35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Global burden of cancer in 2020 attributable to alcohol consumption: a population-based study

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Alcohol use is causally linked to multiple cancers. We present global, regional, and national estimates of alcohol-attributable cancer burden in 2020 to inform alcohol policy and cancer control across different settings globally.

          Methods

          In this population-based study, population attributable fractions (PAFs) calculated using a theoretical minimum-risk exposure of lifetime abstention and 2010 alcohol consumption estimates from the Global Information System on Alcohol and Health (assuming a 10-year latency period between alcohol consumption and cancer diagnosis), combined with corresponding relative risk estimates from systematic literature reviews as part of the WCRF Continuous Update Project, were applied to cancer incidence data from GLOBOCAN 2020 to estimate new cancer cases attributable to alcohol. We also calculated the contribution of moderate (<20 g per day), risky (20–60 g per day), and heavy (>60 g per day) drinking to the total alcohol-attributable cancer burden, as well as the contribution by 10 g per day increment (up to a maximum of 150 g). 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) were estimated using a Monte Carlo-like approach.

          Findings

          Globally, an estimated 741 300 (95% UI 558 500–951 200), or 4·1% (3·1–5·3), of all new cases of cancer in 2020 were attributable to alcohol consumption. Males accounted for 568 700 (76·7%; 95% UI 422 500–731 100) of total alcohol-attributable cancer cases, and cancers of the oesophagus (189 700 cases [110 900–274 600]), liver (154 700 cases [43 700–281 500]), and breast (98 300 cases [68 200–130 500]) contributed the most cases. PAFs were lowest in northern Africa (0·3% [95% UI 0·1–3·3]) and western Asia (0·7% [0·5–1·2]), and highest in eastern Asia (5·7% [3·6–7·9]) and central and eastern Europe (5·6% [4·6–6·6]). The largest burden of alcohol-attributable cancers was represented by heavy drinking (346 400 [46·7%; 95% UI 227 900–489 400] cases) and risky drinking (291 800 [39·4%; 227 700–333 100] cases), whereas moderate drinking contributed 103 100 (13·9%; 82 600–207 200) cases, and drinking up to 10 g per day contributed 41 300 (35 400–145 800) cases.

          Interpretation

          Our findings highlight the need for effective policy and interventions to increase awareness of cancer risks associated with alcohol use and decrease overall alcohol consumption to prevent the burden of alcohol-attributable cancers.

          Funding

          None.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

          Summary Background Rigorous analysis of levels and trends in exposure to leading risk factors and quantification of their effect on human health are important to identify where public health is making progress and in which cases current efforts are inadequate. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a standardised and comprehensive assessment of the magnitude of risk factor exposure, relative risk, and attributable burden of disease. Methods GBD 2019 estimated attributable mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 87 risk factors and combinations of risk factors, at the global level, regionally, and for 204 countries and territories. GBD uses a hierarchical list of risk factors so that specific risk factors (eg, sodium intake), and related aggregates (eg, diet quality), are both evaluated. This method has six analytical steps. (1) We included 560 risk–outcome pairs that met criteria for convincing or probable evidence on the basis of research studies. 12 risk–outcome pairs included in GBD 2017 no longer met inclusion criteria and 47 risk–outcome pairs for risks already included in GBD 2017 were added based on new evidence. (2) Relative risks were estimated as a function of exposure based on published systematic reviews, 81 systematic reviews done for GBD 2019, and meta-regression. (3) Levels of exposure in each age-sex-location-year included in the study were estimated based on all available data sources using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression method, or alternative methods. (4) We determined, from published trials or cohort studies, the level of exposure associated with minimum risk, called the theoretical minimum risk exposure level. (5) Attributable deaths, YLLs, YLDs, and DALYs were computed by multiplying population attributable fractions (PAFs) by the relevant outcome quantity for each age-sex-location-year. (6) PAFs and attributable burden for combinations of risk factors were estimated taking into account mediation of different risk factors through other risk factors. Across all six analytical steps, 30 652 distinct data sources were used in the analysis. Uncertainty in each step of the analysis was propagated into the final estimates of attributable burden. Exposure levels for dichotomous, polytomous, and continuous risk factors were summarised with use of the summary exposure value to facilitate comparisons over time, across location, and across risks. Because the entire time series from 1990 to 2019 has been re-estimated with use of consistent data and methods, these results supersede previously published GBD estimates of attributable burden. Findings The largest declines in risk exposure from 2010 to 2019 were among a set of risks that are strongly linked to social and economic development, including household air pollution; unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing; and child growth failure. Global declines also occurred for tobacco smoking and lead exposure. The largest increases in risk exposure were for ambient particulate matter pollution, drug use, high fasting plasma glucose, and high body-mass index. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor globally for attributable deaths was high systolic blood pressure, which accounted for 10·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 9·51–12·1) deaths (19·2% [16·9–21·3] of all deaths in 2019), followed by tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 8·71 million (8·12–9·31) deaths (15·4% [14·6–16·2] of all deaths in 2019). The leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable DALYs globally in 2019 was child and maternal malnutrition, which largely affects health in the youngest age groups and accounted for 295 million (253–350) DALYs (11·6% [10·3–13·1] of all global DALYs that year). The risk factor burden varied considerably in 2019 between age groups and locations. Among children aged 0–9 years, the three leading detailed risk factors for attributable DALYs were all related to malnutrition. Iron deficiency was the leading risk factor for those aged 10–24 years, alcohol use for those aged 25–49 years, and high systolic blood pressure for those aged 50–74 years and 75 years and older. Interpretation Overall, the record for reducing exposure to harmful risks over the past three decades is poor. Success with reducing smoking and lead exposure through regulatory policy might point the way for a stronger role for public policy on other risks in addition to continued efforts to provide information on risk factor harm to the general public. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Proportion and number of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Fewer cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 epidemic in the Netherlands

