≥25530.90 (0.68, 1.20)440.94 (0.69, 1.28)90.75 (0.38, 1.48)0.49
Tests for effect
 Overallp = 0.34 (4 df)p = 0.51 (4 df)p = 0.42 (4 df)
 Linear trendp = 0.33 (1 df)p = 0.52 (1 df)p = 0.41 (1 df)
 Residualn/an/an/a

Numbers do not sum to total due to missing/unknown values

HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval

Risk of proximal and distal colon cancer associated with active smoking among 122,264 CTS participants, estimated by Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for race/ethnicity and stratified by age
Smoking variableProximal colon cancerDistal colon cancerp (heterogeneity)


# casesaHR (95 % CI)b# casesaHR (95 % CI)b
Active smoking status
Never smokers3911.00 (referent)1571.00 (referent)
Former2241.06 (0.90, 1.25)921.19 (0.92, 1.55)
Current351.14 (0.80, 1.61)181.56 (0.95, 2.54)0.67
Smoking intensity (average number of cigarettes per day)
Never smokers3911.00 (referent)1571.00 (referent)
<101060.96 (0.77, 1.19)451.09 (0.78, 1.53)
10–19811.10 (0.87, 1.40)321.20 (0.82, 1.76)
≥20621.26 (0.96, 1.65)281.54 (1.03, 2.32)0.94
Tests for effect
 Overallp = 0.31 (3 df)p = 0.21 (3 df)
 Linear trendp = 0.08 (1 df)p = 0.04 (1 df)
 Residualn/ap = 0.94 (2 df)
Total number of smoking years
Never smokers3911.00 (referent)1571.00 (referent)
<10350.91 (0.65, 1.30)130.77 (0.44, 1.36)
10–19430.86 (0.63, 1.18)231.18 (0.76, 1.83)
20–29531.15 (0.86, 1.53)231.33 (0.86, 2.07)
30–39451.05 (0.77, 1.44)171.20 (0.72, 1.99)
≥40571.16 (0.88, 1.54)241.62 (1.04, 2.53)0.86
Tests for effect
 Overallp = 0.62 (5 df)p = 0.23 (5 df)
 Linear trendp = 0.27 (1 df)p = 0.03 (1 df)
 Residualn/ap = 0.75 (4 df)
Number of smoking pack-years
Never smokers3911.00 (referent)1571.00 (referent)
≤10960.96 (0.76, 1.20)481.23 (0.89, 1.70)
11–20290.66 (0.45, 0.97)80.50 (0.25, 1.02)
21–30321.18 (0.82, 1.70)141.47 (0.85, 2.54)
≥31711.46 (1.13, 1.89)261.63 (1.07, 2.48)0.81
Tests for effect
 Overallp =0.01 (4 df)p = 0.01 (4 df)
 Linear trendP = 0.01 (1 df)p = 0.07 (1 df)
 Residualp = 0.03 (3 df)n/a
Years since quit smoking
Never smokers3911.00 (referent)1571.00 (referent)
≥201040.89 (0.71, 1.10)441.07 (0.76, 1.50)
10–19551.14 (0.86, 1.52)231.21 (0.78, 1.88)
5–9251.36 (0.91, 2.05)91.30 (0.66, 2.54)
<5201.48 (0.94, 2.32)71.35 (0.63, 2.88)
Current smokers351.14 (0.80, 1.61)181.56 (0.95, 2.54)0.95
Tests for effect
 Overallp = 0.12 (4 df)p = 0.84 (4 df)
 Linear trendp = 0.33 (1 df)p = 0.66 (1 df)
 Residualn/an/a
Age of smoking initiation
Never smokers3911.00 (referent)1571.00 (referent)
≤15160.96 (0.58, 1.59)152.18 (1.28, 3.72)
16–191161.09 (0.88, 1.34)481.19 (0.86, 1.66)
20–24701.04 (0.80, 1.34)241.00 (0.65, 1.54)
≥25310.89 (0.61, 1.28)131.10 (0.62, 1.94)0.50
Tests for effect
 Overallp = 0.88 (4 df)p = 0.13 (4 df)
 Linear trendp = 0.88 (1 df)p = 0.33 (1 df)
 Residualn/an/a

Numbers do not sum to total due to missing/unknown values

HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval