Menthol Cigarettes and Risk of Lung Cancer

Daniel R. Brooks1 , Julie R. Palmer2, Brian L. Strom3,4,5 and Lynn Rosenberg2

1 Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
2 Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University, Boston, MA.
3 Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
4 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
5 Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.

Received for publication September 24, 2002; accepted for publication April 25, 2003.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The authors analyzed data from a multihospital case-control study in the eastern United States to evaluate the hypothesis that smoking menthol cigarettes increases lung cancer risk compared with smoking nonmenthol cigarettes. Subjects included cases with lung cancer and controls admitted for conditions unrelated to smoking who were aged 40–74 years, were interviewed from 1981 to 2000, and had smoked for >=20 years. Information was available on the brand and type of cigarette smoked most recently and for the longest time. Analyses were based on 643 cases and 4,110 controls for whom brand information was available for >=60% of the total duration of smoking. Logistic regression was used to estimate the relative risk of lung cancer according to number of years of menthol cigarette use (>15, 1–15, 0), adjusting for demographic and smoking-related factors. The lung cancer risk for long-term smokers of menthol cigarettes was similar to that for smokers of nonmenthol cigarettes (odds ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval: 0.70, 1.34). Odds ratios were also close to 1.0 in separate analyses of male, female, Black, and White subjects. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that smoking menthol cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer relative to smoking nonmenthol cigarettes.

Blacks; case-control studies; lung neoplasms; menthol; smoking; Whites

Abbreviations: Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Editor’s note: An invited commentary on this article is published on page 617.

Menthol is a naturally occurring compound with topical cooling and anesthetic properties used in a wide range of products (13). Menthol cigarettes first appeared in the 1920s, but it was not until the mid-1950s that they came into widespread use (4, 5). Since 1973, menthol varieties have accounted for 25–30 percent of all cigarettes sold in the United States (6). There are strong ethnic differences in the use of menthol cigarettes; more than 60 percent of Black smokers of both sexes use menthol brands compared with fewer than 25 percent of White smokers (711).

Lung cancer incidence is 50 percent higher among Black men than among White men (12). Although Black men are more likely to smoke, it does not appear that the excess occurrence of lung cancer can be fully explained by a higher prevalence of smoking (13, 14). The lung cancer rate among Black women is equal to that of White women despite the fact that they smoke fewer cigarettes (9, 10, 15). It has been suggested that smoking menthol cigarettes might increase lung cancer risk more than smoking nonmenthol cigarettes and might at least partly explain the observed disparities in lung cancer incidence (7, 16, 17).

Two main mechanisms have been offered to explain how menthol cigarettes could particularly elevate lung cancer risk. First, the products of menthol combustion might directly exert a carcinogenic effect on lung tissue (18). Alternatively, menthol’s cooling and anesthetic properties might permit larger puffs, deeper inhalation, or longer retention in the lungs, all of which would result in increased exposure to the carcinogenic elements in tobacco smoke (16, 19).

To our knowledge, there have been only three prior studies of the effect of menthol cigarettes on lung cancer risk (2022). Results have been ambiguous, with none showing an increased risk for women but two showing dose-related increases for men. Only one study published race-specific results, with no increases for either Whites or Blacks (22). Because studies conducted to date have not provided a clear answer concerning whether smoking menthol cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer more than smoking nonmenthol cigarettes, we examined this question among long-term smokers in the Slone Epidemiology Center Case-Control Surveillance Study.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The rationale and design of the Slone Epidemiology Center Case-Control Surveillance Study have been described previously (23). Briefly, the study has been conducted in hospitals located mainly in the eastern United States since 1976. No particular a priori hypothesis determines which diseases are targeted for study. Instead, information is collected from subjects who have a variety of conditions of potential interest (mostly cancer) as well as from those whose conditions are generally suitable as control diagnoses. Using a structured questionnaire, trained nurse-interviewers collect information on demographic characteristics, medical history, medication use, and personal habits (e.g., tobacco use and alcohol intake). Over the course of the study, 95 percent of eligible patients have participated. Institutional review boards of all participating institutions approved the study.

