Cancer Research The Future of Cancer Research: Science and Patient Impact  Tumor Immunology: New Perspectives
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Husgafvel-Pursiainen, K.
Right arrow Articles by Benhamou, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Husgafvel-Pursiainen, K.
Right arrow Articles by Benhamou, S.
[Cancer Research 60, 2906-2911, June 1, 2000]
© 2000 American Association for Cancer Research


Epidemiology and Prevention

p53 Mutations and Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in a Multicenter Study on Lung Cancer1

Kirsti Husgafvel-Pursiainen2, Paolo Boffetta, Annamaria Kannio, Fredrik Nyberg, Göran Pershagen, Anush Mukeria, Vali Constantinescu, Cristina Fortes and Simone Benhamou

Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Toxicology, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, FIN-00250 Helsinki, Finland, [K. H-P., A. K.]; IARC, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, France [P. B., F. N.]; Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, S-17177 Stockholm, Sweden [F. N., G. P.]; Institute of Carcinogenesis, 115478 Moscow, Russia [A. M.]; Institute of Public Health, 76256 Bucharest, Romania [V. C.]; Regional Epidemiological Centre, I-00198 Rome, Italy [C. F.]; and National Institute of Health and Medical Research (U521), 94805 Villejuif Cedex, France [S. B.]


    ABSTRACT
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Biomarker data may provide a way to strengthen the link between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure and lung cancer shown in epidemiological studies. We conducted a multicenter case-control study to investigate the association between ETS exposure and lung cancer in never-smokers using p53 mutations as a biomarker of tobacco-related carcinogenesis. Paraffin-embedded tissue or fresh tissue samples from 91 never-smokers and 66 smokers with histologically confirmed lung cancer and interview data about smoking habits and ETS exposure were analyzed for mutations in the p53 gene. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate logistic regression. Among the lifelong nonsmokers, the overall mutation prevalence was 10% (nine cases). Among 48 never-smokers ever exposed to spousal ETS, 13% (six cases) showed mutations. Smokers exhibited 17 (26%) mutations. A 3-fold [odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2–7.2] increased risk of p53 mutation was observed for smokers as compared with all never-smokers combined (i.e., irrespective of ETS exposure). The increase was 4.4-fold (95% CI, 1.2–16.2) when compared with never-smokers without ETS exposure. Among never-smokers, the risk of mutation was doubled (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 0.5–8.7) for exposure to spousal ETS only, based on 6 exposed cases with mutation and 42 exposed cases without mutation. The risk was 1.5 (95% CI, 0.2–8.8) for those ever exposed to spousal or workplace ETS as compared with those never exposed to spousal or workplace ETS. For smokers, the most common mutation type was G:C to T:A transversion (31%), whereas G:C to A:T transitions were predominant among never smokers (57%). In conclusion, our study indicates a significant 3–4-fold increased risk of p53mutation in smoking lung cancer cases, and it suggests that mechanisms of lung carcinogenesis in ETS-exposed never-smokers include mutations in the p53 gene, similar to that seen in smokers. However, the mutation patterns observed also suggest a difference between smokers and never-smokers. Clearly, additional investigations of the role of p53 mutation as a biomarker for tobacco-related carcinogenesis, including that related to ETS, are indicated.


    INTRODUCTION
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Tobacco smoking is the primary cause of lung cancer (1 , 2) . Exposure of nonsmokers to ETS3 also constitutes a health risk (3 , 4) . Epidemiological studies have revealed an association between the risk of lung cancer and exposure to ETS in lifetime nonsmokers, although possible effects of bias and confounding have been under debate (5 , 6) . Recently, large studies conducted in the United States and Europe have reported small increases in the risk of lung cancer among lifelong nonsmokers regularly exposed to ETS (7, 8, 9) . Biological markers have been of great value in increasing our knowledge about tobacco-related health hazards, carcinogenesis in particular (10 , 11) . The extensive data on the biological effects of tobacco smoking have allowed the use of biomarkers in studies on ETS exposure. In fact, biomarker data have greatly contributed to the overall evidence for the association between ETS exposure and lung cancer in nonsmokers (5 , 12) . Nonsmokers exposed to ETS have been demonstrated to take up and metabolize tobacco smoke constituents in both experimental and field situations (3 , 13, 14, 15) . Furthermore, biomarker data have demonstrated biological effects in nonsmokers exposed to ETS similar to those found in smokers, such as DNA or protein adducts to tobacco smoke carcinogens (16, 17, 18, 19) .

Genetic alterations, in particular, mutations in genes controlling cell growth and proliferation, have potential in discovering crucial biological alterations associated with long-term exposure to carcinogens; consequently, they may aid in unraveling pathways leading to tumor formation. In this context, mutations of the tumor suppressor gene p53, which encodes a multifactorial transcription factor controlling cellular response to DNA damage (20) , represent a potentially useful biomarker in the search for etiology, molecular mechanisms, and, hopefully, prevention of environmental cancers (21, 22, 23) . Mutations of the p53 gene occur in about 50% of human lung tumors (24 , 25) , and the mutations observed in lung cancer appear to have typical features (25 , 26) . The international database on p53mutations records mutation data for about 1000 cases of lung cancer (27) . Surprisingly, however, data on smoking status are available for only about one-fourth of these cases, and very few cases are identifiable as documented never-smokers (28) .