              The dreadful consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) put an unprecedented pressure on health-care services across the globe. 1 The Netherlands, a country with 17·4 million inhabitants that provides its citizens with universal access to essential health-care services—with the general practitioner as the gatekeeper to secondary care—is no exception in this regard. The first patient with COVID-19 in the Netherlands was confirmed on Feb 27, 2020, in the southern part of the country. 2 Thereafter, the disease spread rapidly throughout the country. Subsequently, strict social distancing policies were implemented by the Dutch government as of March 15, 2020, to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.3, 4 The mayhem caused by COVID-19 has brought about substantial changes in cancer diagnosis in the Netherlands. Data from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry in the period between Feb 24, 2020, and April 12, 2020—which are based on initial case ascertainment through pathological cancer notifications from the Nationwide Network of Histopathology and Cytopathology—show that there is a notable decrease in cancer diagnoses when compared with the period before the COVID-19 outbreak. This effect was most pronounced for skin cancers (figure ) and observed across all age groups and geographical regions, and almost all cancer sites (appendix). Several arguments might explain this decrease. First, individuals with potential, non-specific symptoms of cancer might have barriers to consulting a general practitioner, including moral concerns about wasting the general practitioner's time for non-COVID-19-related symptoms, assumptions about insufficient capacity for essential non-COVID-19-related health-care services, and anxiety about acquiring COVID-19 in a health-care setting. Second, most of the general practitioner consultations for non-acute issues are transitioned to telehealth. A general practitioner might, therefore, postpone initial investigations for symptoms that do not immediately hint towards a potential cancer diagnosis, resulting in delayed or postponed hospital referrals. Third, hospitals might have postponed diagnostic evaluation or have longer turnaround times for diagnostic evaluation because many hospital-based resources are being allocated to tackle COVID-19. Lastly, national screening programmes for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer are temporarily halted as of March 16, 2020, to alleviate the demand on the health-care system due to COVID-19. The effect of this pause in cancer diagnosis might be more pronounced after extended periods of follow-up. However, this effect might be less notable for cervical cancer because screening aims to identify precancerous lesions. Collectively, fewer cancer diagnoses in the COVID-19 era will result from patient, doctor, and system factors. 5 Figure Number of cancer diagnoses by week in the Netherlands in the period between Jan 6, 2020 (calendar week 2) and April 12, 2020 (calendar week 15) Basal cell carcinoma of the skin is not included in the statistics. The point estimates for the change in cancer diagnoses per calendar week are based on the mean total number of cancer diagnoses in the calendar weeks from 2 to 8; that is, the period before the COVID-19 outbreak in the Netherlands. Approximately 3400 malignancies were notified per week to the Netherlands Cancer Registry in the calendar weeks from 2 to 8. Of note, these figures do not yet include cases diagnosed in one of the 74 hospitals in the Netherlands. COVID-19=coronavirus disease 2019. The upsetting findings of fewer cancer diagnoses were initially disseminated among the Dutch community on April 2, 2020, and again on April 15, 2020, by the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation—which hosts the Netherlands Cancer Registry—to create awareness of this issue. The aims of this dissemination were multifold. First, individuals were encouraged to consult their general practitioner whenever symptoms continued to be troublesome. Second, general practitioners were encouraged to refer patients with suspected cancer to oncology specialists. Third, an appeal was made to restart national cancer screening programmes. Lastly, misconceptions were eliminated about a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 in a health-care setting because of inadequate policies for infection control at the institutional level and resource constraints in the delivery of essential oncological care. Priorities for cancer care amid the COVID-19 pandemic will be meticulously triaged on the basis of a multitude of factors that are outside the scope of this Comment. General frameworks to inform cancer treatment decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed elsewhere.6, 7, 8, 9 It does merit brief acknowledgment that the effect of a reasonable delay in the management of particular low-risk malignancies (eg, many skin cancers) will only marginally affect the quantity and quality of life. Conversely, the treatment for potentially curable cancers with an imminent risk of early death (eg, acute leukaemias) cannot be safely postponed. The data discussed here support the National Oncology Taskforce and the National Coordination Centre for Patient Distribution to safeguard optimal patient access to essential oncological care throughout all hospitals in the Netherlands. The Netherlands Cancer Registry will, in due course, complete the registration of current and new cases via retrospective medical records review. These more detailed data—including various patient (eg, COVID-19 positivity), tumour, and treatment characteristics, and follow-up—will ultimately establish the effect of the COVID-19 outbreak on oncological care in the Netherlands. This information can also guide the public, policymakers, and physicians in the future whenever an outbreak of a similar magnitude occurs. This online publication has been corrected. The corrected version first appeared at thelancet.com/oncology on May 4, 2020
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Oncol
                Lancet Oncol
                The Lancet. Oncology
                Lancet Pub. Group
                1470-2045
                1474-5488
                1 August 2021
                August 2021
                : 22
                : 8
                : 1071-1080
                Affiliations
                [a ]Cancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
                [b ]Nutrition and Metabolism Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
                [c ]Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [d ]Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [e ]Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [f ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [g ]Centre for Research and Information on Substance Abuse, Uyo, Nigeria
                [h ]Surveillance and Health Equity Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA
                [i ]Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, Netherlands
                [j ]Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
                [k ]Department of International Health Projects, Institute for Leadership and Health Management, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
                [l ]Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Longitudinal Studies, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Ms Harriet Rumgay, Cancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France rumgayh@ 123456students.iarc.fr
                Article
                S1470-2045(21)00279-5
                10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00279-5
                8324483
                34270924
                c34790c8-813a-4567-a27b-bf489707e92f
                © 2021 World Health Organization

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article