Subjects
The present analysis was restricted to subjects 40–74 years of age who had no history of cancer, had smoked cigarettes for at least 20 years, and had been interviewed during the period 1981–2000. Cases had been diagnosed with lung cancer (confirmed by review of pathology reports) within the 12 months before their current hospital admission. Controls had been admitted for conditions judged to be unrelated to cigarette smoking. The most common control diagnoses included cancers or benign tumors of the breast, colon and rectum, prostate, and other non-tobacco-related sites (45 percent); diseases of the digestive (14 percent), genitourinary (10 percent), or musculoskeletal (7 percent) systems; and injury (13 percent). Respiratory or upper gastrointestinal conditions, regardless of etiology, were excluded. A total of 1,300 cases and 9,383 controls met the eligibility criteria.

Subjects were asked about their cigarette smoking history, including current smoking status, usual number of cigarettes smoked per day, total number of years of smoking, number of years since quitting, and information about the most recent brand and the brand used for the longest period of time, including name, characteristics (filter/nonfilter, menthol/nonmenthol), and number of years each brand was used. Responses to the questions about the most recent brand and brand smoked the longest were used to characterize use of menthol cigarettes. Because information was obtained on at most two brands (only one if the most recent and longest-smoked brand were the same), complete information on brand history was available for only 17 percent of subjects. We included in the study all subjects for whom brand information could be identified for at least 60 percent of the total duration of smoking; 513 cases (39 percent of those otherwise eligible) and 3,562 controls (38 percent) met this criterion.

We increased the number of eligible subjects by making certain inferences about periods of unknown brand history. The market share of menthol cigarettes was only 3 percent prior to 1956 (5); therefore, subjects who we could determine had some period of unknown brand history prior to 1956 could reasonably be assumed to have smoked nonmenthol cigarettes during that time. Addition of this inferred time increased the number of subjects for whom menthol status could be identified for at least 60 percent of total smoking duration to 661 cases (51 percent of those otherwise eligible) and 4,228 controls (45 percent). The preferential addition of cases mainly reflected the fact that they were older on average than controls (mean ages: 58.1 and 55.2 years, respectively), which increased the number of years of smoking prior to 1956 during which brand history could be inferred.

We classified subjects into three categories according to the number of years they smoked menthol cigarettes (0, 1–15, >15). We also created a proportional measure of exposure, calculated as the number of years that menthol cigarettes were used divided by the total duration for which brand information was known (0 percent, 1–49 percent, 50–100 percent). We excluded the 3 years prior to admission in calculating exposure because smoking habits during this period would not be expected to have an impact on the occurrence of lung cancer.

Analysis
We excluded two cases and 52 controls whose race was other than White or Black and 16 cases and 66 controls for whom values for any of the other covariates were missing, leaving 643 cases and 4,110 controls for analysis. We fit unconditional logistic regression models with all covariates entered as indicator terms. Demographic factors included sex, age (5-year groups), and race. Smoking-related characteristics included duration (10-year groups), number of cigarettes smoked per day (<5, 5–14, 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, >=45), number of years since quitting (0–2, 3–5, 6–10, 11–20, >=21), and number of years of smoking filter cigarettes as a percentage of the duration of time for which brand information was known (<10 percent, 10–25 percent, 25–50 percent, 50–75 percent, 75–90 percent, >=90 percent).

Because lung cancer was a priority diagnosis for surveillance in the earlier years of the study, 75 percent of cases were interviewed during 1981–1986, while controls were more evenly distributed throughout the study period. Since the proportion of subjects who were long-term menthol smokers increased during the later period of the study because of the increased availability and popularity of menthol cigarettes beginning in the 1950s, we also controlled for time period of interview (1981–1986, 1987–1993, 1994–1996, 1997–2000) to correct for any bias introduced by differential ascertainment of cases and controls over the course of the study. Adjustment for educational attainment and geographic area had no impact on the overall estimates, and these factors were not included in the final model.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Table 1 presents the distribution of subjects on different characteristics according to case-control and exposure status. Compared with controls, cases were more likely to be male, be older, be White, have completed less education, and have been interviewed at an earlier time period. As expected, they were also more likely to have smoked longer, smoked more cigarettes per day, have quit for fewer years, and have smoked filter cigarettes for a smaller proportion of their smoking history. Use of menthol cigarettes was more common among subjects who were female, were younger, were Black, and had been interviewed at a later time period. Menthol cigarette use was also more frequent among those who smoked for fewer years and smoked fewer cigarettes per day, had quit for fewer years, and had smoked mainly filter cigarettes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Percentage of controls who ever smoked menthol cigarettes, by demographic and smoking-related characteristics, and distribution of subject characteristics, by case-control status, among long-term smokers in the Slone Epidemiology Center Case-Control Surveillance Study, eastern United States, 1984–2000
 
