StudierenNewsMedizinE-Zigaretten mit Nikotin erzeugen bei Mäusen Lungenkrebs und Urothelhyperplasien
Als E-Mail versenden...
Auf facebook teilen...
Twittern...
Drucken...

Medizin

E-Zigaretten mit Nikotin erzeugen bei Mäusen Lungenkrebs und Urothelhyperplasien

Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2019

/dpa

New York – Die Exposition mit dem Dampf aus nikotinhaltigen E-Zigaretten hat in einer Studie in den Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS 2019; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1911321116) bei Mäusen Lungenkrebs und Hyperplasien des Blasen­epithels ausgelöst.

E-Zigaretten gelten als gesünder, weil das Nikotin ohne die schädlichen Verbrennungs­produkte der Tabakblätter aufgenommen wird. Auch die Konzentration der Karzinogene NNN (N-Nitrosonoricotine) und NNK (Nicotine-Derived Nitrosamine Ketone), die bei Ziga­retten bereits während des Herstellungsprozesses aus Nikotin entstehen, soll niedriger sein. Die Konzentration des Markers NNAL war in einer Studie um 95 % geringer. Einige Forscher schließen daraus, dass E-Zigaretten mit Nikotin weitgehend unschädlich sind. Public Health England empfiehlt sie Nikotinabhängigen sogar als Ersatz für Tabak-Ziga­retten.

Anzeige

Dem widersprechen Umweltmediziner von NYU Langone Health in New York. In einer früheren Untersuchung konnte ein Team um Moon-shong Tang bereits zeigen, dass der Dampf aus E-Zigaretten in den Zellen von Lunge und Blase DNA-Addukte erzeugt, die für die Krebsentstehung verantwortlich gemacht werden.

Jetzt berichten die Forscher über ihre tierexperimentellen Ergebnisse. Insgesamt 85 Mäuse wurden über 54 Wochen jeweils an 5 Tagen der Woche über 4 Stunden in ihren Käfigen entweder mit dem Dampf aus nikotinhaltigen Liquids, dem Dampf aus Liquids ohne Nikotin oder der normalen Raumluft ausgesetzt. 9 der 40 Tiere (22,5 %), die dem Dampf der Nikotin-Liquids ausgesetzt waren, erkrankten an Lungenkrebs (zumeist Ade­nokarzinome).

Von den mit dem Liquid ohne Nikotin bedampften Mäusen erkrankte kein Tier. In der 3. Gruppe, die nur der gefilterten Raumluft ausgesetzt war, gab es eine Erkrankung. Tang ermittelt für die Nikotin-Exposition ein um den Faktor 4,05 erhöhtes Risiko. Das 95-%-Konfidenzintervall war allerdings weit. Es reichte von 0,77 bis 24,14. Trotz der großen Unterschiede kann deshalb ein statistischer Zufall nicht ausgeschlossen werden.

Da Tabakrauch neben Lungenkrebs auch Blasenkrebs auslösen kann, haben die Forscher das Blasenepithel der Tiere näher untersucht. Eine Krebserkrankung wurde in keinem Fall gefunden. Insgesamt 23 der 40 mit Nikotindampf exponierten Tiere (57,5 %) entwickelten jedoch eine Urothelhyperplasie, die als Präkanzerose eingestuft wird.

In der Gruppe, die dem Liquid ohne Nikotin ausgesetzt war, erkrankte eines von 16 Tieren (6,3 %). In der Kontroll­gruppe gab es keinen einzigen Fall. Der Unterschied der Nikotin-exponierten Tiere zu den beiden anderen Gruppen war nach Angabe von Tang statistisch signifikant.

