With the advent of nicotine replacement therapy, the consumption of the nicotine is on the rise. Nicotine is considered to be a safer alternative of tobacco. The IARC monograph has not included nicotine as a carcinogen. However there are various studies which show otherwise. We undertook this review to specifically evaluate the effects of nicotine on the various organ systems. A computer aided search of the Medline and PubMed database was done using a combination of the keywords. All the animal and human studies investigating only the role of nicotine were included. Nicotine poses several health hazards. There is an increased risk of cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal disorders. There is decreased immune response and it also poses ill impacts on the reproductive health. It affects the cell proliferation, oxidative stress, apoptosis, DNA mutation by various mechanisms which leads to cancer. It also affects the tumor proliferation and metastasis and causes resistance to chemo and radio therapeutic agents. The use of nicotine needs regulation. The sale of nicotine should be under supervision of trained medical personnel.

Head and neck cancers are the most common cancers in developing countries, especially in Southeast Asia. Head and neck cancers are more common in males compared to females. This is mainly attributed to tobacco, areca nut, alcohol, etc. Oral cancers are most common amongst all head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCC). HNSCC in the developing world differ from those in the Western world in terms of age, site of disease, etiology, and molecular biology. Poverty, illiteracy, advanced stage at presentation, lack of access to health care, and poor treatment infrastructure pose a major challenge in management of these cancers. The annual GDP (gross domestic product) spent on health care is very low in developing countries compared to the developed countries. Cancer treatment leads to a significant financial burden on the cancer patients and their families. Several health programs have been implemented to curb this rising burden of disease. The main aims of these health programs are to increase awareness among people regarding tobacco and to improve access to health care facilities, early diagnosis, treatment, and palliative care.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of published literature on systemic therapeutic options in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) undergoing chemoradiation. Docetaxel was assessed as a radiosensitizer in this situation. METHODS: This was a randomized phase II/III study. Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with LAHNSCC planned for chemoradiation and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and who were cisplatin-ineligible were randomly assigned in 1:1 to either radiation alone or radiation with concurrent docetaxel 15 mg/m² once weekly for a maximum of seven cycles. The primary end point was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: The study recruited 356 patients between July 2017 and May 2021. The 2-year DFS was 30.3% (95% CI, 23.6 to 37.4) versus 42% (95% CI, 34.6 to 49.2) in the RT and Docetaxel-RT arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.673; 95% CI, 0.521 to 0.868; P value = .002). The corresponding median overall survival (OS) was 15.3 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 22.0) and 25.5 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 32.5), respectively (log-rank P value = .035). The 2-year OS was 41.7% (95% CI, 34.1 to 49.1) versus 50.8% (95% CI, 43.1 to 58.1) in the RT and Docetaxel-RT arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.747; 95% CI, 0.569 to 0.980; P value = .035). There was a higher incidence of grade 3 or above mucositis (22.2% v 49.7%; P < .001), odynophagia (33.5% v 52.5%; P < .001), and dysphagia (33% v 49.7%; P = .002) with the addition of docetaxel. CONCLUSION: The addition of docetaxel to radiation improved DFS and OS in cisplatin-ineligible patients with LAHNSCC. [Media: see text]

Background: Cancer incidence and mortality vary across the globe, with nearly two-thirds of cancer-related deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries. The rural-urban disparity in socio-demographic, behavioural, and lifestyle-related factors, as well as in access to cancer care, is one of the contributing factors. Population-based cancer registries serve as a measure for understanding the burden of cancer. We aimed to evaluate the rural-urban disparity in cancer burden and care of patients registered by an Indian population-based cancer registry. Methods: This study collected data from Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India, between 2017 and 2019. Sex and site-specific age-standardised rates for incidence and mortality per 100,000 population were calculated. Rural-urban disparities in cancer incidence and mortality were estimated through rate differences and standardised rate ratios (with 95% confidence intervals). Univariable and multivariable regressions were applied to determine any significant differences in socio-demographic and cancer-related variables according to place of residence (rural/urban). Crude and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results: 6721 cancer patients were registered during the study duration. Urban patients were older and had better literacy and socioeconomic levels, while rural patients had higher odds of having unskilled or semi-skilled professions. Diagnostic and clinical confirmation for cancer was significantly higher in urban patients, while verbal autopsy-based confirmation was higher in rural patients. Rural patients were more likely to receive palliative or alternative systems of medicine, and urban patients had higher chances of treatment completion. Significantly higher incidence and mortality were observed for oral cancer among urban men and for cervical cancer among rural women. Despite the higher incidence of breast cancer in urban women, significantly higher mortality was observed in rural women. Conclusions: Low- and middle-income countries are facing dual challenges for cancer control and prevention. Their urban populations experience unhealthy lifestyles, while their rural populations lack healthcare accessibility. The distinctness in cancer burden and pattern calls for a re-evaluation of cancer control strategies that are tailor-made with an understanding of urban-rural disparities. Context-specific interventional programmes targeting risk-factor modifications, cancer awareness, early detection, and accessibility to diagnosis and care are essential.