Crude and multivariately adjusted estimates for measures of the association between menthol cigarette use and lung cancer are presented in table 2. Compared with smokers of nonmenthol cigarettes, subjects who ever smoked menthol cigarettes did not have an elevated occurrence of lung cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 0.89, 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 0.69, 1.14). Estimates for smoking menthol cigarettes for more than 15 years (OR = 0.97, 95 percent CI: 0.70, 1.34), for 50 percent or more of reported smoking history (OR = 0.89, 95 percent CI: 0.65, 1.22), or exclusively (OR = 0.91, 95 percent CI: 0.59, 1.43) were also not elevated.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Association between measures of menthol cigarette use and lung cancer, Slone Epidemiology Center Case-Control Surveillance Study, eastern United States, 1984–2000
 
Analyses limited to current smokers also showed no increased risk (OR for >15 years of smoking menthol cigarettes = 0.90, 95 percent CI: 0.62, 1.31). Because of the possibility of confounding by extent of filter cigarette use, we conducted an analysis restricted to subjects who were most likely to have exclusively smoked filter cigarettes, that is, those who began to smoke in 1952 or later and reported only filter brands. Again, the risk for long-term menthol smokers was not elevated compared with nonmenthol smokers (OR = 0.95, 95 percent CI: 0.58, 1.58).

In separate analyses of men, women, Blacks, and Whites, long-term use of menthol cigarettes was not associated with an increase in lung cancer relative to exclusive use of nonmenthol cigarettes (table 3). Odds ratios were 1.0 or below in all groups except Blacks, for whom the odds ratio was 1.21 (95 percent CI: 0.64, 2.26).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3. Association between number of years of smoking menthol cigarettes and lung cancer, by sex and race, Slone Epidemiology Center Case-Control Surveillance Study, eastern United States, 1984–2000
 
To evaluate potential biases related to missing data, we conducted an analysis restricted to subjects (250 cases, 1,767 controls) for whom information on cigarette type was complete. The odds ratio for more than 15 years of use was 0.70 (95 percent CI: 0.38, 1.29). As a further check on the impact of missing data, we created additional measures of menthol exposure based on varying assumptions about the distribution of menthol exposure during periods of unknown brand history. The basic measure of duration used throughout the analysis did not account for any possibility of menthol cigarette use during years for which brand information was unknown, which was equivalent to assuming that smokers exclusively used nonmenthol cigarettes throughout the period. To test the sensitivity of our results to that supposition, we created two modified measures that assumed that during periods of unknown brand history, smokers used menthol cigarettes either exclusively or in the same proportion as during periods of known brand history. Doing so resulted in a 59 percent and 31 percent increase, respectively, in the number of subjects in the highest exposure category of more than 15 years. The odds ratios for the effect of long-term use of menthol cigarettes compared with use of only nonmenthol cigarettes were 0.95 and 0.88, respectively, similar to the estimate based on the primary measure of exposure used in the analysis.


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
We found no evidence in this hospital-based case-control study to support the hypothesis that smoking menthol cigarettes poses a greater risk of lung cancer than smoking nonmenthol cigarettes. Sex- and race-specific analyses also did not suggest any meaningful increases in risk. Although the odds ratio was slightly elevated for Blacks who smoked menthol cigarettes for more than 15 years (OR = 1.21), the confidence interval was wide and the odds ratio for those who smoked menthol cigarettes for 1–15 years was below 1.0.

Our findings are similar to those of Kabat and Hebert (20), who found no increased risk associated with smoking menthol cigarettes for men or women. Two studies did report increases for men, but the estimates for women were substantially below 1.0 (21, 22). The only known study besides ours to present race-specific results also found no increases for Blacks or Whites (22).

The lack of clear-cut evidence from epidemiologic studies regarding the effect of menthol cigarettes is mirrored by inconsistent and ambiguous findings from laboratory and experimental studies. One set of investigators reported that combustion of menthol produced carcinogenic benzpyrenes (18), but a second study using radioactive labeling did not detect menthol-derived benzpyrenes in tobacco smoke (24). Menthol has also been hypothesized to affect smoking topography in a manner that increases the dose of cigarette smoke delivered to the lungs. However, contrary to expectation, most experimental studies indicate that smoking menthol cigarettes is not associated with an increase in puff volume or frequency, with some studies actually finding decreases in these measures (2529). On the other hand, a number of studies have also found that menthol cigarettes appear to produce a greater boost in nicotine and carbon monoxide levels than nonmenthol cigarettes (2527, 30). Although neither of these substances is itself carcinogenic, this finding suggests the possibility that menthol could also potentiate the uptake of carcinogenic constituents of cigarette smoke.

