Deadly Genetic Link To Smoking, Cancer

Scientists: "Double Whammy" Gene Boosts Lung Cancer Risk 80%, Makes It Harder To Quit

(CBS/AP)  Scientists say they have pinpointed a genetic link that makes people more likely to get hooked on tobacco, causing them to smoke more cigarettes, making it harder to quit, and leading more often to deadly lung cancer.

The discovery by three separate teams of scientists makes the strongest case so far for the biological underpinnings of the addiction of smoking and sheds light on how genetics and cigarettes join forces to cause cancer, experts said. The findings also lay the groundwork for more tailored quit-smoking treatments.

"This is kind of a double whammy gene," said Christopher Amos, a professor of epidemiology at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and author of one of the studies. "It also makes you more likely to be dependent on smoking and less likely to quit smoking."

A smoker who inherits this genetic variation from both parents has an 80 percent greater chance of lung cancer than a smoker without the variants, the researchers reported. And that same smoker on average lights up two extra cigarettes a day and has a much harder time quitting than smokers who do not have these genetic differences.

The three studies, funded by governments in the U.S. and Europe, is being published Thursday in the journals Nature and Nature Genetics.

The scientists surveyed genetic markers in more than 35,000 people in Europe, Canada and the United States, zeroing in on the same set of genetic differences. They are not quite sure if what they found is a set of variations in one gene or in three closely connected genes. But they said the result is the same: These genetic quirks increase the risk of addiction and lung cancer.

The studies' authors disagreed on whether the set of variants directly increased the risk of lung cancer or did so indirectly by causing more smoking that led to the cancer.

The genetic variations, which encode nicotine receptors on cells, could eventually help explain some of the mysteries of chain smoking, nicotine addiction and lung cancer that can't be chalked up to environmental factors, brain biology and statistics, experts said. These oddities include why there are 100-year-old smokers who don't get cancer and people who light up an occasional cigarette and do not get hooked.

In the last 40 years, the rate of adult Americans smoking has been cut from 42 percent in 1965 to less than 21 percent now.

The new studies point to surprising areas of the genes not associated with pleasure and addiction rewards. That may help explain why people have trouble quitting, said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, which funded one of the studies. Eventual testing for the genetic variants could lead to custom treatments for quitting smoking.

"This is really telling us that the vulnerability to smoking and how much you smoke is clearly biologically based," said psychiatry professor Dr. Laura Bierut, of Washington University in St. Louis, and a genetics and smoking expert who did not take part in the studies. She praised the research as "very intriguing."

The studies mostly looked at smokers and ex-smokers - although two of the studies also looked at several hundred nonsmokers. The research only involved white people of European descent. People of Asian and African descent will be studied soon and may yield quite different results, scientists said. Smoking-related diseases worldwide kill about one in 10 adults, according to the World Health Organization.

The studies show on average the consequences of the set of variations in the alphabet of genetic code that people inherit from each parent:

- Smokers who get the set of variants from only one parent see a risk of lung cancer that is about one-third higher than people without any variants. They also smoke about one more cigarette a day on average than other smokers. This group makes up about 45 percent of the population studied.

- Smokers who inherit the variants from both parents have almost a one in four chance of developing lung cancer. Their risk is between 70 and 80 percent higher than the cancer risk of other smokers without the genetic variants. They smoke on average of two extra cigarettes a day, and have a 45 percent higher risk of peripheral artery disease. This group accounts for about one in nine people of European descent.

- Smokers who do not have the variants are still more than 10 times more likely to get lung cancer than nonsmokers. Smokers without the variant overall have about a 14 percent risk of getting lung cancer. By comparison the risk of lung cancer for people who have never smoked is less than 1 percent, said another study author, Paul Brennan of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France.

Brennan and Amos, working on different teams, linked the genetic variation itself - when triggered by smoking - directly to lung cancer. Brennan said the nicotine receptors that the variants act on also can stimulate tumor growth.

Brennan's study also found that lung cancer risk for nonsmokers with the variants was higher than for those without the variants. However, his small sample size of nonsmokers requires further study. Amos' study didn't find increased lung cancer risk for people with the set of variants who have never smoked.

But Kari Stefansson, lead author of the largest of the three studies and chief executive of deCode Genetics of Iceland, said the increased lung cancer risk was indirect, and that the variant caused more addiction and more smoking. It was the extra cigarettes from increased daily smoking and the inability to quit that contributed to the higher cancer risk, Stefansson said.

