Evidence Hub

Passive smoking and risk of pancreatic cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Xu-Dong Wang, Zihan Wang, Xu-Jie Wang

PeerJ, 2024

5,560 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Background Previous meta-analysis has demonstrated that no association was validated between passive smoking and pancreatic cancer. However, there is growing evidence on this issue recently. This study aimed to confirm this association. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to April 2024 for retrieval of full articles. Studies with the exposure of passive smoking and outcome of pancreatic cancer were eligible for the analysis. We generated pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using DerSimonian–Laird random-effects models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. Results Fourteen studies were included, with 5,560 pancreatic cancer patients. Passive smoking was associated with a moderate increased risk of pancreatic cancer (RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.11–1.30, p < 0.001). The results were consistent in both case-control (p=0.013) and cohort studies (p < 0.001) and in studies with high (p = 0.007) and moderate quality (p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, the risk was significant for both current (RR=1.91, 95% CI: 1.45-2.51, p < 0.001) and non-current smokers (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01-1.36, p = 0.037), for exposure both in adulthood (RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.06-1.31, p = 0.002) and childhood (RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.08-1.34, p = 0.001). However, only regular or daily exposure (RR=1.28, 95% CI: 1.08-1.50, p = 0.003), rather than exposing occasionally, seldom or few times per week (p = 0.421), to passive…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,560 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free