In interpreting the results of this study, it is important to consider factors that might have obscured an association between smoking menthol cigarettes and lung cancer. The most potentially serious limitation was the substantial proportion of missing data on menthol cigarette use because of the incomplete reporting of brands over subjects’ smoking histories. We compared the percentages of cases and controls who had sufficient information to be eligible for analysis within strata of demographic and smoking-related characteristics and found little evidence for bias due to missing data; any differences between cases and controls were minor and nonsystematic. We were able to modestly reduce the amount of missing data by making the reasonable assumption that brands used prior to 1956 were almost certainly not mentholated. We evaluated the impact of the remaining missing data by creating measures of years of menthol cigarette use that used different assumptions about the distribution of missing cigarette brand information and by restricting analyses to subjects for whom information on menthol cigarettes was complete. In neither instance did we find any evidence for an increased risk for menthol relative to nonmenthol cigarettes. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out the possibility that the apparent lack of association between menthol cigarette use and lung cancer is due to the large amount of missing data in our study.

Another important concern is imprecise information on the use of menthol cigarettes obtained by patient self-report. Although all studies of menthol cigarettes and lung cancer have relied on recall, each used a different method to ascertain menthol cigarette use, including lifetime brand history (20), identity of usual brand (21), or a global query about menthol cigarette use as a proportion of lifetime number of cigarettes smoked (22). In our study, subjects were asked to report the brand they smoked currently or most recently and the brand they had smoked for the longest period of time.

Information is limited regarding the validity of reporting of menthol cigarette use. However, the level of agreement between self-report and Universal Product Code (UPC) information read directly from the cigarette pack has been shown to be 98 percent for current brand (31), while, in one small study, agreement was 84 percent for recall of a brand reported by participants in smoking cessation programs 7 years earlier. The level of agreement may have been underestimated because, in some cases, the brand was not one customarily smoked by the participants but rather was expressly adopted as part of a smoking cessation strategy (32).

On the basis of the above information, it is likely that smokers in our study were able to report menthol cigarette use with a high degree of accuracy since they were being asked only about brands they currently smoked or had used over a period of many years (median duration of use of usual brand, 20 years). However, the trade-off inherent in obtaining greater accuracy by inquiring about only current/last and usual brand was an increase in missing data for varying proportions of smoking history.

Absent repeated ascertainment of current brand in prospective studies, future studies of cigarette brand effects will continue to have to rely on subject recall. Appropriately designed validation studies would help evaluate accuracy of recall of past brands. It would also be useful to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different measurement approaches and determine whether any are clearly superior.

Another concern in our study is the possibility of residual confounding. Control for confounding factors resulted in large increases from the crude to the adjusted odds ratios. Much of this confounding can be attributed to the fact that menthol cigarettes were introduced later than nonmenthol cigarettes; therefore, smokers of menthol cigarettes were younger and smoked for fewer years on average. In addition, because menthol cigarettes are almost invariably filtered, long-term menthol smokers were much more likely to have smoked filter cigarettes for most of their smoking history. The use of filter cigarettes has been associated with decreases in lung cancer risk relative to nonfilter cigarettes, including in a previous study in this same population (3335). Menthol smokers in our study also smoked fewer cigarettes per day, a finding also reported by Sidney et al. (16). All of these factors would have acted to negatively confound any estimate of the effect of smoking menthol cigarettes on the occurrence of lung cancer. Although we were able to adjust for all of these measures, some residual confounding may have remained that most likely biased the estimate downward.

There were also certain potential confounders, primarily low levels of fruit and vegetable consumption and occupational exposure to lung carcinogens, for which we had no information. However, restricting the study to long-term smokers who differed only in the type of cigarette they smoked decreased the likelihood of substantial confounding. Although smokers are known to both have poorer diets (3638) and work in occupations with a greater possibility of exposure to lung carcinogens (39, 40), substantial differences between smokers of menthol and nonmenthol cigarettes are less likely. Carpenter et al. (22) did control for fruit and vegetable consumption and for occupational exposure and found that doing so had no effect on the association between menthol cigarette smoking and lung cancer risk.

