4.3 Article

Cancers of the esophagus and carbonated beverage consumption: a population-based case-control study

Journal

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 577-584

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-008-9119-8

Keywords

esophageal neoplasm; carbonated soft drinks; beer; esophagus; case-control study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Increased consumption of carbonated soft drinks has been hypothesized to be a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC); however, previous studies have not found supportive evidence. We analyzed data from a population-based case-control study to measure the association between carbonated beverage intake and risk of adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the esophagus. Methods A food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used to collect data on carbonated soft drink and beer consumption; a self-administered questionnaire was used to collect information on demographic, socioeconomic, and lifestyle-related factors from 1,484 control subjects, 294 cases with EAC, 325 cases with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (EGJAC), and 238 cases with SCC of the esophagus. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using unconditional multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for confounders. Results High intake of soft drinks was not associated with risk of EAC (fully adjusted OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.53-1.66, p for trend = 0.85) or EGJAC (fully adjusted OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.67-1.73, p for trend = 0.89) but was inversely associated with SCC of the esophagus (fully adjusted model OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.78, p for trend = 0.04). High intake of beer was inversely associated with risk of EGJAC (fully adjusted OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.81) but positively associated with esophageal SCC (fully adjusted model OR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.17-2.95). Conclusion High levels of consumption of carbonated soft drinks do not appear to increase the risk of either adenocarcinomas or SCC of the esophagus.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available