Die vom Science Media Center in London befragten Experten halten die Ergebnisse der Studie nicht für überzeugend. John Britton, Leiter des UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies, hält die Ergebnisse lediglich für ein statistisches „Rauschen“. Peter Hajek von der Queen Mary University of London bezweifelt die Relevanz, da die Tiere größeren Dampf­mengen ausgesetzt waren, als dies bei menschlichen „Vapern“ der Fall sei. © rme/aerzteblatt.de

Liebe Leserinnen und Leser,

diesen Artikel können Sie mit dem kostenfreien „Mein-DÄ-Zugang“ lesen.

Sind Sie schon registriert, geben Sie einfach Ihre Zugangsdaten ein.

Oder registrieren Sie sich kostenfrei, um exklusiv diesen Beitrag aufzurufen.

Loggen Sie sich auf Mein DÄ ein

E-Mail

Passwort


Mit der Registrierung in „Mein-DÄ“ profitieren Sie von folgenden Vorteilen:

Newsletter
Kostenfreie Newsletter mit täglichen Nachrichten aus Medizin und Politik oder aus bestimmten Fachgebieten
cme
Nehmen Sie an der zertifizierten Fortbildung teil
Merkfunktion
Erstellen Sie Merklisten mit Nachrichten, Artikeln und Videos
Kommentarfunktion und Foren
Kommentieren Sie Nachrichten, Artikel und Videos, nehmen Sie an Diskussionen in den Foren teil
Job-Mail
Erhalten Sie zu Ihrer Ärztestellen-Suche passende Jobs per E-Mail.
Themen:

Leserkommentare

E-Mail
Passwort

Registrieren

Um Artikel, Nachrichten oder Blogs kommentieren zu können, müssen Sie registriert sein. Sind sie bereits für den Newsletter oder den Stellenmarkt registriert, können Sie sich hier direkt anmelden.

Avatar #781928
maxbarrett
am Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2019, 23:14

Study’s main claims – and are they supported by the data (?)

October 7, 2019
ecig vapour and cancer in mice

The study’s main claim is that electronic cigarette (ecig) vapour causes lung adenocarcinoma (lung cancer) and bladder urothelial hyperplasia (an increased number of cells lining the bladder) in mice.

This is somewhat supported by the data in the study, though there are a number of serious limitations in the study which may have caused considerable bias, therefore affecting the validity of the data and subsequently this claim.

It would be wrong to conclude from this study that vaping is carcinogenic in humans. Notably, the authors do not state that their study is conclusive – only that it warrants further research, which is a balanced conclusion to make and is something it would be difficult to disagree with.


Strengths/Limitations

Strengths

The study is a randomised trial and so therefore has the potential to demonstrate a causal relationship in mice; however, there are a number of limitations which could have biased the study’s results (see below).
The authors have used ecig juice and aerosol generators that are typically available commercially.
Although there is a huge amount of uncertainty in the results, there is the potential for a fairly large increased risk in adenocarcinoma in mice exposed to ecig vapour.


Limitations of the study

Was this a proper blind trial? It is not clear whether the group allocation was kept secret from either the researchers administering the compounds or those assessing the histopathology. This is known to potentially lead to very biased results.
The statistical evidence of an effect on lung carcinoma is very weak
The authors perform multiple statistical tests which increases the probability of a chance positive finding
The choice of the statistical test is not appropriate for this type of data. Generally the stats in this paper are very poor.
The authors do not provide indicators of uncertainty (such as confidence intervals) for all the comparisons, which makes impossible to assess the precision of the results.
The study has a small sample size and they have not performed a power analysis (see glossary)
The authors say animals were randomly allocated to different groups, but the numbers in each group (45, 20, 20) are perfectly rounded, which would be very unlikely to occur by chance without using a more technical method or randomisation. This may suggest the authors have not used a truly random technique for allocation, which is known to introduce a lot of bias. Moreover, mice dying before the end of the study were excluded from the analysis, which may also cause bias.

A final point is that this study is in mice, not in humans, and mice may respond to nicotine or ecig vapour differently for a number of reasons.