This molecular epidemiology investigation was aimed at addressing the association between ETS exposure and lung cancer in never-smokers using the frequency and type of p53 mutations in lung tumors as a biomarker of tobacco-related carcinogenesis.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Study Subjects.
The present study on p53 mutations in lung cancer was conducted in Sweden, France, Russia, Romania, Italy, Poland, Brazil, and Germany between 1992 and 1997. The study was based on the setting for a larger epidemiological study on ETS (9) . However, it was designed particularly to form a separate biomarker study on p53 mutations and aimed at including all new never-smoker cases in the participating hospitals. Thus, the study subjects comprised cases of lung cancer who were all lifelong nonsmokers and were enrolled and diagnosed in the participating hospitals. A group of smoking cases matched to never-smokers on age and gender was included in most centers. However, tumor tissue samples were not available for all eligible cases. Consequently, some of the eight study centers provided very few cases, and in practice, five centers (Sweden, Russia, France, Romania, and Italy) provided 96% of the total subjects. All subjects studied were Caucasians. All smokers had smoked cigarettes; six of the smokers had also smoked a pipe. Never-smoker cases were defined as subjects who had not smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. A common extensive questionnaire covering smoking habits; ETS exposure that occurred at home, work, or during childhood; exposure to occupational carcinogens; diet; family history of cancer; and sources of indoor air pollution other than ETS was administered to each subject in an in-person interview conducted at each participating center. ETS exposure from spouse and workplace was measured as the number of hours of exposure per day multiplied by the years of exposure; in previous studies using the same questionnaire, this index was associated with lung cancer risk (9) . Although we did not aim at performing an individual matching of smoking and never-smoking cases on gender and age, women were oversampled among smokers to obtain a series broadly similar to that of never-smokers. Our series of cases is therefore not representative of population series of lung cancer cases from the study areas but was aimed primarily at being similar with respect to age and gender to never-smoker cases. Informed consent was obtained from each study subject. The study was approved by the local ethics committee at each study center.

PET blocks or fresh tissue samples from 198 cancer patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of lung cancer were sent for p53 mutation analyses to the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. A histological tissue section was cut from each PET block, stained with H&E, and examined by a pathologist to confirm the presence of lung tumor tissue. For most of the cases, the pathologist gave an evaluation of the approximate area of tumor tissue in each block, and blocks containing >=50% tumor tissue were selected for DNA extraction and mutation analysis whenever available. However, the presence of nontumor tissue was not of major concern because wild-type sequences do not hamper mutation detection by the screening procedure used (see below). Finally, 157 cancer cases (contributing 229 PET blocks and 20 fresh tumor specimens) with DNA yields suitable for analysis were investigated for the presence of p53 mutation. Primary tumor samples were available for all patients, except for two patients with metastasis, three patients with positive lymphatic tissue, and two patients with positive pleural biopsy. One patient presented with two primary lung tumors, one of large cell cancer histology and the other of adenocarcinoma histology.

p53 Mutation Analysis.
DNA was obtained from fresh and paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tumor tissue samples by phenol-chloroform extraction as described previously (29) . We screened the lung tumor DNAs for p53alterations in exons 4–9 and 11 using DGGE. PCR-DGGE of exons 5–9 of the p53 gene was performed as described previously (29 , 30) . For exon 4, the PCR primers were 5'-CGCCCGCCGCGCCCCGCGCCCGTCCCGCGCCCCCCGCCCGCGGCCCCTGCACCAGCCCCCTC-3' and 5'-GCAACTGACCGTGCAAGT-3'. For exon 11, the 5' primer was 5'-CTCCCTGATTATGTCTCC-3', and the 3' primer with GC-clamp was 5'-CGCCCGCCGCGCCCCGCGCCCGTCCCGCCGCCCCCGCCCGTCAGT GGGGAACAAGAAG-3'. The p53 mutations were identified using Sequenase Version 2.0 (United States Biochemical) and Thermo Sequenase radiolabeled terminator cycle sequencing (Amersham Life Science, Inc.) with primer designs as described previously (29 , 30) .

For DGGE runs, both positive and negative controls were included. The strict criterion used for a positive finding in DGGE or in sequence analysis was that the same band pattern or sequence alteration must be detected in at least two independent PCR amplification products from the original tumor DNA. We had three mutation-positive cases for which a clear, positive DGGE result (mutation homoduplex band, wild-type homoduplex band, and the corresponding two heteroduplex bands) was detected repeatedly in several independent PCRs, but sequencing yielded a readable sequence alteration only once; these DNAs remained in the final results as DGGE-positive DNAs. The difficulties met in sequencing PET samples were not entirely unexpected because cross-linking and fragmentation of DNA caused by tissue fixation are known to cause problems. DGGE screening of p53 mutations, in contrast, has been proven to be a very powerful technique, with a greater sensitivity than many other screening techniques (31 , 32) or direct sequencing (33) , as also experienced in our laboratory (29 , 34) . Furthermore, the sensitivity of DGGE and its versions is not diminished by the presence of wild-type sequences; on the contrary, the presence of both types of sequences results in formation of mutation-wild-type heteroduplexes, which increase the sensitivity (31 , 35) . Reliability and reproducibility of the present mutation analysis strategy were also shown by independent detection of the same mutated sequence or DGGE band pattern from more than one tissue block from the same tumor. All exon 6 (codon 213) polymorphisms of the p53 gene were distinguished from somatic mutations by DGGE (36) and sequencing, and exon 4 (codon 72) polymorphism was excluded by primer design.