"It's very likely that in the end there's going to be a test and this is going to be folded into a panel of tests for the risk of cancers," said Stefansson, whose company already does prostate cancer genetic tests. The tests will lead to better treatments, but probably not prevention of smoking, he said.

Stefansson and others emphasize that people without the variants should not take that genetic finding as a green light to smoke. There are other smoking-related diseases and they would still be at high risk of lung cancer.

For Stefansson, the research hits home. His father, a smoker, died of lung cancer. And Stefansson, who doesn't smoke, frequently lectures his 23-year-old daughter "who smokes like a chimney." She acts like she is immortal and smoking can't kill her, Stefansson said. But his own research shows that her genes are probably stacked against her.

[rushman71]

Did anyone see the report on Fox News a couple of days ago about the use of cell phones has a much bigger chance of causing brain cancer than cigarettes causing lung cancer? That''s CBS for ya!!!

[rushman71]

Another thing....the people working for the CBS News web site are nothing but idiots!!! This is a HEALTH issue!!! What is it doing in the ENTERTAINMENT section?!?!?!

[kiwi_chick]

Another thing....the people working for the CBS News web site are nothing but idiots!!! This is a HEALTH issue!!! What is it doing in the ENTERTAINMENT section?!?!?! Posted by rushman71 ______________________________
wow rushman, you must be a regular on the cell phone. This story IS in the health section. Don''t you know if the background ain''t pink, it ain''t health?

[mbcsmith]

According to the American Medical Association approximately (only) 10% of smokers contract lung cancer. A little known FACT the Main stream media never reports.

[feelfree1]

rushman71 at 01:16 PM,

Good point.

"Cellphones greater threat than smoking"

"A top Australian neurosurgeon of Indian origin says that cell phones use is a greater threat to human health than smoking, which kills 5.4 million people each year. Dr Vini Khurana, a neurosurgeon at the Canberra Hospital, told UK%u2019s Independent newspaper that there is growing evidence that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer."

"Dr Khurana says that the cellphone threat is greater because far more people use cellphones than smoke worldwide, some of them starting use at the age of 3 years."

http://computing.in.msn.com/articles/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1321171

###

Where is your article, CBS?

[rushman71]

kiwi_chick: Uh, hello!!! If you look at the time that I posted it--01:19 PM--that was when the article was in the ENTERTAINMENT section. Anything else to **** about?!?!?!

[rushman71]

FeelFree1: For once, you and I agree on something!!! :)

Did anyone see the report on Fox News a couple of days ago about the use of cell phones has a much bigger chance of causing brain cancer than cigarettes causing lung cancer? That''''s CBS for ya!!!
==
No, that Fox News for ya.

[hayte]

Please listen - my dad died of lung cancer. I quit smoking 11 1/2 yrs ago, but 1 year ago I was diagnosed with lung cancer. I expect that there IS a genetic link, but his tissue samples were not retained.
And, there is nothing like being in the chemo infusion room and someone gets up and asks if he can take his iv outside so he can smoke.

[excoachken]

Maybe this is why Barry Obama can''t quit smoking cigarettes.

[usbrit-2009]

"Cellphones greater threat than smoking"

"A top Australian neurosurgeon of Indian origin says that cell phones use is a greater threat to human health than smoking, which kills 5.4 million people each year. Dr Vini Khurana, a neurosurgeon at the Canberra Hospital, told UK%u2019s Independent newspaper that there is growing evidence that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer."


"Ultimately, it is estimated that there are 13,000 deaths/year as a result of brain tumors.[1]"

- 5 seconds research on Google and Wikipedia

Thus, double the rate of brain cancer would add 18,000 deaths a year. Hardly a drop in the ocean compared to 5.4 million smoking caused deaths.

As usual there''s lies, lies and statistics. Always get the whole story, Fox only gives you part.

[jumkey]

hayte: wow. I have a similar history (father/grandfather died of smoking related cancer). I quit 14 years ago.

What were your symptoms?

[feelfree1]

USBrit,

Re: "Thus, double the rate of brain cancer would add 18,000 deaths a year. Hardly a drop in the ocean compared to 5.4 million smoking caused deaths."

"As usual there''s lies, lies and statistics. Always get the whole story, Fox only gives you part."

The study shows that long-term cell-phone use doubles (or quadruples) brain cancer RISK not overall RATE. Do you understand the difference?

If true, this means that brain cancer cases will skyrocket as a result, not merely double, since cell-phone use is so prevalent.

