Search

Modest drinking has been repeatedly discussed in scientific papers as protective against certain diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, but in most cases, alcohol worsens health conditions, especially when consumed at high risk levels. The complexity of the risk relationship between alcohol and health conditions has confused clinicians as to whether it should be recommended. The study aims to balance the risks and benefits of modest drinking. This retrospective cohort study of 430,016 adults recruited from a standard health-screening program since 1994, with 11,031 deaths identified as of 2008. Drinking distinguished “modest drinker” (no more than one drink a day) from “regular drinker”. Mortality risks including all-cause mortality and diseases-specific mortality with hazard ratio (HR) were calculated by adjusting for 15 confounders. Life table was used for life expectancy. Risk predictors were subjected to Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to identify significant predictors in multivariate models and life expectancy analysis. Nearly one out of 4 males (23%) was a modest drinker, who gained 0.94 year (95% CI 0.65–1.23 year) in life over non-drinker and had 8% reduction in adjusted all-cause mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86–0.97). In contrast, regular drinkers had 43% increase in overall mortality (HR 1.43, CI 1.35–1.52) and shortened life by 6.9 years (95% CI 6.6–7.1 years). As most drinkers also smoked, 59% in modest and 75% in regular, the combined effect shortened life by 2.0 years (95% CI 1.6–2.4 years) in modest drinker and 10.3 years (95% CI 9.8–10.7 years) in regular drinker. Cancer were increased in modest drinkers for oral (HR 2.35, CI 1.38–4.01) and esophageal (HR 3.83, CI 1.90–7.73) cancer. The gain of one year by modest drinkers was erased by a two to fourfold increase in oral and esophageal cancer and that drinking beyond modest amount led to a large loss of life expectancy. Given that drinkers are prone to cross the line of drinking, clinicians should balance the risks and benefits of drinking, as well as the understanding of whether the patient is at risk for addiction.

Reducing lung cancer risk by modifying diet is highly desirable. We investigated whether different U.S. dietary patterns were associated with lung cancer risk. Dietary patterns were derived using exploratory factor analysis for 2139 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases and 2163 frequency-matched controls. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Highest adherence (highest vs. lowest quintile) to the “Tex-Mex”, “fruits and vegetables” and “American/Western” patterns was associated with a 55% reduced (OR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.37–0.56; P P = 0.001) and 45% increased (OR = 1.45; 95% CI = 1.18–1.78; P P for interaction = 0.03) and “American/Western” (P for interaction = 0.02) patterns. Our study first showed that the “Tex-Mex” dietary pattern was associated with a reduced lung cancer risk. Also, the “fruits and vegetables” and “American/Western” patterns affected lung cancer risk and the effects were further modified by host genetic background.

The objective of this study was to develop markedly improved risk prediction models for lung cancer using a prospective cohort of 395,875 participants in Taiwan. Discriminatory accuracy was measured by generation of receiver operator curves and estimation of area under the curve (AUC). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, age, gender, smoking pack-years, family history of lung cancer, personal cancer history, BMI, lung function test, and serum biomarkers such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), bilirubin, alpha fetoprotein (AFP), and c-reactive protein (CRP) were identified and included in an integrative risk prediction model. The AUC in overall population was 0.851 (95% CI = 0.840–0.862), with never smokers 0.806 (95% CI = 0.790–0.819), light smokers 0.847 (95% CI = 0.824–0.871), and heavy smokers 0.732 (95% CI = 0.708–0.752). By integrating risk factors such as family history of lung cancer, CEA and AFP for light smokers, and lung function test (Maximum Mid-Expiratory Flow, MMEF25–75%), AFP and CEA for never smokers, light and never smokers with cancer risks as high as those within heavy smokers could be identified. The risk model for heavy smokers can allow us to stratify heavy smokers into subgroups with distinct risks, which, if applied to low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening, may greatly reduce false positives.