Statistical Analysis.
Tobacco consumption was expressed as cigarette equivalents/day (1 cigar or cigarillo = 2 cigarette equivalents; 1 pipe = 4 cigarette equivalents). Ex-smokers were defined as people who stopped smoking at least 1 year prior to diagnosis. The average daily consumption was calculated by dividing the cumulative lifetime tobacco consumption by the overall duration of smoking. Cumulative consumption was expressed as pack-years (1 pack = 20 cigarette equivalents; 1 pack-year = 1 pack/day for 1 year). Exposure to ETS from the spouse and at the workplace was quantified as weighted duration (number of hours/day x years of exposure).

ORs of p53 mutation and the corresponding 95% CIs were calculated by unconditional logistic regression using the GLIM statistical package (37) . All risk estimates were adjusted for age (<=60 years, 61–70 years, and >70 years), gender, center (Northern Europe, Western Europe, and Eastern Europe plus Brazil), and histology (adenocarcinoma versus other types of cancer). Quantitative variables related to tobacco consumption and ETS exposure were dichotomized at the median in the total population so that sufficient numbers of individuals were included in each subgroup. Numbers in the analysis of the type of mutation were too sparse to permit a stringent statistical analysis.


    RESULTS
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The main characteristics of the lung cancer cases investigated are given in Table 1Citation . The study included 91 (58%) cases who were never-smokers and 66 (42%) cases who were smokers (42 current smokers and 24 ex-smokers; mean number of pack-years, 34.5; SD = 22.9). The subjects were mostly women (111 cases; 71%). Adenocarcinoma was the most common histological type (89 cases; 57%), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (35 cases; 22%).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1 Characteristics of the lung cancer population studied for the presence of p53 mutation

 
Of 91 lifelong nonsmokers, 9 cases (10%) had a p53 mutation (Table 2)Citation . Among smokers, 17 mutation-positive cases (26%) were detected (Table 2)Citation . Among smoking cases from the different study areas, p53 mutations were seen in 13 of 42 cases (31%) from Northern Europe, 4 of 14 cases (29%) from Western Europe, and 0 of 10 cases (0%) from Eastern Europe and Brazil. Among never-smokers, p53 mutations were seen in 5 of 57 cases (8.8%) from Northern Europe, 1 of 9 cases (11%) from Western Europe, and 3 of 25 cases (12%) from Eastern Europe and Brazil, respectively. No significant difference was observed between these study areas (P = 0.11 for smokers; P = 0.87 for never-smokers). The multivariate analysis showed that smokers had a 3-fold (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.2–7.2) elevated risk of p53 mutation as compared with all never-smokers combined (i.e., irrespective of ETS exposure; Table 2Citation ). The risk was increased for both former smokers (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.0–11) and current smokers (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.0–7.3). When compared with never-smokers without ETS exposure, the risk of mutation in smokers was 4.4-fold (95% CI, 1.2–16). The risks associated with a higher number of pack-years or a longer duration of smoking were slightly higher than those in the corresponding groups with lower exposure; however, the differences were not significant (Table 2)Citation . The PET samples from three centers (Bucharest, 4 never-smokers and 10 smokers; Poznan, 4 never-smokers and 0 smokers; and Bremen, 1 never-smoker and 0 smokers) were of a somewhat lower quality, possibly resulting in nondifferential underestimation of mutations. When these samples were excluded, the risk of p53mutation was 4.1 (95% CI, 1.5–12) for ever smokers, 3.7 (95% CI, 1.1–12) for smokers who had smoked for less than 30 pack-years, and 4.8 (95% CI, 1.4–17) for those who had smoked for 30 pack-years or more, as compared with never-smokers.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2 ORs (95% CI) of p53 mutations in tumor tissue among lung cancer cases studied according to smoking habits

 
The never-smoker group included 48 cases (53%) who had ever in their lifetime been exposed to ETS at home via smoking by their spouse and 59 cases (65%) who reported ETS exposure ever at work; altogether, 71 cases (78%) had ever been exposed to ETS (Table 3)Citation . The frequency of p53 mutations in these ever-exposed never-smoker groups was 13%, 8%, and 10% respectively. The risk of p53 mutation was doubled among never-smoking subjects ever exposed to spousal ETS as compared with never-smokers who were never exposed to ETS (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 0.5–8.7; Table 3Citation ). The risk associated with ETS exposure at the workplace was 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2–5.7), and the risk associated with spousal or workplace ETS exposure was 1.5 (95% CI, 0.2–8.8; Table 3Citation ). The risk estimates for ETS exposure were statistically unstable. In further analyses by duration of ETS exposure, no clear trend was observed. Exposure to ETS in childhood was not related to p53 mutations (data not shown). The risks for ETS-exposed never-smokers were practically unchanged after exclusion of the three centers that had lower quality samples.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3 ORs (95% CI) of p53 mutations in tumors of never-smoking lung cancer cases by ETS exposure

 
The types of p53 mutations observed in never-smoking and smoking cases are shown in Table 4Citation . In total, successful sequencing of 23 mutations demonstrated 20 missense (87%), 2 nonsense (9%), and 1 silent (4%) p53mutation. The most common type of base substitution was G:C to A:T transition, which was the predominant type seen in never-smokers (four of seven mutations). G:C to T:A transversion was the second most common type of mutation, with the majority of these seen in smokers (Table 5)Citation .