Restricting the study to long-term smokers also minimized concerns about control selection bias. Although smokers may be overrepresented among hospitalized controls even when diseases known to be caused by smoking are excluded, it is doubtful that the type of cigarette smoked has an important impact on the likelihood of hospitalization. We also used a variety of control diagnoses to minimize the potential for bias in case any individual condition was in fact related to exposure (41). Furthermore, odds ratios for the association of menthol cigarette use with lung cancer were very similar whether the control series was limited to patients with other cancers or patients with noncancer conditions.

Our study, in common with other studies conducted to date, was designed to address whether smoking menthol cigarettes increased the risk of lung cancer given that the comparison condition was smoking nonmenthol cigarettes. Alternatively, it is possible that smoking menthol cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer not through any direct mechanism but by discouraging cessation, that is, by causing some people to continue to smoke who otherwise would have quit had they been using nonmenthol cigarettes. However, two recent studies indicated that smokers of menthol cigarettes are as likely to quit as smokers of nonmenthol cigarettes (31, 42).

In summary, our results do not support the hypothesis that smoking menthol cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer more than does smoking nonmenthol cigarettes. However, owing to methodological and sample size limitations in our study and previous studies, the possibility of a modest increase in risk associated with smoking menthol cigarettes cannot be excluded. A small increase could translate to a substantial number of additional cases and partially explain the increased lung cancer incidence among Blacks. The reasons for using menthol cigarettes may vary among different groups of smokers in ways that affect smoking topography, patterns of use, and effective dose. In particular, if menthol does potentiate nicotine absorption, lower-income smokers (who are more likely to be Black) might use menthol cigarettes as a more efficient way of obtaining nicotine and consequently may smoke in a manner that increases their exposure compared with other groups of smokers. Studies that include larger numbers of Black smokers, careful documentation of lifetime smoking history, and information on smoking topography and/or dose would help clarify the effect of use of menthol cigarettes.

The higher incidence of lung cancer among Blacks is an important public health concern, but the causes remain largely unexplained. In addition to the possible role of menthol cigarettes, other hypotheses include historically higher smoking rates (43), other differences in exposure to tobacco smoke (e.g., higher-tar cigarettes) (16, 44), differences in metabolism of carcinogenic compounds in tobacco smoke (9, 45), and greater exposure to other causes of lung cancer, such as diet, occupation, or environmental tobacco smoke (4648). Although the possibility that differential use of menthol cigarettes contributes to racial differences in lung cancer incidence cannot be ruled out based on the results of studies to date, it will also be important to pursue other possible explanations for the disproportionate burden of lung cancer in Blacks.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grant CA45762. Additional support was provided by grant FD-U-000082 from the US Food and Drug Administration. The Slone Epidemiology Center has received support for other studies in the last 5 years from the following companies: Astra, Aventis, Bayer AG, Bristol-Myers, Celgene, Ciba-Geigy, Glaxo Wellcome, Hoeschst AG, Hoffman-La Roche, Lichtwer, McNeil Consumer Products, Merck Research Laboratories, Merrell Dow, Novartis, Pfizer, Procter and Gamble, Rhone-Poulenc, SmithKline Beecham, Sterling, Warner-Lambert, and Whitehall.

The following hospitals participated in this study—New York: Brookhaven Memorial Hospital, Lenox Hill Hospital, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and New York Hospital; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Oncologic Hospital, Crozier Chester Medical Center, Hahnemann University Hospital, Hospital of the Medical College of Pennsylvania, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Lankenau Hospital, Montgomery Hospital, Pennsylvania Hospital, Presbyterian Hospital, and Thomas Jefferson University Hospital; Massachusetts: Beth Israel Hospital, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Mount Auburn Hospital, New England Medical Center, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Sancta Maria Hospital, and University Hospital; Maryland: Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Mercy Medical Center, and University of Maryland Hospital.

The authors thank the many physicians who allowed their patients to be interviewed; the nurse-interviewers who collected the data; Marguerite Angeloni, who coordinated data collection; Leonard Gaetano, who was responsible for data management; and Dr. Samuel Shapiro, founder of the Case-Control Surveillance Study, and Dr. Steven Stellman for their helpful review and advice.


