Editorial: Anaesthetists and infection.

R. Doll

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.6017.1032

1976-05-01

British Medical Journal

Abstract:equivalent of up to 40 cups of coffee,' and none were seen in a four-generation mouse study of animals exposed to caffeine in the drinking water at rates equivalent of up to 30 cups of coffee per day.3 Caffeine also got off to a bad start in tests for mutagenicity, with positive results in both Escherichia coli4 and Drosophila.5 Nevertheless, subsequent studies in mice with the dominant lethal assay6 7 were negative, and so were cytogenetic studies in mice.8 Like almost everything else, in high concentrations caffeine is cytotoxic to human lymphocytes maintained in tissue culture9-at concentrations 100 times higher than that achievable in the blood by drinking eight cups of coffee in quick succession. At lower concentrations nothing more than slight stimulation or inhibition of mitosis occurs. Laboratory tests of caffeine for carcinogenicity in animals, carried out a long time ago, gave essentially negative results.'0 These tests, however, would be regarded as inadequate by modern standards, and there is, moreover, a theoretical possibility that caffeine could act as a cocarcinogen by catalysing the formation of N-nitrosamines from secondary amines and nitrites in the stomach." To counterbalance the fear this possibility engenders there is evidence of anticarcinogenic effects of caffeine in animals exposed to known carcinogens'2-'5 and the fact that caffeine is rapidly and efficiently metabolised in man.16 Suspicion of a cancer risk for man has centred on the urinary tract since Cole17 18 reported a higher incidence of coffeedrinking in men (1 24: 1) and women (2-58: 1) with bladder cancer than among matched controls, and Shennan'9 drew attention to a strong correlation between coffee consumption and national mortality rates for renal cancer. The latest development in this area is a report from Sir Richard Doll and his colleagues in Oxford20 oftheir failure to find any association between either adenocarcinoma of the renal parenchyma (106 patients) or carcinoma of the renal pelvis (33 patients) and coffee consumption. They explain that because of the small numbers of subjects available for study a twoto threefold enhancement of cancer incidence by coffee cannot be excluded; but confidence in the reliability of their negative finding is increased by two facts. Firstly, Wynder and his colleagues21 also saw no evidence of an association between coffee consumption and renal cancer; and, secondly, the findings of the Oxford workers are consistent with there being a 1 8-fold excess incidence of cancer of the renal pelvis in men who smoked compared with non-smokers and a definite trend towards increased risk of this form of cancer in association with heavier cigarette consumption. These latter findings were to be expected, because agents which cause cancer in the urinary bladder commonly affect the renal pelvis similarly, and there is now a well-established association between bladder cancer risk and smoking of about the same order-a twofold excess. For the diehard puritan who cannot bring himself to accept that coffee might be harmless so far as cancer is concerned there is still the let-out that Schmauz and Cole'8 saw a particularly high risk of cancer of the renal pelvis among drinkers of seven or more cups of coffee per day: none of the patients or control subjects studied by the Oxford workers consumed as much as this. But for those who, not being gluttons for the brew, find the very smell of it pleasurable and mouth-watering the news from Oxford will provide at least some grounds for comfort.