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4 Types of p53 mutations detected in lung tumors from never-smokers and smokers

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 5 Distribution of G:C to A:T transitions and G:C to T:A transversions of the p53 gene among never-smoking and smoking lung cancer cases

 
Of the known hot spot codons of human lung cancer, codons 249 (Arg to Trp) and 282 were both mutated once in smokers. In never-smokers, hot spot codons 248, 249 (Arg to Met), and 273 all carried one mutation. The most frequently mutated location was codon 176, which had three mutations in smokers and one mutation in a never-smoker (Table 4)Citation .

With regard to tumor histology, 22 of the 26 mutations detected had occurred in the two main histological types, adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma, and only 4 mutations had occurred in the other cell types. The frequency of mutation-positive adenocarcinomas was 23% (8 of 35 cases) in smokers, 10% (3 of 30 cases) in never-smokers exposed to spousal ETS, and 8% (2 of 24 cases) in never-smokers without spousal ETS exposure. In squamous cell carcinomas, frequencies were 38% (8 of 21 cases), 13% (1 of 8 cases), and 0% (0 of 6 cases) in the corresponding categories.


    DISCUSSION
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
To our knowledge, the present study is the first report on prevalence of p53 mutations in nonsmoking lung cancer cases with accurate data on lifetime cumulative ETS exposure. We analyzed p53 mutations in lung tumors from 157 patients, 91 of whom were lifelong nonsmokers. As compared with all never-smokers combined (i.e., irrespective of ETS exposure), a 3-fold (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.2–7.2) increase in p53 mutations was found among smokers. The risk of mutation was doubled (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 0.5–8.7) in never-smokers with exposure to spousal ETS as compared with nonexposed never-smokers. In smokers, the increase in mutations was 4.4-fold (95% CI, 1.2–16.2) when compared with never-smokers without ETS exposure.

Literature data on p53 mutations in lung tumors from lifelong nonsmokers are sparse. In recent works (38, 39, 40, 41) , the mutation frequencies observed in nonsmokers (20–28%) have generally been lower than those seen in smokers but still higher than those reported here. The observed differences in mutation frequencies might be explained by the more stringent definition of never-smoker used in our study in comparison with some of the previous investigations. Additionally, it may be possible that the lower quality DNAs have affected the number of mutations detected. Exclusion of those cases gave a mutation frequency of 11% (9 of 82 cases) for never-smokers and 30% (17 of 56 cases) for smokers. Influence from this source is unlikely because the frequencies come close to the respective values from the total study population. Our prevalences are in good agreement with findings from a recent study from Sweden (42) . An overall mutation frequency of 13.8% (9 of 65 cases) was observed in never-smokers, and a frequency of 7.9% (3 of 38 cases) was observed in never-smokers with low level domestic radon exposure. For adenocarcinoma, the predominant cell type in never-smokers, mutation frequency was 13.2% in never-smokers and was as low as 14.6% in smokers (42) .

The prevalence of p53 mutations observed in smokers was 26%. Typically, mutation prevalence close to 50% has been observed in association with long-term heavy smoking, with lower prevalences reported in some studies, especially for lighter smokers (25 , 26) . In our study, half of the smokers had a lifetime cigarette smoke exposure of <30 pack-years, and the moderate cigarette consumption may have influenced the mutation frequency. This is supported by the observation that smokers with higher pack-years or longer duration of smoking had slightly higher risks of mutation. Another point may be the high proportion of women (61%) and adenocarcinomas (52%), which was due to the effort to make the case series of smokers comparable with that of never-smokers. Mutations have been reported to be less frequent in adenocarcinoma than in squamous cell carcinoma or small cell carcinoma of the lung in many studies (26 , 42) , including our own previous work (34) and the present study.

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and the tobacco-specific nitrosamines NNK and N'-nitrosonornicotine are the major known lung carcinogens present in mainstream tobacco smoke and ETS. G:C to T:A transversions in p53 are considered hallmarks of smoking-related lung carcinomas (24 , 25) and are assumed to arise as a direct consequence of benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide-DNA adducts (43) . In keeping with this, five of six G:C to T:A transversions observed in this study occurred in smokers. The only such transversion in never-smokers occurred in a case without past exposure to ETS. In ETS, NNK and other tobacco-specific nitrosamines form an important class of lung carcinogens, with concentrations 1–2 orders of magnitude higher in undiluted ETS as compared with those in mainstream smoke (4) . Despite the fact that nonsmokers are exposed to ETS, which is strongly diluted, measurable amounts of NNK and its metabolites have been detected in ETS-exposed nonsmokers (19) . Animal data have demonstrated that NNK is a strong lung-specific carcinogen (44) that induces predominantly G:C to A:T transitions in treated animals and other experimental systems (19 , 45 , 46) . In our data, 57% of the mutations identified in lifelong nonsmokers were G:C to A:T transitions. The prevalence in smokers was 25%. The present data on the predominance of G:C to A:T transitions in never-smokers is supported by observations from other studies and the international p53 database (28 , 38, 39, 40, 41) .

