Levels of cancer-causing nitrosamines are higher in US-made cigarettes than those from other countries, according to scientists at the Center for Disease Control.  That means they can potentially cause more cases of lung cancer.

To reach these conclusions, David Ashley and colleagues group measured mouth levels of a highly carcinogenic substance known as NNK, and urinary levels of its major metabolite, NNAL in 126 smokers from New York, Minnesota, Australia, Canada and England. The US smokers used several popular brands including Camel Light, Marlboro, Newport and Newport Light. The scientists counted butts to assure smokers from each location consumed the same numbers of cigarettes.

It turned out that 24 hour mouth levels of NNK (in nanograms) were 1,490 in New York, 1,150 in Minnesota, 1,010 in England, 449 in Canada and 350 in Australia. There was a direct correlation between mouth levels of NNK and urinary levels of NNAL.

Of note, 2 recent studies have shown a direct relation between urinary NNAL levels and lung cancer risk.

Together, these findings suggest that “higher levels of tobacco-related nitrosamines in the smoke of US cigarette varieties lead to higher mouth-level exposure to NNK and increased NNAL, which may be associated with excess lung cancer burden,” wrote the scientists.

The scientists also hypothesized that high levels of NNK in US tobacco products result from domestic curing processes and the blends of tobacco used during production.

Unfortunately, lowering nitrosamine levels in US cigarettes might not make them safer because that may increase the amounts of other carcinogenic substances.

As well, the scientists “did not look at the two dozen other cancer-causing toxins,” according to John Spangler of Wake Forest University. “And it did not examine chemicals that might affect heart disease, stroke, emphysema, and other diseases caused by tobacco use,” he added.

The findings appear in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

Could coffee stave off more than just fatigue? A new study suggests that might be the case. Heavy coffee drinkers, it turns out, have a lower incidence of head and neck cancers, according to the study, which was published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

To reach these conclusions, Mia Hashibi and colleagues pooled results from 9 previous studies which looked at coffee and tea drinking, as well as rates of head and neck cancers. In those studies, the behaviors of cancer patients were compared with either the general population or to patients that were hospitalized for reasons other than cancer.

The scientists found that people who drank coffee had a 12% lower risk of developing head and neck cancers than those who didn’t, after controlling for several factors including cigarette smoking. In addition, the scientists found an inverse correlation between the amount of coffee consumed and the risk of cancer: for people who drank at least 4 cups per day, the risk was cut by more than one third.

Head and neck cancer is relatively rare, affecting only about 1 in 10,000 people per year. It is known to be associated with alcohol intake and cigarette smoking.

Hashibi’s group noted that the association doesn’t prove that coffee protects against cancer of the head and neck. Other factors associated with coffee drinking could be driving the association. Alternatively, people with the disease might have reduced their coffee consumption for some reason.

There are several mechanisms by which coffee might be protective, although they are all speculative at this point.

“Coffee contains more than a thousand chemicals,” wrote the authors, including compounds like cafestol and kahweol which are thought to protect DNA from the damaging effects of certain carcinogens.

Sadly, the adage that moderate alcohol intake carries minimal risk and may actually be beneficial in some ways has taken a beating lately.

First,  a study out of Oxford  showed that one lousy alcoholic beverage per day increases the risk of multiple cancers in women.

And now, scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health are reporting that people who consume 2 or more alcoholic drinks per day have a 22% higher risk for pancreatic cancer.

Stephanie Smith-Warner and colleagues published the disquieting news in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention.

The scientists had noted that in several prospective cohort analyses, risk ratios for developing pancreatic cancer were greater than one when high alcohol intake cohorts were compared with teetotalers, but in none of these studies did the difference reach statistical significance.

That’s a situation that begs for a meta-analysis, and Smith-Warner’s team jumped all over it.

The scientists rolled-up 14 studies involving 860,000 people, spun the numbers and eked out the finding.

The increased risk for pancreatic cancer remained intact after full multivariate adjustment for known risk factors like age, diabetes, smoking and BMI.

Oddly, it held for women only. There was a trend in the same direction for men, but it wasn’t significant.

A similar, non-significant trend was found for those consuming fewer than 2 drinks per day, but the association only achieved significance in the 2+ drinks per day cohort.

The type alcoholic beverage didn’t matter, by the way. Wine, beer, hard stuff, it was all the same.

For young children, a family history of frequent, sun-splashed vacations is associated with more nevi, and nevi counts are a reliable indicator of lifetime skin cancer risk.

In fact for kids under the age of 7 each waterside vacation bumps the small nevi count by 5%, according to Lori Crane and colleagues at the University of Colorado.

In 2005, Crane and colleagues examined 681 children that were born in 1998 and lived continuously in Colorado. They also interviewed parents each year between 2003 and 2005 regarding vacations, sun exposure, and the use of sun block and hats.

The scientists classified vacations as waterside or not after asking about recreational activities like boating, surfing and water skiing.

They also accounted for climate and time of the year when vacations took place. Hawaii vacations counted as waterside no matter when they took place for example, but coastal North Carolina getaways counted as waterside only during summer.

No word on whether demerits were given to sun seekers venturing to Boston, by the way. 

Their findings appear in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

“Parents should be aware of the effect that vacations may have on their children’s risk for developing melanoma as adults and they should be cautious about selection of vacation locations,” wrote the scientists.

Interestingly, use of sunscreens and hats did not impact risk of developing small nevi, nor did eye color. And neither vacation length nor total estimated UV exposure predicted nevus counts; it was just the number of vacations.

Crane’s team suggested a threshold phenomenon could explain these observations. According to this hypothesis, radiation necessary to trigger nevus formation is obtained early during the vacation and additional exposure has no impact.

Boys were found to be at greater risk for sun-driven nevi development. They accumulated19% more by age 7 than girls. And Hispanic ethnicity reduced the risk of nevi by 35% versus Caucasians.

The presence of facial freckles and a positive sunburn history were also associated with more nevi.

Female migraineurs are less likely to get breast cancer, according to the results of a study published in this month’s Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

In the study, Robert W. Mathes and colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center combined information from 2 retrospective, case-control studies involving women between the ages of 55 and 79.

The scientists found that women who gave a history of migraine headaches were one-third less likely to develop breast cancer. The association was limited to hormone receptor-positive tumors. It was not affected by migraine therapy or by the age when migraine headaches began.

The association held for both estrogen- and progesterone-receptor positive tumors, and for the two most common kinds of breast cancer, which are ductal carcinoma and lobular carcinoma.

The scientists speculate that estrogen is the cause of the seemingly odd association.

In women, they write, migraine headaches can be triggered by falling estrogen levels as typically occurs before and during menses. Of equal interest, migraine headaches tend to disappear during pregnancy when hormone levels run high.

The scientists then write, “given that lifetime estrogen exposure is correlated with breast cancer risk, the occurrence of migraines in women, which also has a relationship to estrogen, may be related to breast cancer risk.”

The scientists call for confirmatory studies since theirs is the first to identify the association. It is particularly important to undertake follow-up studies since this study was unable to account for a potential confounding effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like Motrin. These drugs are commonly used to treat migraines and have been linked to a reduced risk of breast cancer.