    NOTES
 
Correspondence to Dr. Daniel R. Brooks, Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, T-317E, Boston, MA 02118 (e-mail: danbrook{at}bu.edu). Back


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Eccles R. Menthol and related cooling compounds. J Pharm Pharmacol 1994;46:618–30.[ISI][Medline]
  2. Green BG. Menthol inhibits the perception of warmth. Physiol Behav 1986;38:833–8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  3. Sant’Ambrogio FB, Anderson JW, Sant’Ambrogio G. Effect of l-menthol on laryngeal receptors. J Appl Physiol 1991;70:788–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Bogen E. The composition of cigarets and cigaret smoke. JAMA 1929;93:1110–14.
  5. Kluger R. Ashes to ashes: America’s hundred-year cigarette war, the public health, and the unabashed triumph of Philip Morris. New York, NY: Random House, 1997.
  6. Cigarette report for 1999. Federal Trade Commission. 2001. (http://www.ftc.gov/reports/cigarettes/1999cigarettereport.pdf).
  7. Cummings KM, Giovino G, Mendocino AJ. Cigarette advertising and black-white differences in brand preference. Public Health Rep 1987;102:698–701.[ISI][Medline]
  8. US Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the health consequences of smoking: 25 years of progress. A report of the Surgeon General. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1989. (DHHS publication no. (CDC) 89-8411).
  9. Wagenknecht LE, Cutter GR, Haley NJ, et al. Racial differences in serum cotinine levels among smokers in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in (Young) Adults Study. Am J Public Health 1990;80:1053–6.[Abstract]
  10. Royce JM, Hymowitz N, Corbett K, et al. Smoking cessation factors among African Americans and whites. Am J Public Health 1993;83:220–6.[Abstract]
  11. Hymowitz N, Corle D, Royce J, et al. Smokers’ baseline characteristics in the COMMIT trial. Prev Med 1995;24:503–8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  12. Wingo PA, Ries LAG, Giovino GA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973–1996, with a special section on lung cancer and tobacco smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:675–90.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Hebert JR. Differences in biological responses to cigarette smoking remain unexplained. (Letter). Am J Public Health 1991;81:1679–80.[ISI][Medline]
  14. Wynder EL, Hoffman D. Smoking and lung cancer. Scientific challenges and opportunities. Cancer Res 1994;54:5384–95.
  15. Rogers RG, Crank J. Ethnic differences in smoking patterns: findings from NHIS. Public Health Rep 1988;103:387–93.[ISI][Medline]
  16. Sidney S, Tekawa IS, Friedman GD. Mentholated cigarette use among multiphasic examinees. Am J Public Health 1989;79:1415–16.[Abstract]
  17. Richardson TL. African-American smokers and cancers of the lung and of the upper respiratory and digestive tracts. Is menthol a part of the puzzle? West J Med 1997;166:189–94.[ISI][Medline]
  18. Schmeltz I, Schlotzhauer WS. Benzo[a]pyrene, phenols and other products from pyrolysis of the cigarette additive, (d,1)-menthol. Nature 1968;219:370–1.
  19. Hebert JR, Kabat GC. Menthol cigarettes and esophageal cancer. (Letter). Am J Public Health 1988;78:986–7.[ISI][Medline]
  20. Kabat GC, Hebert JR. Use of mentholated cigarettes and lung cancer risk. Cancer Res 1991;51:6510–13.[Abstract]
  21. Sidney S, Tekawa IS, Friedman GD, et al. Mentholated cigarette use and lung cancer. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:727–32.[Abstract]
  22. Carpenter CL, Jarvik ME, Morgenstern H, et al. Mentholated cigarette smoking and lung-cancer risk. Ann Epidemiol 1999;9:114–20.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  23. Shapiro S. Case-control surveillance. In: Strom BL, ed. Pharmacoepidemiology. New York, NY: John Wiley, 2000.
  24. Jenkins RWJ, Newman RH, Chavis MK. Cigarette smoke formation studies II. Smoke distribution and mainstream pyrolytic composition of added 14C-menthol (U). Beitr Tabakforsch 1970;5:299–301.
  25. Jarvik ME, Tashkin DP, Caskey NH, et al. Mentholated cigarettes decrease puff volume of smoke and increase carbon monoxide absorption. Physiol Behav 1994;56:563–70.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  26. Miller GE, Jarvik ME, Caskey NH, et al. Cigarette mentholation increases smokers’ exhaled carbon monoxide levels. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 1994;2:154–60.[CrossRef]
  27. McCarthy WJ, Caskey NH, Jarvik ME, et al. Menthol vs. nonmenthol cigarettes: effects on smoking behavior. Am J Public Health 1995;85:67–72.[Abstract]
