Skip to Main Content
Table 3

Results reported by prospective studies evaluating the effect of alcoholic beverages on lung cancer riska

StudyComparisonBeerComparisonWineComparisonLiquorComments
Pollack et al., 1984 (Hawaii) (11) No relationship with beer. RRs not presented  >1.5 liters of wine/mo vs. not drinking wine 2.2 (P = 0.03) >1.5 liters of liquor/mo vs. not drinking liquor 2.6 (P < 0.01) Japanese men 
Chow et al., 1992 (U.S.) (19) Never used 1.0  Not evaluated (same) 1.0 White M. Adjusted for never, other tobacco only, occasional/past daily use or current daily use of 1–19, 20–29, 30+ cigarettes) 
 <3 times/mo 1.2 (0.8–1.9)    1.3 (0.9–2.0)  
 3–5 1.4 (0.8–2.3)    1.3 (0.8–2.1)  
 6–13 1.7 (1.0–2.9)    1.3 (0.7–2.2)  
 >13 1.1 (0.6–1.9)    1.0 (0.5–1.8)  
 Used before 1.8 (1.1–3.0)    1.9 (1.1–3.1)  
       Mortality study. 
       20 yr of follow-up. Ex-drinkers did not smoke more than current drinkers 
Potter et al., 1992 (U.S.) (22) None 1.0 Consumption was similar for cases and controls  1+ drinks/day vs. none 1.1 (0.6–2.3) Nested case-control study within the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Adjusted for six categories of pack-yr 
 <1 beer/day 0.6 (0.3–1.2)      
 1+ beers/day 1.9 (0.96–3.9)      
Prescott et al., 1999 (Denmark) (32) <1/wk 1.0 (same) 1.0 (same) 1.0 RRs presented here are for M. Analyses in F were based in small number of cases 
 1–13 1.1 (0.8–1.4)  0.8 (0.6–0.97)  1.2 (0.97–1.5)  
 13+ 1.4 (1.0–1.8)  0.4 (0.2–0.86)  1.5 (0.99–2.1)  
Woodson et al., 1999 (Finland) (33) Highest (>11.6 g/day) vs. lowest quartile (0.01–1.6 g/day) 0.9 (0.7–1.1) High (2.1–67.5 g/day) vs. low (0.09–2) 0.8 (0.6–1.1) Highest (>22.8 g/day) vs. lowest quartile (0.01–2.6 g/day) 1.1 (0.9–1.3) M heavy smokers 
  P for trend 0.19  P for trend 0.02  P for trend 0.12  
StudyComparisonBeerComparisonWineComparisonLiquorComments
Pollack et al., 1984 (Hawaii) (11) No relationship with beer. RRs not presented  >1.5 liters of wine/mo vs. not drinking wine 2.2 (P = 0.03) >1.5 liters of liquor/mo vs. not drinking liquor 2.6 (P < 0.01) Japanese men 
Chow et al., 1992 (U.S.) (19) Never used 1.0  Not evaluated (same) 1.0 White M. Adjusted for never, other tobacco only, occasional/past daily use or current daily use of 1–19, 20–29, 30+ cigarettes) 
 <3 times/mo 1.2 (0.8–1.9)    1.3 (0.9–2.0)  
 3–5 1.4 (0.8–2.3)    1.3 (0.8–2.1)  
 6–13 1.7 (1.0–2.9)    1.3 (0.7–2.2)  
 >13 1.1 (0.6–1.9)    1.0 (0.5–1.8)  
 Used before 1.8 (1.1–3.0)    1.9 (1.1–3.1)  
       Mortality study. 
       20 yr of follow-up. Ex-drinkers did not smoke more than current drinkers 
Potter et al., 1992 (U.S.) (22) None 1.0 Consumption was similar for cases and controls  1+ drinks/day vs. none 1.1 (0.6–2.3) Nested case-control study within the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Adjusted for six categories of pack-yr 
 <1 beer/day 0.6 (0.3–1.2)      
 1+ beers/day 1.9 (0.96–3.9)      
Prescott et al., 1999 (Denmark) (32) <1/wk 1.0 (same) 1.0 (same) 1.0 RRs presented here are for M. Analyses in F were based in small number of cases 
 1–13 1.1 (0.8–1.4)  0.8 (0.6–0.97)  1.2 (0.97–1.5)  
 13+ 1.4 (1.0–1.8)  0.4 (0.2–0.86)  1.5 (0.99–2.1)  
Woodson et al., 1999 (Finland) (33) Highest (>11.6 g/day) vs. lowest quartile (0.01–1.6 g/day) 0.9 (0.7–1.1) High (2.1–67.5 g/day) vs. low (0.09–2) 0.8 (0.6–1.1) Highest (>22.8 g/day) vs. lowest quartile (0.01–2.6 g/day) 1.1 (0.9–1.3) M heavy smokers 
  P for trend 0.19  P for trend 0.02  P for trend 0.12  
a

Smoking-adjusted RR and their 95% CIs. For method of adjusting for smoking see Table 1 or comments in this table if study is not listed in Table 1.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal