Table 3

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

Pollack et al., 1984 (Hawaii) (11)No relationship with beer. RRs not presented>1.5 liters of wine/mo vs. not drinking wine2.2 (P = 0.03)>1.5 liters of liquor/mo vs. not drinking liquor2.6 (P < 0.01)Japanese men
Chow et al., 1992 (U.S.) (19)Never used1.0Not evaluated(same)1.0White M. Adjusted for never, other tobacco only, occasional/past daily use or current daily use of 1–19, 20–29, 30+ cigarettes)
<3 times/mo1.2 (0.8–1.9)1.3 (0.9–2.0)
3–51.4 (0.8–2.3)1.3 (0.8–2.1)
6–131.7 (1.0–2.9)1.3 (0.7–2.2)
>131.1 (0.6–1.9)1.0 (0.5–1.8)
Used before1.8 (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)None1.0Consumption was similar for cases and controls1+ drinks/day vs. none1.1 (0.6–2.3)Nested case-control study within the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Adjusted for six categories of pack-yr
<1 beer/day0.6 (0.3–1.2)
1+ beers/day1.9 (0.96–3.9)
Prescott et al., 1999 (Denmark) (32)<1/wk1.0(same)1.0(same)1.0RRs presented here are for M. Analyses in F were based in small number of cases
1–131.1 (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 0.19P for trend 0.02P for trend 0.12
  • a Smoking-adjusted RR and their 95% CIs. For method of adjusting for smoking see Table 1<$REFLINK> or comments in this table if study is not listed in Table 1<$REFLINK> .