Table 4.
Consumption of different types of alcoholic beverages in relation to hazard ratio of esophageal cancer, the Shanghai Cohort Study 1986–2006
| Type of alcohol (drink/day) | Person-years | Number of Cases | HR (95% CI) * | Adjusted HR† (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-drinkers | 162,184 | 32 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Beer‡ | ||||
| < 1 | 41,697 | 15 | 1.83 (0.99, 3.38) | 1.46 (0.75, 2.85) |
| 1+ | 13,403 | 7 | 2.58 (1.14, 5.85) | 1.71 (0.66, 4.42) |
| P for trend | 0.007 | 0.20 | ||
| Rice wine§ | ||||
| < 1 | 33,301 | 10 | 1.51 (0.74, 3.07) | 1.39 (0.66, 2.90) |
| 1 - <2 | 15,261 | 12 | 3.92 (2.01, 7.65) | 3.51 (1.73, 7.13) |
| 2+ | 18,731 | 9 | 2.29 (1.09, 4.81) | 1.82 (0.82, 4.01) |
| P for trend | 0.0005 | 0.01 | ||
| Spirits¶ | ||||
| < 2 | 30,544 | 8 | 1.25 (0.57, 2.71) | 1.02 (0.45, 2.30) |
| 2 - <4 | 16,528 | 15 | 4.28 (2.31, 7.94) | 2.87 (1.48, 5.58) |
| 4+ | 10,451 | 18 | 8.22 (4.59, 14.73) | 4.93 (2.60, 9.36) |
| P for trend | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||
Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression models, which included covariates for age at interview, year of interview, and neighborhood of residence at recruitment; CI, confidence interval.
Hazard ratios were further adjusted for level of education, body mass index, number of years of smoking, and summed intakes of preserved food items (in tertiles), fresh fruits (in tertiles) and fresh vegetables (in tertiles).
Subjects who consumed rice wine and/or spirits only were excluded from this analysis; hazard ratios were further adjusted for consumption of rice wine and spirits.
Subjects who consumed beer and/or spirits only were excluded from this analysis; hazard ratios were further adjusted for consumption of beer and spirits.
Subjects who consumed beer and/or rice wine only were excluded from this analysis; hazard ratios were further adjusted for consumption of beer and rice wine.