[Syndicate]

I think smokers should start suing the government. Obviously the government has the power to remove nicotine from cigarettes yet they don''t. Either take the nictoine out of cigarettes or legalize drugs. If you are going to protect me from myself then do it. Or don''t bother with any of it.

[usbrit-2009]

The study shows that long-term cell-phone use doubles (or quadruples) brain cancer RISK not overall RATE. Do you understand the difference?

Posted by FeelFree1

Not sure that I do. If there is known "x%" RISK of something happening and a known "y" number of people affected, then the theoretical RATE of this whatever happeneing is calcuable. If you double the x% risk then you should double the expected rate. Am I missing an exponential factor in this? (I''m a chemist, but sometimes math is not my strong point). I gotta go for about an hour but I''ll be back - I''d like to see your reasoning.

[randynason]

I quit smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and tap water, eating all meat, eating any dairy products and listening to the political officials or believing anything they have to say. What''s the big surprise with most of this news? It''s a marvel to me that we continue to support this *hit as breakthrough research data. Common sense should prevail.

[susan10001-2009]

My father died at 51 from lung cancer, life-long smoker who quit smoking in Feb. and was diagnosed w/lung cancer in August of the same year. We were told by the Cancer Dr. if he WOULDN''T have quit smoking 8 months earlier, he would have lived longer! The oxygen in the lungs from quitting HELPED the cancer grow! SO...IF one is a life-long smoker there is ALSO RISK in STOPPING! I SAW it...

[feelfree1]

USBrit,

If a certain percentage of people suffer from an ailment, prior to the introduction of an activity- cell phone usage, in this case, then, suddenly, billions of people begin engaging in an activity that significantly increases the RISK of this ailment, then the total number of people who will suffer from this ailment will BALLOON, not double.

In other words, if the number of smokers suddenly doubles, then we can expect that smoking-related deaths will also double. Similarly, when the number of people engaging in a possibly risky activity, (cell phone use, in this case), goes from 0 to some huge number, the risks of ailments associated with this activity will remain constant, while the related number of INSTANCES will grow proportionally to increased rate of use.

Hence, prior to the beginning of humans consuming tobacco, tobacco smoking related deaths were 0. It is safe to assume that those deaths grew proportionally with the increasing rate of consumption (all else equal).

[rushman71]

USBrit: The information about the cell phones causing brain cancer is still new since cell phone use only begun approx. 15 years ago compared to smoking cigarettes. I, myself, am a smoker hoping for a chance to quit permanently after a number of times trying. But I do see your point about the comparison between cell phones and cancer, and smoking and cancer. In time, though, the proof will be revealed about cell phones. Think about it, every person in the family (not including babies or young children) uses cell phones. Think about their health in 10 years.

[rushman71]

Think about this...what would you prefer? Caughing up a lung do to lung cancer caused by smoking? Or losing your head to brain cancer caused by cell phones? Which way would you prefer to die?

[feelfree1]

Another significant, and largely ignored health risk- obesity.

"Brits Find Obesity Deadlier Than Smoking"

"Obesity epidemic spiraling out of control, report warns"

www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/10/obesity_smoking.html

[nolalou]

There is no doubt that smoking causes cancer, and these new studies point to some potential genetic links, which could be important to beating addiction.

For those quoting the FOX story on Cell phones and Cancer, this is not something proven, in fact, many researchers came to the opposite conclusion. Here''s a story on CBS''s site from 2006: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/05/health/webmd/main2232261.shtml?source=search_story

[pollroller1]

I am very very lucky to have been able to quit smoking. I came from a home where both my mother and father smoked. I started smoking when I was a teen. I was finally able to kick the habit when I was in my mid 30s.
I am now 71.

[rushman71]

I wonder what they are going to say in 10 years? "Say NO to Cell Phones!!!" "Cell''s Kill!!!"

[feelfree1]

Re: "FeelFree1: For once, you and I agree on something!!! :)"

Posted by rushman71

I''m not sure why you think that. I agree with, and am amused by, many of your comments.

[feelfree1]

Sorry "rushman71". I think I missed the sarcasm.

[skyk-2009]

Going to date myself here but I remember when Con''s were saying the SAME thing about Cigs that they say about Global Warming today. LOL

[usbrit-2009]

Part I Feel Free - OK I get your point - 13,000 deaths per year for brain cancer is the 0 number. Anything added on to that is from cell phones. Interesting what nolalou says about opposite findings.