Among both smokers and never-smokers, half of the G:C to A:T substitutions observed had occurred at CpG dinucleotide sites. The major mutational hot spots in human cancers occur at CpG sequences in the p53 gene. It is generally presumed that the majority of G:C to A:T mutations at these sites result from the endogenous deamination of methylated cytosine residues, proposed as molecular markers of endogenous mutagenesis processes (25 , 47) . Alternatively, mutational hot spots at methylated CpG sequences in the p53 gene may be a consequence of preferential carcinogen binding at these sites (48 , 49) .

Of the typical hot spot codons of lung cancer, three were mutated in never-smokers (codons 248, 249, and 273), and two were mutated in smokers (codon 249 and 282). The most frequently mutated site, with two mutations in smokers and one in never-smokers, was codon 176, one of the mutation hot spots of human cancer other than lung cancer (27) . Codon 176 mutations have been found by a Chinese study (50) to be overrepresented in esophageal cancer, a cancer type associated with tobacco and alcohol use, but the mutational specificity has been contradicted (51) .

Our study was of a multicentric nature, which was required to obtain a sufficiently large series of never-smoking cases. Such an approach may introduce confounding by variables associated with study center, including genetic susceptibility factors and environmental factors such as diet. We approached this problem by adjusting for study center in the multivariate analyses, although it should be recognized that such an adjustment might have been imperfect in the analysis including both smoking and never-smoking cases because of the uneven distribution of smokers and never-smokers across study centers. As another way to tackle the problem, we carried out analyses restricted to the two study areas (Sweden and France) that contributed the majority of the subjects (63 never-smoking and 53 smoking cases). The mutation frequencies were 9.5% for never-smokers and 30% for smokers, not much different from those in the total population. The restricted analysis yielded a 4-fold (95% CI, 1.3–13) risk of p53 mutation for smokers as compared with all never-smokers combined and indicated an OR of 2.2 (95% CI, 0.3–19) for mutation in nonexposed never-smokers in comparison to the ETS-exposed ones. In all, our primary aim to obtain a representative series of never-smoker cases and select smokers to match the never-smokers on gender and age may have resulted in underestimation of the prevalence of p53 mutation in smokers. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to a population series of lung cancer cases from the study areas.

Use of biomarkers may obviously be one of the few ways available to strengthen the association between lung cancer risk and exposure to ETS observed in epidemiological studies (12 , 52) . Our study indicated a 3–4-fold increased risk of p53 mutation in smokers, and it suggests that mechanisms of lung carcinogenesis in ETS-exposed never-smokers include mutations in the p53 gene, similar to that in smokers. In addition, differences other than those related to exposure levels are likely to exist in carcinogenic exposures and/or mechanisms between smokers and never-smokers, as suggested by the difference observed in mutation patterns. In conclusion, our work suggests that p53 mutation could serve as a sensitive marker of tobacco-related carcinogenesis, but further confirmation is needed due to statistically unstable results. Clearly, additional investigations of the role of p53 mutation as a biomarker are indicated.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Tuula Suitiala (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland) and Valerie Gaborieau (IARC, Lyon, France) for excellent technical assistance, Dr. Nadia Jourenkova-Mironova (National Institute of Health and Medical Research, Villejuif, France) for contribution to the statistical analysis, and Drs. Henrik Wolff and Sisko Anttila (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland) for reviewing the histopathology of the samples undergoing mutation analysis. We also thank the following persons for their contribution to the study in three centers: Dr. Halina Batura-Gabryel (Department of Lung Diseases, Medical School, Poznan, Poland); Dr. Ana M. B. Menezes (Pelotas, Brazil); and Dr. Wolfgang Ahrens (Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (BIPS), Bremen, Germany).


    FOOTNOTES
 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1 Supported by the European Commission, DG-XII, Grant EV5V-CT94–0555; the Ministry of Environment, Finland, Drno 17/742/94; and the Association for Cancer Research (Villejuif, France). Back

2 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Toxicology, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 41 aA, FIN-00250 Helsinki, Finland. Phone: 358-9-47472212; Fax: 358-9-47472208; E-mail: Kirsti.Husgafvel-Pursiainen{at}occuphealth.fi Back

3 The abbreviations used are: ETS, environmental tobacco smoke; PET, paraffin-embedded tissue; DGGE, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; NNK, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone. Back

Received 10/25/99. Accepted 4/ 3/00.