It is also unclear if the exposure on the mice is typical of exposure in humans.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ecig-vapour-and-cancer-in-mice/
Avatar #781928
maxbarrett
am Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2019, 23:12

Study’s main claims – and are they supported by the data (?)

October 7, 2019
ecig vapour and cancer in mice

The study’s main claim is that electronic cigarette (ecig) vapour causes lung adenocarcinoma (lung cancer) and bladder urothelial hyperplasia (an increased number of cells lining the bladder) in mice.

This is somewhat supported by the data in the study, though there are a number of serious limitations in the study which may have caused considerable bias, therefore affecting the validity of the data and subsequently this claim.

It would be wrong to conclude from this study that vaping is carcinogenic in humans. Notably, the authors do not state that their study is conclusive – only that it warrants further research, which is a balanced conclusion to make and is something it would be difficult to disagree with.


Strengths/Limitations

Strengths

The study is a randomised trial and so therefore has the potential to demonstrate a causal relationship in mice; however, there are a number of limitations which could have biased the study’s results (see below).
The authors have used ecig juice and aerosol generators that are typically available commercially.
Although there is a huge amount of uncertainty in the results, there is the potential for a fairly large increased risk in adenocarcinoma in mice exposed to ecig vapour.


Limitations of the study

Was this a proper blind trial? It is not clear whether the group allocation was kept secret from either the researchers administering the compounds or those assessing the histopathology. This is known to potentially lead to very biased results.
The statistical evidence of an effect on lung carcinoma is very weak
The authors perform multiple statistical tests which increases the probability of a chance positive finding
The choice of the statistical test is not appropriate for this type of data. Generally the stats in this paper are very poor.
The authors do not provide indicators of uncertainty (such as confidence intervals) for all the comparisons, which makes impossible to assess the precision of the results.
The study has a small sample size and they have not performed a power analysis (see glossary)
The authors say animals were randomly allocated to different groups, but the numbers in each group (45, 20, 20) are perfectly rounded, which would be very unlikely to occur by chance without using a more technical method or randomisation. This may suggest the authors have not used a truly random technique for allocation, which is known to introduce a lot of bias. Moreover, mice dying before the end of the study were excluded from the analysis, which may also cause bias.

A final point is that this study is in mice, not in humans, and mice may respond to nicotine or ecig vapour differently for a number of reasons.

It is also unclear if the exposure on the mice is typical of exposure in humans.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ecig-vapour-and-cancer-in-mice/
Avatar #781928
maxbarrett
am Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2019, 23:12

Study’s main claims – and are they supported by the data (?)

October 7, 2019
ecig vapour and cancer in mice

The study’s main claim is that electronic cigarette (ecig) vapour causes lung adenocarcinoma (lung cancer) and bladder urothelial hyperplasia (an increased number of cells lining the bladder) in mice.

This is somewhat supported by the data in the study, though there are a number of serious limitations in the study which may have caused considerable bias, therefore affecting the validity of the data and subsequently this claim.

It would be wrong to conclude from this study that vaping is carcinogenic in humans. Notably, the authors do not state that their study is conclusive – only that it warrants further research, which is a balanced conclusion to make and is something it would be difficult to disagree with.


Strengths/Limitations

Strengths

The study is a randomised trial and so therefore has the potential to demonstrate a causal relationship in mice; however, there are a number of limitations which could have biased the study’s results (see below).
The authors have used ecig juice and aerosol generators that are typically available commercially.
Although there is a huge amount of uncertainty in the results, there is the potential for a fairly large increased risk in adenocarcinoma in mice exposed to ecig vapour.


