© 2004 by Oxford University Press
© 2004 Oxford University Press
NEWS |
In Brief
Lower Tar Cigarettes Not Associated With Lower Risk of Lung Cancer Death
Although smokers of unfiltered, high-tar cigarettes have the highest risk of death from lung cancer, there is no difference in risk among smokers of very low-tar, low-tar, or medium-tar cigarettes, according to a new study.
Jeffrey E. Harris, M.D., Ph.D., of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and colleagues from the American Cancer Society analyzed study data from the Cancer Prevention Study II to examine the relationship between the tar rating of cigarettes smoked and lung cancer mortality. In line with previous studies, they found that smokers of unfiltered cigarettes were at the highest risk of death from lung cancer. Compared with smokers of medium-tar cigarettes (15–21 mg), smokers of low-tar or very low-tar cigarettes had a similar risk of death from lung cancer.
The authors suggest several possible explanations for their findings. They note that smokers of lower tar cigarettes may block the ventilation holes, increase the depth of their inhalation, and smoke more cigarettes. "Reducing the use of high tar non-filter cigarettes may thus provide limited public health benefits in those countries where such products are commonly used," they wrote.
The study was published in the January 10 issue of the British Medical Journal.
Public Committed to Screening, Survey Finds
In spite of possible false-positive results or the possibility of unnecessary treatment, the public is committed to cancer screening, according to a newly published survey.
Lisa M. Schwartz, M.D., from the VA Outcomes Group, White River Junction, Vt., and colleagues conducted a national telephone survey of 500 adults during 2001 and 2002 to learn about adults’ experience with a broad range of screening tests.
They found that most adults—87%—believe that routine cancer screening is "almost always a good idea," and 74% of respondents believe that finding cancer early saves lives "most" or "all of the time," according to the report, which was published in the January 7 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Most of the respondents had a strong desire to know about the presence of a cancer, regardless of its implications: two-thirds said they would want to be tested for a cancer even if nothing could be done, and 56% would want to be tested for cancers that grow so slowly that they would never cause problems during the persons lifetime even if untreated.
"The public’s enthusiasm for cancer screening and resistance to do less stems in large part from messages the medical establishment has promulgated," the authors wrote. "Unfortunately, these messages have helped create an environment that hinders discourse on the prudent use of existing tests and is ripe for the premature diffusion of new ones."
NIH Updates Peer Review Regulations
The National Institutes of Health has updated its regulations that govern the scientific peer review process of research grant applications and research and development contract projects.
According to the new regulations, revisions were made to better define the status of members of peer review groups, provide a more practical view of the complex relationships that occur in the scientific community, clarify the applicability of peer review rules to the review of applications and proposals, and clarify the review criteria applicable to grant applications.
The new regulations provide separate definitions for the appearance of a conflict of interest (a relationship that "would cause a reasonable person to question the reviewer’s impartiality if he or she were to participate in the review") and a real conflict of interest (a relationship that "is likely to bias the reviewer’s application or proposal as determined by the government official managing the review"). The new definition also states that a real conflict of interest arises when an individual has received financial benefit from the applicant institution, offeror, or principal investigator that exceeds $10,000 per year in honoraria, fees, stock, or other financial benefit.
The new regulations are available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/fed_reg_peer_rev_20040115.pdf.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||