    REFERENCES
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. IARC. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans. Tobacco Smoking, Vol. 38. Lyon, France: IARC, 1986.
  2. Doll R., Peto R., Wheatley K., Gray R., Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 40 years’ observations on male British doctors. Br. Med. J., 309: 901-911, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. National Research Council. Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and Assessing Health Effects. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1986.
  4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, Vol. EPA/600/6–90/006F. Washington DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1993.
  5. Dockery D. W., Trichopoulos D. Risk of lung cancer from environmental exposures to tobacco smoke. Cancer Causes Control, 8: 333-345, 1997.[Medline]
  6. Nyberg F., Isaksson I., Harris J. R., Pershagen G. Misclassification of smoking status and lung cancer risk from environmental tobacco smoke in never-smokers. Epidemiology, 8: 304-309, 1997.[Medline]
  7. Fontham E. T., Correa P., Reynolds P., Wu-Williams A., Buffler P. A., Greenberg R. S., Chen V. W., Alterman T., Boyd P., Austin D. F., Liff J. Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in nonsmoking women: a multicenter study. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 271: 1752-1759, 1994.[Abstract]
  8. Cardenas V. M., Thun M. J., Austin H., Lally C. A., Clark W. S., Greenberg R. S., Heath C. W., Jr. Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer mortality in the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study II. Cancer Causes Control, 8: 57-64, 1997.[Medline]
  9. Boffetta P., Agudo A., Ahrens W., Benhamou E., Benhamou S., Darby S. C., Ferro G., Fortes C., Gonzalez C. A., Jockel K. H., Krauss M., Kreienbrock L., Kreuzer M., Mendes A., Merletti F., Nyberg F., Pershagen G., Poglabeln H., Riboli E., Schmid G., Simonato L., Tredaniel J., Whitley E., Wichmann H. E., Winck C., Zambon P., Saracci R. Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 90: 1440-1450, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Hecht S. S. Tobacco and cancer: approaches using carcinogen biomarkers and chemoprevention. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 833: 91-111, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Law M. R., Morris J. K., Watt H. C., Wald N. J. The dose-response relationship between cigarette consumption, biochemical markers and risk of lung cancer. Br. J. Cancer, 75: 1690-1693, 1997.[Medline]
  12. Hackshaw A. K. Lung cancer and passive smoking. Stat. Methods Med. Res., 7: 119-136, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Hecht S. S., Carmella S. G., Murphy S. E., Akerkar S., Brunnemann K. D., Hoffmann D. A tobacco-specific lung carcinogen in the urine of men exposed to cigarette smoke. N. Engl. J. Med., 329: 1543-1546, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Parsons W. D., Carmella S. G., Akerkar S., Bonilla L. E., Hecht S. S. A metabolite of the tobacco-specific lung carcinogen 4- (methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone in the urine of hospital workers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 7: 257-260, 1998.[Abstract]
  15. Repace J. L., Jinot J., Bayard S., Emmons K., Hammond S. K. Air nicotine and saliva cotinine as indicators of workplace passive smoking exposure and risk. Risk Analysis, 18: 71-83, 1998.[Medline]
  16. Maclure M., Katz R. B., Bryant M. S., Skipper P. L., Tannenbaum S. R. Elevated blood levels of carcinogens in passive smokers. Am. J. Public Health, 79: 1381-1384, 1989.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Hammond S. K., Coghlin J., Gann P. H., Paul M., Taghizadeh K., Skipper P. L., Tannenbaum S. R. Relationship between environmental tobacco smoke exposure and carcinogen-hemoglobin adduct levels in nonsmokers. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 85: 474-478, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Crawford F. G., Mayer J., Santella R. M., Cooper T. B., Ottman R., Tsai W. Y., Simon-Cereijido G., Wang M., Tang D., Perera F. P. Biomarkers of environmental tobacco smoke in preschool children and their mothers. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 86: 1398-1402, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Hecht S. S. Biochemistry, biology, and carcinogenicity of tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 11: 559-603, 1998.[Medline]
  20. Levine A. J. p53, the cellular gatekeeper for growth and division. Cell, 88: 323-331, 1997.[Medline]
  21. Harris C. C. p53 tumor suppressor gene: at the crossroads of molecular carcinogenesis, molecular epidemiology, and cancer risk assessment. Environ. Health Perspect., 104: 435-439, 1996.
  22. Sidransky D., Hollstein M. Clinical implications of the p53 gene. Annu. Rev. Med., 47: 285-301, 1996.[Medline]
  23. Hollstein M., Soussi T., Thomas G., von Brevern M. C., Bartsch H. P53 gene alterations in human tumors: perspectives for cancer control. Recent Res. Cancer Res., 143: 369-389, 1997.[Medline]
  24. Hollstein M., Sidransky D., Vogelstein B., Harris C. C. p53 mutations in human cancers. Science (Washington DC), 253: 49-53, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Greenblatt M. S., Bennett W. P., Hollstein M., Harris C. C. Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene: clues to cancer etiology and molecular pathogenesis. Cancer Res., 54: 4855-4878, 1994.[Free Full Text]