Limitations of the study

Was this a proper blind trial? It is not clear whether the group allocation was kept secret from either the researchers administering the compounds or those assessing the histopathology. This is known to potentially lead to very biased results.
The statistical evidence of an effect on lung carcinoma is very weak
The authors perform multiple statistical tests which increases the probability of a chance positive finding
The choice of the statistical test is not appropriate for this type of data. Generally the stats in this paper are very poor.
The authors do not provide indicators of uncertainty (such as confidence intervals) for all the comparisons, which makes impossible to assess the precision of the results.
The study has a small sample size and they have not performed a power analysis (see glossary)
The authors say animals were randomly allocated to different groups, but the numbers in each group (45, 20, 20) are perfectly rounded, which would be very unlikely to occur by chance without using a more technical method or randomisation. This may suggest the authors have not used a truly random technique for allocation, which is known to introduce a lot of bias. Moreover, mice dying before the end of the study were excluded from the analysis, which may also cause bias.

A final point is that this study is in mice, not in humans, and mice may respond to nicotine or ecig vapour differently for a number of reasons.

It is also unclear if the exposure on the mice is typical of exposure in humans.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ecig-vapour-and-cancer-in-mice/
Avatar #781928
maxbarrett
am Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2019, 23:12

Study’s main claims – and are they supported by the data (?)

October 7, 2019
ecig vapour and cancer in mice

The study’s main claim is that electronic cigarette (ecig) vapour causes lung adenocarcinoma (lung cancer) and bladder urothelial hyperplasia (an increased number of cells lining the bladder) in mice.

This is somewhat supported by the data in the study, though there are a number of serious limitations in the study which may have caused considerable bias, therefore affecting the validity of the data and subsequently this claim.

It would be wrong to conclude from this study that vaping is carcinogenic in humans. Notably, the authors do not state that their study is conclusive – only that it warrants further research, which is a balanced conclusion to make and is something it would be difficult to disagree with.


Strengths/Limitations

Strengths

The study is a randomised trial and so therefore has the potential to demonstrate a causal relationship in mice; however, there are a number of limitations which could have biased the study’s results (see below).
The authors have used ecig juice and aerosol generators that are typically available commercially.
Although there is a huge amount of uncertainty in the results, there is the potential for a fairly large increased risk in adenocarcinoma in mice exposed to ecig vapour.


Limitations of the study

Was this a proper blind trial? It is not clear whether the group allocation was kept secret from either the researchers administering the compounds or those assessing the histopathology. This is known to potentially lead to very biased results.
The statistical evidence of an effect on lung carcinoma is very weak
The authors perform multiple statistical tests which increases the probability of a chance positive finding
The choice of the statistical test is not appropriate for this type of data. Generally the stats in this paper are very poor.
The authors do not provide indicators of uncertainty (such as confidence intervals) for all the comparisons, which makes impossible to assess the precision of the results.
The study has a small sample size and they have not performed a power analysis (see glossary)
The authors say animals were randomly allocated to different groups, but the numbers in each group (45, 20, 20) are perfectly rounded, which would be very unlikely to occur by chance without using a more technical method or randomisation. This may suggest the authors have not used a truly random technique for allocation, which is known to introduce a lot of bias. Moreover, mice dying before the end of the study were excluded from the analysis, which may also cause bias.

A final point is that this study is in mice, not in humans, and mice may respond to nicotine or ecig vapour differently for a number of reasons.

It is also unclear if the exposure on the mice is typical of exposure in humans.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ecig-vapour-and-cancer-in-mice/
Avatar #781928
maxbarrett
am Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2019, 23:11

Study’s main claims – and are they supported by the data (?)

October 7, 2019
ecig vapour and cancer in mice

The study’s main claim is that electronic cigarette (ecig) vapour causes lung adenocarcinoma (lung cancer) and bladder urothelial hyperplasia (an increased number of cells lining the bladder) in mice.

This is somewhat supported by the data in the study, though there are a number of serious limitations in the study which may have caused considerable bias, therefore affecting the validity of the data and subsequently this claim.

It would be wrong to conclude from this study that vaping is carcinogenic in humans. Notably, the authors do not state that their study is conclusive – only that it warrants further research, which is a balanced conclusion to make and is something it would be difficult to disagree with.


