Comparison of carcinogen biomarkers in electronic cigarette users versus conventional cigarette users in the development of urothelial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
- 1Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Adam Malik Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.
- 2Department of Urology, Universitas Sumatera Utara Hospital, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia.
- 3Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia - Adam Malik Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.
Abstract
Introduction
Despite the increasing use of electronic cigarettes globally, limited understanding persists regarding their effects on urothelial cancer. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing carcinogen exposure associated with urothelial cancer development in electronic and conventional cigarette users.Material and methods
The study was conducted through a systematic search of multiple databases adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible articles were evaluated for quality using established scoring systems, and data were synthesized using a random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed, and sensitivity analysis was conducted. Included carcinogen substances were identified using the Collaborative on Health and the Environment Toxicant and Disease Database, including their potential association with urothelial cancer.Results
The search identified 1,221 records, of which 14 observational studies involving 14,065 participants met the inclusion criteria. A total of 28 carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic substances were detected in the urine of electronic cigarette users and compared with conventional cigarette users. These included compounds strongly associated with urothelial cancer (aromatic hydrocarbons and 2-naphthylamine), compounds with a limited association (tobacco-specific nitrosamines and metals), and compounds strongly associated with cancer in general (volatile organic compounds). The meta-analysis showed that only 2-hydroxyfluorene was significantly lower in electronic cigarette users compared with conventional cigarette users (SMD -0.53; 95% CI: from -0.60 to -0.46; p <0.00001). Other biomarkers - including cotinine, 1-hydroxypyrene, 2-naphthol, hydroxyfluorenes, NNAL, AAMA, and MHBMA - showed comparable concentrations between the two groups.Conclusions
Although several carcinogenic biomarkers appear at lower concentrations than in conventional cigarette users, multiple urothelial cancer-associated carcinogens remain detectable in the urine of electronic cigarette users, suggesting potential long-term carcinogenic risk.
Related
- Editorial: Beyond conventional biomarkers: unlocking immunotherapy response through novel biomarkers or combinatorial approaches
- Comparison of Hockey-Stick and Conventional Linear Ultrasound Transducers for Detection of Non-Displaced Dentoalveolar Fractures: An Ex Vivo Paired Comparative Study
- Comparison of ‘quilting sutures’ with ‘conventional sutures and drain placement’ after mastectomy: protocol for the BE-Quilt – a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial
- Circulating CARMN for acute myocardial infarction prognosis and its incremental effect when combined with conventional biomarkers
- Comparison of Atheroma Burden Changes Using Conventional vs. End-Diastolic Intravascular Ultrasound Segmentation ― Post Hoc Analysis of the PACMAN-AMI Study ―
BibTeX
@article{warli2026comparison,
title = {{Comparison of carcinogen biomarkers in electronic cigarette users versus conventional cigarette users in the development of urothelial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.}},
author = {Muhammad Haritsyah Warli and Syah Mirsya Warli and Dhirajaya Dharma Kadar and Ginanda Putra Siregar and Fauriski Febrian Prapiska and Stefanus Purnomo},
journal = {Central European journal of urology},
year = {2026},
month = may,
doi = {10.5173/ceju.2026.0020},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42903726},
note = {CC BY-NC-SA},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparison of carcinogen biomarkers in electronic cigarette users versus conventional cigarette users in the development of urothelial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
AU - Muhammad Haritsyah Warli
AU - Syah Mirsya Warli
AU - Dhirajaya Dharma Kadar
AU - Ginanda Putra Siregar
AU - Fauriski Febrian Prapiska
AU - Stefanus Purnomo
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/05/14
JO - Central European journal of urology
DO - 10.5173/ceju.2026.0020
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42903726
AB - Introduction Despite the increasing use of electronic cigarettes globally, limited understanding persists regarding their effects on urothelial cancer. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing carcinogen exposure associated with urothelial cancer development in electronic and conventional cigarette users.Material and methods The study was conducted through a systematic search of multiple databases adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible articles were evaluated for quality using established scoring systems, and data were synthesized using a random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed, and sensitivity analysis was conducted. Included carcinogen substances were identified using the Collaborative on Health and the Environment Toxicant and Disease Database, including their potential association with urothelial cancer.Results The search identified 1,221 records, of which 14 observational studies involving 14,065 participants met the inclusion criteria. A total of 28 carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic substances were detected in the urine of electronic cigarette users and compared with conventional cigarette users. These included compounds strongly associated with urothelial cancer (aromatic hydrocarbons and 2-naphthylamine), compounds with a limited association (tobacco-specific nitrosamines and metals), and compounds strongly associated with cancer in general (volatile organic compounds). The meta-analysis showed that only 2-hydroxyfluorene was significantly lower in electronic cigarette users compared with conventional cigarette users (SMD -0.53; 95% CI: from -0.60 to -0.46; p <0.00001). Other biomarkers - including cotinine, 1-hydroxypyrene, 2-naphthol, hydroxyfluorenes, NNAL, AAMA, and MHBMA - showed comparable concentrations between the two groups.Conclusions Although several carcinogenic biomarkers appear at lower concentrations than in conventional cigarette users, multiple urothelial cancer-associated carcinogens remain detectable in the urine of electronic cigarette users, suggesting potential long-term carcinogenic risk.
SN - 2080-4806
SN - 2080-4873
ER -