  26. Hussain S. P., Harris C. C. Molecular epidemiology of human cancer: contribution of mutation spectra studies of tumor suppressor genes. Cancer Res., 58: 4023-4037, 1998.[Free Full Text]
  27. Hainaut P., Hernandez T., Robinson A., Rodriguez-Tome P., Flores T., Hollstein M., Harris C. C., Montesano R. IARC database of p53 gene mutations in human tumors and cell lines: updated compilation, revised formats and new visualisation tools. Nucleic Acids Res., 26: 205-213, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Hernandez-Boussard T. M., Hainaut P. A specific spectrum of p53 mutations in lung cancer from smokers: review of mutations compiled in the IARC p53 database. Environ. Health Perspect., 106: 385-391, 1998.[Medline]
  29. Kannio A., Ridanpää M., Koskinen H., Partanen T., Anttila S., Collan Y., Hietanen E., Vainio H., Husgafvel-Pursiainen K. A molecular and epidemiological study on bladder cancer: p53 mutations, tobacco smoking, and occupational exposure to asbestos. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 5: 33-39, 1996.[Abstract]
  30. Ridanpää M., Karjalainen A., Anttila S., Vainio H., Husgafvel-Pursiainen K. Genetic alterations in p53 and K-ras in lung cancer in relation to histopathology of the tumor and smoking history of the patient. Int. J. Oncol., 5: 1109-1117, 1994.
  31. Hamelin R., Jego N., Laurent-Puig P., Vidaud M., Thomas G. Efficient screening of p53 mutations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis in colorectal tumors. Oncogene, 8: 2213-2220, 1993.[Medline]
  32. Fodde R., Losekoot M. Mutation detection by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE). Hum. Mutat., 3: 83-94, 1994.[Medline]
  33. García-Delgado M., González-Navarro C. J., Napal M. C., Baldonado C., Vizmanos J. L., Gúllon A. Higher sensitivity of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis than sequencing in the detection of mutations in DNA from tumor samples. BioTechniques, 24: 72-76, 1998.[Medline]
  34. Husgafvel-Pursiainen K., Karjalainen A., Kannio A., Anttila S., Partanen T., Ojajärvi A., Vainio H. Lung cancer and past occupational exposure to asbestos. Role of p53 and K-ras mutations. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol., 20: 667-674, 1999.
  35. Guldberg P., Nedergaard T., Nielsen H. J., Olsen A. C., Ahrenkiel V., Zeuthen J. Single-step DGGE-based mutation scanning of the p53 gene: application to genetic diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Hum. Mutat., 9: 348-355, 1997.[Medline]
  36. Wild C. P., Ridanpää M., Anttila S., Lubin R., Soussi T., Husgafvel-Pursiainen K., Vainio H. p53 antibodies in the sera of lung cancer patients: comparison with p53 mutation in the tumour tissue. Int. J. Cancer, 64: 176-181, 1995.[Medline]
  37. GLIM. The Generalised Linear Interactive Modelling System. 2nd ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: The Nuffield Press, 1987.
  38. Huang C., Taki T., Adachi M., Konishi T., Higashiyama M., Miyake M. Mutations in exon 7 and 8 of p53 as poor prognostic factors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Oncogene, 16: 2469-2477, 1998.[Medline]
  39. Marchetti A., Pellegrini S., Sozzi G., Bertacca G., Gaeta P., Buttitta F., Carnicelli V., Griseri P., Chella A., Angeletti C. A., Pierotti M., Bevilacqua G. Genetic analysis of lung tumours of non-smoking subjects: p53 gene mutations are constantly associated with loss of heterozygosity at the FHIT locus. Br. J. Cancer, 78: 73-78, 1998.[Medline]
  40. Takagi Y., Osada H., Kuroishi T., Mitsudomi T., Kondo M., Niimi T., Saji S., Gazdar A. F., Takahashi T., Minna J. D. P53 mutations in non-small-cell lung cancers occurring in individuals without a past history of active smoking. Br. J. Cancer, 77: 1568-1572, 1998.[Medline]
  41. Gealy R., Zhang L., Siegfried J. M., Luketich J. D., Keohavong P. Comparison of mutations in the p53 and K-ras genes in lung carcinomas from smoking and nonsmoking women. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 8: 297-302, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Yngveson A., Williams C., Hjerpe A., Lundeberg J., Söderkvist P., Pershagen G. p53 mutations in lung cancer associated with residential radon exposure. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 8: 433-438, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Denissenko M. F., Pao A., Tang M., Pfeifer G. P. Preferential formation of benzo[a]pyrene adducts at lung cancer mutational hot spots in P53. Science (Washington DC), 274: 430-432, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Hoffmann D., Rivenson A., Hecht S. S. The biological significance of tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines: smoking and adenocarcinoma of the lung. Crit. Rev. Toxicol., 26: 199-211, 1996.[Medline]