  28. Ahijevych K, Gillespie J, Demirci M, et al. Menthol and nonmenthol cigarettes and smoke exposure in black and white women. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1996;53:355–60.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  29. Ahijevych K, Parsley LA. Smoke constituent exposure and stage of change in black and white women cigarette smokers. Addict Behav 1999;24:115–20.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  30. Clark PI, Gautam S, Gerson LW. Effect of menthol cigarettes on biochemical markers of smoke exposure among black and white smokers. Chest 1996;110:1194–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Hyland A, Garten S, Giovino GA, et al. Mentholated cigarettes and smoking cessation: findings from COMMIT. Tob Control 2002;11:135–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Means B, Hubina K, Swan GE, et al. Cognitive research on response error in survey questions on smoking. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 6(5), 1992. (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 92-1080).
  33. Kaufman DW, Palmer JR, Rosenberg L, et al. Tar content of cigarettes in relation to lung cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:703–11.[Abstract]
  34. Stellman SD. Cigarette yield and cancer risk: evidence from case-control and prospective studies. In: Zaridge D, Peto R, eds. Tobacco: a major international health hazard. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1986. (IARC scientific publication no. 74).
  35. Samet JM. The changing cigarette and disease risk: current status of the evidence. In: The FTC cigarette test method for determining tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields of US cigarettes. Report of the NCI Expert Committee. Smoking and tobacco control monograph 7. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1996;77–92. (NIH publication no. 96-4028).
  36. Dallongeville J, Marecaux N, Fruchart JC, et al. Cigarette smoking is associated with unhealthy patterns of nutrient intake: a meta-analysis. J Nutr 1998;128:1450–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Phillips ELR, Arnett DK, Himes JH, et al. Differences and trends in antioxidant dietary intake in smokers and non-smokers, 1980–1992: The Minnesota Heart Survey. Ann Epidemiol 2000;10:417–23.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  38. Wei W, Kim Y, Boudreau N. Association of smoking with serum and dietary levels of antioxidants in adults: NHANES III, 1988–1994. Am J Public Health 2001;91:258–64.[Abstract]
  39. Stellman SD, Boffetta P, Garfinkel L. Smoking habits of 800,000 American men and women in relation to their occupations. Am J Ind Med 1988;13:43–58.[ISI][Medline]
  40. Nelson DE, Emont SL, Brackbill RM, et al. Cigarette smoking prevalence by occupation in the United States. J Occup Med 1994;36:516–25.[ISI][Medline]
  41. Wacholder S, Silverman DT, McLaughlin JK, et al. Selection of controls in case-control studies. II. Types of controls. Am J Epidemiol 1992;135:1029–41.[Abstract]
  42. Muscat JE, Richie JP Jr, Stellman SD. Mentholated cigarettes and smoking habits in whites and blacks. Tob Control 2002;11:368–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Rowland MB, Fullwood R. Coronary heart disease risk factor trends in blacks between the First and Second National Health and Nutrition Surveys, United States, 1971–1980. Am Heart J 1984;108:771–8.[ISI][Medline]
  44. Perez-Stable EJ, Herrera B, Jacob P 3rd, et al. Nicotine metabolism and intake in black and white smokers. JAMA 1998;280:152–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Richie JP Jr, Carmella SG, Muscat JE, et al. Differences in the urinary metabolites of the tobacco-specific lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone in black and white smokers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997;6:783–90.[Abstract]
  46. Hebert JR, Miller DR, Toporoff ED, et al. Black-white differences in United States cancer rates: a discussion of possible dietary factors to explain large and growing divergencies. Cancer Prev 1991;1:141–56.
  47. Sterling TD, Weinkam JJ. Comparison of smoking-related risk factors among Black and White males. Am J Ind Med 1989;15:319–33.[ISI][Medline]
  48. Pirkle JL, Flegal KM, Bernert JT, et al. Exposure of the US population to environmental tobacco smoke. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991. JAMA 1996;275:1233–40.[Abstract]

Related articles in Am. J. Epidemiol.:

Invited Commentary: Menthol Cigarettes and Risk of Lung Cancer
James R. Hebert
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2003 158: 617-620. [Extract] [FREE Full Text]