groundhoggpeggy wrote:
Which alcohol is supposed to be linked to breast cancer?
All types. Its the alcohol that is the problem.
groundhoggpeggy wrote:
But... the alcohol breast cancer stat... I would want to have a look at that globally...
Ask and you shall receive.
Here you go!
Last November, the World Cancer Fund and the American Institute For Cancer Research (WCRD/AICR) released their second expert report on cancer. The report is the largest and most comprehensive ever done on the relationship between lifestyle and cancer and involved over 100 scientists from 30 different countries.
While the WCRF/AICR commissioned and funded the report, the content is derived from an independent panel of 21 world renowned scientists. The Expert Panel reviewed more than 7,000 large-scale studies and worked for five years to assess the research. Their conclusions and recommendations are firmly based on the available scientific evidence.
Specifically on World Wide Data on Alcohol and Breast Cancer... (Quoting from the report)..
Eleven cohort studies,183 263-27131 case-control studies272-310 and 2 ecological studies311 312 investigated total alcoholic drinks and breast cancer at all ages. Four cohort studies313- 316 and 19 case-control studies289 302 317-333investigated alcoholic drinks. Twenty-five cohort studies,315 334-364 29 case-control studies,280 282 317 318 332 333 365-391 and 4 ecological studies392-395investigated ethanol intake.
Total alcoholic drinks
Six cohort studies showed increased risk for the highest intake group of total alcoholic drinks when compared to the lowest,263 264 267-271 which was statistically significant in three.267 269 270 Three studies showed non-significant decreased risk265 266;one study showed no effect on risk.183
Meta-analysis was possible on three cohort studies, giving a summary effect estimate of 1.07 (95% CI 0.89–1.29) per five times/week, with no heterogeneity (figures 4.8.13 and 4.8.14).263 271
Two cohort studies reported separately on premenopausal breast cancer.264 268Both showed increased risk for the highest intake group when compared to the lowest, which was statistically significant in one.268 Three cohort studies reported separately on postmenopausal breast cancer.264 268 269
Two showed increased risk for the highest intake group when compared to the lowest,264 269which was statistically significant in one.269The other study showed non-significant decreased risk.268
Four additional cohort studies investigated alcoholic drinks.313-316All four showed non-significant increased risk for breast cancer at unspecified ages. One study also reported statistically significant increased risk for postmenopausal breast cancer and non-significant decreased risk for pre-
menopausal breast cancer.315
Most of the 22 case-control studies that reported on all- age breast cancer and total alcoholic drinks showed increased risk for the highest intake group when compared to the lowest,273 274 280 282-285 287 288 290 295 297 301-303 305-309 318 which was statistically significant in seven.273 284 285 306 318 A few studies showed decreased risk, none was statistically significant.276 291 295 298 302 304Meta-analysis was possible on 10 case-control studies reporting on breast cancer at all ages, giving a summary estimate of 1.05 (95% CI 1.03–1.07) for an increment of five times/week, with high heterogeneity(figures 4.8.13 and 4.8.14).274 276 284 286 287 296 306 307 No heterogeneity was apparent with menopausal status. Twelve case-control studies reported separately on premenopausal breast cancer.272 275 277-279 281 282 292-294 297 299 300 306 310 318Ten showed increased risk,272 275 277 279 281 292 294 299 300 306 318 which was statistically significant in two.272 281 294 299 300 306 One study showed no effect on risk297and the other study showed non-significant decreased risk.278 282 310Six studies reported separately on postmenopausal breast cancer.277 278 281 282 289 297 306 310
Five of these showed increased risk,278 281 282 289 306 310 which was statistically significant in one.306 The other study reported non-significant decreased risk.297
In addition, 19 case-control studies investigated alcoholic drinks.289 302 318-323 325-331 333Most showed increased risk for the highest intake group when compared to the lowest, which was statistically significant in six.302 318 321 323 327 329
Two studies showed non-significant decreased risk317 324;one study showed no effect on risk.332Four studies reported separate results for premenopausal breast cancer.318 320 322 333
Of these, two studies showed non-significant increased risk,318 333 one showed statistically significant increased risk in parous women,322 and one showed non-significant decreased risk.320
Seven studies reported separately on postmenopausal breast cancer.289 318 320-322 326 333 All seven studies showed increased risk for the highest intake group when compared to the lowest, which was statistically significant in three,318 321 333 and in oestrogen-sensitive cancers in a fourth study.326 Both ecological studies showed statistically significant, positive associations.311 312
When data were analysed separately for drink type (beers, wines, or spirits), they became insufficient to draw any firm conclusions.