  45. Ronai Z. A., Gradia S., Peterson L. A., Hecht S. S. G to A transitions and G to T transversions in codon 12 of the Ki-ras oncogene isolated from mouse lung tumors induced by 4- (methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) and related DNA methylating and pyridyloxobutylating agents. Carcinogenesis (Lond.), 14: 2419-2422, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Tiano H. F., Wang R. L., Hosokawa M., Crespi C., Tindall K. R., Langenbach R. Human CYP2A6 activation of 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK): mutational specificity in the gpt gene of AS52 cells. Carcinogenesis (Lond.), 15: 2859-2866, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Hollstein M., Shomer B., Greenblatt M., Soussi T., Hovig E., Montesano R., Harris C. C. Somatic point mutations in the p53 gene of human tumors and cell lines: updated compilation. Nucleic Acids Res., 24: 141-146, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Denissenko M. F., Chen J. X., Tang M. S., Pfeifer G. P. Cytosine methylation determines hot spots of DNA damage in the human P53 gene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94: 3893-3898, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Chen J. X., Zheng Y., West M., Tang M. S. Carcinogens preferentially bind at methylated CpG in the p53 mutational hot spots. Cancer Res., 58: 2070-2075, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Lung M. L., Chan W. C., Zong Y. S., Tang C. M., Fok C. L., Wong K. T., Chan L. K., Lau K. W. p53 mutational spectrum of esophageal carcinomas from five different geographical locales in China. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 5: 277-284, 1996.[Abstract]
  51. Bennett W. P., von Brevern M. C., Zhu S. M., Bartsch H., Muehlbauer K. R., Hollstein M. C. p53 mutations in esophageal tumors from a high incidence area of China in relation to patient diet and smoking history. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 6: 963-966, 1997.[Abstract]
  52. Blot W. J., McLaughlin J. K. Passive smoking and lung cancer risk: what is the story now?. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 90: 1416-1417, 1998.[Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
W. Zhou, R. S. Heist, G. Liu, K. Asomaning, D. P. Miller, D. S. Neuberg, J. C. Wain, T. J. Lynch, and D. C. Christiani
Second Hand Smoke Exposure and Survival in Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients
Clin. Cancer Res., December 1, 2006; 12(23): 7187 - 7193.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Res.Home page
F. Le Calvez, A. Mukeria, J. D. Hunt, O. Kelm, R. J. Hung, P. Taniere, P. Brennan, P. Boffetta, D. G. Zaridze, and P. Hainaut
TP53 and KRAS Mutation Load and Types in Lung Cancers in Relation to Tobacco Smoke: Distinct Patterns in Never, Former, and Current Smokers
Cancer Res., June 15, 2005; 65(12): 5076 - 5083.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
G. Li, E. M. Sturgis, L.-E. Wang, R. M. Chamberlain, C. I. Amos, M. R. Spitz, A. K. El-Naggar, W. K. Hong, and Q. Wei
Association of a p73 exon 2 G4C14-to-A4T14 polymorphism with risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck
Carcinogenesis, October 1, 2004; 25(10): 1911 - 1916.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Vet PatholHome page
L. A. Snyder, E. R. Bertone, R. M. Jakowski, M. S. Dooner, J. Jennings-Ritchie, and A. S. Moore
p53 Expression and Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure in Feline Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Vet. Pathol., May 1, 2004; 41(3): 209 - 214.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
W.-M. Gao, M. Romkes, R. D. Day, J. M. Siegfried, J. D. Luketich, H. H. Mady, M. F. Melhem, and P. Keohavong
Association of the DNA repair gene XPD Asp312Asn polymorphism with p53 gene mutations in tobacco-related non-small cell lung cancer
Carcinogenesis, October 1, 2003; 24(10): 1671 - 1676.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
K. Leffondre, M. Abrahamowicz, J. Siemiatycki, and B. Rachet
Modeling Smoking History: A Comparison of Different Approaches
Am. J. Epidemiol., November 1, 2002; 156(9): 813 - 823.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
K Husgafvel-Pursiainen
Molecular biomarkers in studies on environmental cancer
J. Epidemiol. Community Health, October 1, 2002; 56(10): 730 - 731.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Jpn J Clin OncolHome page
M. Miyaki, T. Iijima, R. Ishii, Y. Kita, M. Koike, T. Kuroki, and T. Mori
Increased Frequency of p53 Mutation in Sporadic Colorectal Cancer from Cigarette Smokers
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2002; 32(6): 196 - 201.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Res.Home page
D. M. DeMarini, S. Landi, D. Tian, N. M. Hanley, X. Li, F. Hu, B. C. Roop, M. J. Mass, P. Keohavong, W. Gao, et al.
Lung Tumor KRAS and TP53 Mutations in Nonsmokers Reflect Exposure to PAH-Rich Coal Combustion Emissions
Cancer Res., September 1, 2001; 61(18): 6679 - 6681.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Res.Home page
K. H. Vahakangas, W. P. Bennett, K. Castren, J. A. Welsh, M. A. Khan, B. Blomeke, M. C. R. Alavanja, and C. C. Harris
p53 and K-ras Mutations in Lung Cancers from Former and Never-Smoking Women
Cancer Res., June 1, 2001; 61(11): 4350 - 4356.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
K. E. Anderson, S. G. Carmella, M. Ye, R. L. Bliss, C. Le, L. Murphy, and S. S. Hecht
Metabolites of a Tobacco-Specific Lung Carcinogen in Nonsmoking Women Exposed to Environmental Tobacco Smoke
J Natl Cancer Inst, March 7, 2001; 93(5): 378 - 381.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
P. Hainaut and G. P. Pfeifer
Patterns of p53 G{->}T transversions in lung cancers reflect the primary mutagenic signature of DNA-damage by tobacco smoke
Carcinogenesis, March 1, 2001; 22(3): 367 - 374.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Husgafvel-Pursiainen, K.
Right arrow Articles by Benhamou, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Husgafvel-Pursiainen, K.
Right arrow Articles by Benhamou, S.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online