[usbrit-2009]

My company makes active ingredients in shampoo. A few years back 1 study found one such ingredient (DEA) could be carcinogenic. Literally hundreds of studies previously had shown no problem with DEA and this study was flawed in ways I won''t go into here. Guess what showed up on Good Morning America - yes the one flawed study. Various companies including mine and the trade group wrote to ABC complaining but they stood by their story. The result - we spent the next couple of years trying to figure out how to take the DEA compound out of shampoo. Normally the compound - Cocamide DEA, thickens the shampoo and adds to the foam. After two years, during which time DEA remained in all the formulations and no other studies showed it to be harmful, we had either thinner shampoo, or shampoo that was 10c/bottle more expensive because of the other thickeners we used. So we quit trying and most of your shampoo ingredients will still contain Cocamide DEA. Nobody complains, because now that one study''s flaws have been proven. When it comes to medical articles, I''ll start believing the theory is true when the 4th or 5th one comes out agreeing. A single article reported in the papers or on TV is not worth the paper (or air) it''s printed on.

[usbrit-2009]

Part II - You can debate whether the Main Stream Media (MSM) is biased to the right or left. (My feeling is they''re biased to the left when a rightist party is in power and vece versa). One thing towards which thay are always biased in sensationalism. I get the feeling this cell-phone story is just one such.

[feelfree1]

Re: "I get the feeling this cell-phone story is just one such."

Posted by USBrit

Maybe. But I see a whole lot more money to be made in maintaining that they are safe, than in revealing that they are not, including the financial interests some sponsors of CBS Newz.

###

Our main stream media is ALWAYS slanted towards the interests of big corporations, in my view, since that is who pays them, and that is what they are.

If our media was slanted to the "left" under the Bush regime, there is no way that we would have invaded Iraq, as all Bush claims were pretty easily called into question, yet our media chose to parrot the official line, without challenge.

[swwils]

Science is always coming up with something about cancer,but they can''t seem to find a cure.I smoke ,and so did my Grandfather ,who lived to be 101,I don''t want to live that long.Life is one time I enjoy a smoke now and then so I will continue,know matter what these scientist supposedly find out.

[crater7]

SCIENTIST HAVE PROVEN THAT SMOKING TOBACCO IS DANGEOUS AND CAUSES CANCER, THEREFORE RESULTING IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

WHY DON''T OUR GOVERNMENT JUST OUTLAW CIGARETTES, AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS? AND THE LOBBYIST WHO PEDDLE THIS DEADLY PRODUCTS.

HMMMMM, NO MORE KICK BACKS.

GOD "BLESS" AMERICA. NOT " G D AMERICA."

[mklee06]

The person that made the comment as to whether it would be preferable to cough up a lung or lose your mind from brain cancer has obviously never seen someone dying of lung cancer. My mother was diagnosed with lung cancer at the age of 52. At stage four, the cancer had spread to every part of her body including her brain. I am curious to see the outcomes of future studies. My grandfather smoked and two of his three children became smokers. My mother died and my aunt is still smoking away in her mid 60''s. My grandfather quit in his 50''s after smoking for 40 years. He lived to be 86. I also became a smoker for a period of time. I quit when my mother died. It was extremely hard but watching her suffer as she did was a strong incentive. It has been 8 years. I must also note that my father and his parents were also smokers. Although all three are dead ,none died of cancer. I''m not sure where this leaves me. To all the smokers out there please quit for yourself and your family. Not all cancers are preventable but in this case you can do everything in your power to try and stop it. It will be physically painful for you if you get lung cancer and it will be emotionally painful for your family to watch you die this way.

[pensacola88]

Unlocking the human genome has scientific value, but does it bring us closer to accepting things that we can''t change?

Just a few months ago, science contradicted something by disproving something it previously proved - that a bullet can be traced to a specific gun or rifle which fired it. For years, we accepted this type of evidence and convicted many. Then recently, we disproved the reliability of that type of evidence. I wonder how many people were convicted wrongfully over it.

Trusting science too much leaves plenty of room for rationalizing. We can connect dots and form conclusions, but whether it is absolute and correct leaves great doubt. There is too much junk science out there.

[dwledet]

NOLALOU posted *** at 02:50PM on 4/02.

The statement, "There is no doubt that smoking causes cancer..." is a total fabrication.

NO ONE knows what causes cancer.

Cancer has been observed in high concentrations in people who smoke.

This does not indicate that "smoking causes cancer".

If everyone who smokes gets cancer, that might indicate that "smoking causes cancer", BUT most people who smoke DONOT get cancer. That is FACT.

Doug

[generey]

Why is it that EVERYTHING is Gene''s fault?

[fibonacci_]

Smoke em if you got em.