Alcohol (as ethanol)
Twelve cohort studies investigated ethanol intake and all-age breast cancer.315 336 338-341 343-350 352-354 361-364 Eight cohort studies showed increased risk for the highest intake group when compared to the lowest,315 336 338-341 343 344 346-348 350 352-354 361 362 which was statistically significant in six.338 341 344 350 352 354 361 Four studies showed decreased risk,345 349 363 364 which was statistically significant in one.364
Meta-analysis was possible on nine cohort studies, giving a summary effect estimate of 1.10 (95% CI 1.06–1.14) per 10 g/day, with high heterogeneity (figure 4.8.15). Heterogeneity could be partly explained by differential adjustment for age and reproductive history.
Seven cohort studies reported separately on premenopausal breast cancer.315 340 343 347 348 352-354 361 Six studies showed increased risk,340 343 347 348 352-354 361 which was statistically significant in three.340 348 352 One study showed a non-significant decreased risk.315
Meta-analysis was possible on five studies, giving a summary estimate of 1.09 (95% CI 1.01–1.17) per 10 g/day, with moderate heterogeneity.315 340 343 347 352 Eighteen cohort studies reported separately on postmenopausal breast cancer.315 334 335 337 339 340 342 347 348 351- 361 Fifteen studies showed increased risk,315 335 337 339 342 347 348 351 353-361 which was statistically significant in seven.315 335 337 339 342 347 357-359 Three studies showed non-significant decreased risk.334 340 352
Meta-analysis was possible on 11 studies, giving a summary effect estimate of 1.08 (95% CI 1.05–1.10) per 10g/day, with moderate heterogeneity.315 334 335 339 340 347 352 355 358-360 Pooled analysis from 6 cohort studies (over 320 000 participants, followed up for up to 11 years, more than 4300 breast cancer cases) showed a significant increased risk with increasing intake, with an effect estimate of 1.09 (95% CI 1.04–1.03) per 10 g/day.396 No significant heterogeneity was observed by menopausal status.
A separate pooled analysis of 53 case-control studies (more than 58 000 cases and more than 95 000 controls) showed a significant increased risk with increasing intake, with an effect estimate of 7.1 per cent increased risk (95% CI 5.5–8.7%; p < 0.00001) per 10 g/day.397 No significant heterogeneity was observed by menopausal status.
Eighteen case-control studies investigated ethanol intake and all-age breast cancer.280 282 317 318 332 365-371 374 378 379 381 383 384 386 387 390 391 Twelve case-control studies showed increased risk for the highest intake group when compared to the lowest, 280 318 332 365 367-369 374 379 381 383 384 386 387 391 which was statistically significant in five.280 318 368 369 374 381 384 Five studies showed decreased risk,317 366 370 371 378 390 which was statistically significant in one378; and one study showed no effect on risk.282 Meta-analysis was possible on seven case-control studies, giving a summary effect estimate of 1.06 (95% CI 1.04–1.09) per 10 g/day, with moderate heterogeneity (figure 4.8.16).
When case-control data were analysed separately by menopausal status, the meta-analysis for premenopausal breast cancer was consistent with that for all ages (1.08 (95% CI 1.04–1.13) per 10 g/day; nine studies),317 318 369 373 376 377 380 383 389 but the meta-analysis for postmenopausal breast cancer was not (1.00 (95% CI 0.98–1.01) per 10 g/day; 10 studies).318 369 372 373 375 380 382 383 385 388 All four ecological studies showed statistically significant positive associations.392-395
The general mechanisms through which alcohol could plausibly cause cancer are outlined below. In addition, most experimental studies in animals have shown that alcohol intake is associated with increased breast cancer risk. Alcohol interferes with oestrogen pathways in multiple ways, influencing hormone levels and oestrogen receptors.398
There is an interaction between folate and alcohol affecting breast cancer risk: increased folate status partially mitigates the risk from increased alcohol consumption.399
(And Their Conclusion)
There is ample, generally consistent evidence from case-control and cohort studies. A dose-response relationship is apparent.
There is robust evidence for mechanisms operating in humans. The evidence that alcoholic drinks are a cause of premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer is convincing. No threshold was identified.
In Health
Jeff