Strengths/Limitations

Strengths

The study is a randomised trial and so therefore has the potential to demonstrate a causal relationship in mice; however, there are a number of limitations which could have biased the study’s results (see below).
The authors have used ecig juice and aerosol generators that are typically available commercially.
Although there is a huge amount of uncertainty in the results, there is the potential for a fairly large increased risk in adenocarcinoma in mice exposed to ecig vapour.


Limitations of the study

Was this a proper blind trial? It is not clear whether the group allocation was kept secret from either the researchers administering the compounds or those assessing the histopathology. This is known to potentially lead to very biased results.
The statistical evidence of an effect on lung carcinoma is very weak
The authors perform multiple statistical tests which increases the probability of a chance positive finding
The choice of the statistical test is not appropriate for this type of data. Generally the stats in this paper are very poor.
The authors do not provide indicators of uncertainty (such as confidence intervals) for all the comparisons, which makes impossible to assess the precision of the results.
The study has a small sample size and they have not performed a power analysis (see glossary)
The authors say animals were randomly allocated to different groups, but the numbers in each group (45, 20, 20) are perfectly rounded, which would be very unlikely to occur by chance without using a more technical method or randomisation. This may suggest the authors have not used a truly random technique for allocation, which is known to introduce a lot of bias. Moreover, mice dying before the end of the study were excluded from the analysis, which may also cause bias.

A final point is that this study is in mice, not in humans, and mice may respond to nicotine or ecig vapour differently for a number of reasons.

It is also unclear if the exposure on the mice is typical of exposure in humans.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ecig-vapour-and-cancer-in-mice/
Avatar #781928
maxbarrett
am Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2019, 23:08

Study’s main claims – and are they supported by the data (?)

The study’s main claim is that electronic cigarette (ecig) vapour causes lung adenocarcinoma (lung cancer) and bladder urothelial hyperplasia (an increased number of cells lining the bladder) in mice.

This is somewhat supported by the data in the study, though there are a number of serious limitations in the study which may have caused considerable bias, therefore affecting the validity of the data and subsequently this claim.

It would be wrong to conclude from this study that vaping is carcinogenic in humans. Notably, the authors do not state that their study is conclusive – only that it warrants further research, which is a balanced conclusion to make and is something it would be difficult to disagree with.


Strengths/Limitations

Strengths

The study is a randomised trial and so therefore has the potential to demonstrate a causal relationship in mice; however, there are a number of limitations which could have biased the study’s results (see below).
The authors have used ecig juice and aerosol generators that are typically available commercially.
Although there is a huge amount of uncertainty in the results, there is the potential for a fairly large increased risk in adenocarcinoma in mice exposed to ecig vapour.


Limitations of the study

Was this a proper blind trial? It is not clear whether the group allocation was kept secret from either the researchers administering the compounds or those assessing the histopathology. This is known to potentially lead to very biased results.
The statistical evidence of an effect on lung carcinoma is very weak
The authors perform multiple statistical tests which increases the probability of a chance positive finding
The choice of the statistical test is not appropriate for this type of data. Generally the stats in this paper are very poor.
The authors do not provide indicators of uncertainty (such as confidence intervals) for all the comparisons, which makes impossible to assess the precision of the results.
The study has a small sample size and they have not performed a power analysis (see glossary)
The authors say animals were randomly allocated to different groups, but the numbers in each group (45, 20, 20) are perfectly rounded, which would be very unlikely to occur by chance without using a more technical method or randomisation. This may suggest the authors have not used a truly random technique for allocation, which is known to introduce a lot of bias. Moreover, mice dying before the end of the study were excluded from the analysis, which may also cause bias.

A final point is that this study is in mice, not in humans, and mice may respond to nicotine or ecig vapour differently for a number of reasons.