Actually, I would recommend smoking weed.

[jyates99]

what if i smoke while talking on my cell phone??

[denn034]

Yet, people insist upon having absolutely no compassion for those like this smoker that suffers from genetically-based addictions. Yet, they keep passing laws excluding us smokers from this or that. Yet, California excludes smokers and embraces marijuana users despite the fact that marijuana''s second-hand smoke kills as well. Let me finish by pointing out that there is no DIRECT condemnation of tobacco in Christian history prior to the Anabaptists of the 1500s, the verse in 1 Corinthians that''s used as an INDIRECT condemnation of tobacco being understood as not including tobacco prior to the Anabaptists. Yet, non-tobacco users have absolutely no compassion or empathy for us genetically-addicted smokers and they think they''re good, fine, and decent people doing it as well. They''re nothing of the sort!

[savlove-2009]

Perhaps sexual addiction has gentetic links

[savlove-2009]

Perhaps sexual addiction has a similar genetic link

[generey]

Let me finish by pointing out that there is no DIRECT condemnation of tobacco in Christian history prior to the Anabaptists of the 1500s, the verse in 1 Corinthians that''''s used as an INDIRECT condemnation of tobacco being understood as not including tobacco prior to the Anabaptists.

Posted by denn034 at 05:32 PM : Apr 02, 2008

Huh?

[dzapple]

WHY DONT THESE Scientists WORK ON HOW TO GET BETTER GAS MILEAGE INSTEAD OF DOING STUDIES OF SMOKERS AND CANCER. IF PEOPLE SMOKE THEY WILL SMOKE AND IF THEY DONT SMOKE THEY HAVE A LESS CHANCE OF GETTING LUNG CANCER

[fibonacci_]

Smoke marijuana - it last longer and is probably not as deadly.

[goldesprit]

This story exists because:

1) by distancing cigarettes from blame-- "its your genes!" the big companies (not just tobacco-- but people who "cure" cancer, and / or ...REPORT ABOUT THIS STUFF AND SELL ADVERTISING--LIKE cbs AND a.p...)CAN CONTINUE MAKING MORE MONEY.

2) if its your genes-- you can feel better in the "knowledge" that you "can''t quit" (because you are doomed at birth presumeably)and then give up trying--and ...buy more cigarettes.

My mother died from emphazima caused by smoking.

Her father died of same.

By older brother died of same.

If my younger brother, who smokes, has a similar fate... as the Godfather says,
"...I''m going to blame somebody."

[gronamox-2009]

Could we stop funding these interminable and useless smoking studies and their obvious linkage to lung cancer. Whoever doesn''t understand it yet, raise your hand. Okay, go home and don''t come back. Now, here''s a message from the American Citizenry who is gauged by Insurance Companies for premiums that are worthless because if they can find a way to deny coverage, Big Insurance will happily smile while you die. "Hey researchers,cure cancer already, you clueless jackasses. For over sixty years you know nothings haven''t cured anything. You waste so much time and money, that no one believes medicine is anything more than mumbo jumbo. Everyone still dies of heart disease and cancer. Now we have Aids and it too will never be cured along with a host of completely misunderstood fatal diseases that modern medicine hasn''t even touched. The present day cure for cancer is to kill the diseased cells with poisons so toxic, few survive w/o chronic damage. Pills do nothing. Surgery is a touch and go risk, riddled with malpractice. If you aren''t dumped on the floor by the service staff who hates you, or given the wrong meds or have the wrong organ removed, the Hospital is so infectious and dirty that you will catch a disease far deadlier than the won you were dying from.

[generey]

Well, for what it is worth, as I sit here smoking, I am scheduled, AGAIN, for surgery next Tuesday to cut out two MORE malignant tumor''s from my bladder. This is the third time for me. The first time, I saw the inside of my bladder in a pic the doc did; it was thick yellow...nothing but nicotene. My cancer is from nothing but cigarettes...yet I still smoke. Duh 4 me I know...it''s the hardest thing I have ever tried to stop doing & still have not slowed down. Nobody''s fault but my own, but people...if ya dont smoke yet - DONT START.

[barbaraf4]

"Smoke marijuana - it last longer and is probably not as deadly." Posted by fibonacci
~~~~~~~~~~~
It makes you stupid.

[bozworth4]

We KNOW what causes it!!! Fix it!!! My life expectancy is 2 years overdue. I smoke, drive, firefighter, carry a gun, talk on cell phone. I guess what saves me is the fact I don''t drink! Oh and by the way, politicians beware, I also vote.