It is also unclear if the exposure on the mice is typical of exposure in humans.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ecig-vapour-and-cancer-in-mice/
Avatar #681861
mskasa
am Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2019, 21:50

" There is no message to the public here – I suspect these results are just noise.” Indeed, there is too much noise about that nowadays.

Prof John Britton, Director of the UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies and Consultant in Respiratory Medicine, University of Nottingham, said:

“This study explores the effect of exposure to nicotine ecig vapour on mice. It shows that exposure to ecig vapour with nicotine causes more cancers than fresh air, but no more than you might reasonably expect by chance.

“It also shows that e-cig vapour without nicotine causes fewer cancers than fresh air.

“The findings are based on very small numbers and need to be interpreted with extreme caution.

“The comparison between mice breathing vapour and mice breathing air is not statistically significant. There is no sample size justification and no power calculation. There is no message to the public here – I suspect these results are just noise.”



Prof Peter Hajek, Director of the Tobacco Dependence Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), said:

“The study has unclear relevance for human vapers.

“Rodents were exposed to what are for them huge concentrations of chemicals that bear no resemblance to human exposure from vaping. Several animals in fact died during these exposures.

“The authors assigned the effects they observed to a carcinogen NNK – but NNK has been measured before in human vapers, and it is known that exposure from vaping is either negligible or none.”



‘Electronic-cigarette smoke induces lung adenocarcinoma and bladder urothelial hyperplasia in mice’ by v et al. was published in PNAS at 8pm UK time on Monday 7 October.

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1911321116
LNS

Nachrichten zum Thema

14. Oktober 2019
Sacramento – Kalifornische Strände und Naturparks werden zur rauchfreien Zone. Der Gouverneur des US-Westküstenstaates unterzeichnete ein entsprechendes Gesetz, das den Konsum von Zigaretten
Kalifornien verbietet Rauchen an Stränden und in Naturparks
11. Oktober 2019
Berlin – Der Bundestag muss sich mit der Forderung nach einem Rauchverbot in Autos mit Kindern und Schwangeren beschäftigen. Der Bundesrat beschloss heute, einen entsprechenden Gesetzentwurf ins
Bundestag muss sich mit Rauchverbot in Autos im Beisein von Kindern und Schwangeren beschäftigen
7. Oktober 2019
Berlin – Unionsfraktionschef Ralph Brinkhaus strebt eine rasche Einigung mit der SPD auf eine Ausweitung des Verbots für Tabakwerbung an. „Ich würde gern einen konstruktiven Strich unter das Thema
Brinkhaus für schnelle Einigung mit SPD beim Tabakwerbeverbot
4. Oktober 2019
Scottsdale – Die Ursache der schweren Atemwegserkrankungen, an denen in den USA bereits mehr als tausend Anwender von E-Zigaretten erkrankt sind, ist weiterhin unbekannt. Mediziner der Mayo Clinic
E-Zigaretten: Mediziner vermuten jetzt chemisch-toxische Lungenschädigung
4. Oktober 2019
Washington – Die Zahl der Lungenerkrankungen und Todesfälle in den USA, die mit dem Rauchen von E-Zigaretten in Verbindung gebracht werden, ist weiter deutlich gestiegen. Wie die US-Gesundheitsbehörde
E-Zigaretten: Zahl der Lungenerkrankten in den USA gestiegen
4. Oktober 2019
Melbourne – Im Haupteinkaufsviertel der australischen Stadt Melbourne darf nicht mehr geraucht werden. Am Freitag trat in der Metropole im Südosten des Landes ein neues Rauchverbot rund um die Bourke
Melbourne verbietet Rauchen rund um Haupteinkaufsmeile
27. September 2019
Moskau – Die Menschen in Russland dürfen künftig nicht mehr auf dem Balkon rauchen. Das sieht eine Änderung beim Brandschutz vor, wie ein Sprecher des Notfallministeriums gestern in Moskau der Agentur
LNS
NEWSLETTER