MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Commentary on Jarl & Gerdtham (2012): Further evidence of the reversal of alcohol‐related risk of oesophageal cancer after alcohol cessation

2012· letter· en· W2084957813 on OpenAlexaff
Svetlana Popova, Jürgen Rehm

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerProspective cohort studyRisk factorEpidemiologySmoking cessationCohort studyMeta-analysisAlcoholInternal medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First of all, we would like to congratulate Johan & Gerdtham on their thorough meta-analysis [1], which has the potential to become a landmark study on the reversibility of the effects of alcohol. Cancer of the oesophagus is one of the most fatal forms of cancer, with the 5-year survival rate being as low as 16.8% [2]. A number of studies, completed in various countries, have established alcohol consumption to be one of the major risk factors for oesophagus cancer [3–5], with this factor being a particularly important determinant of oesophagus cancer morbidity and mortality in countries with heavy alcohol consumption [6]. Although alcohol consumption and smoking are often correlated, an elevated risk has also been found in drinkers who do not smoke [7,8], demonstrating that the association between alcohol consumption and this cancer is independent of smoking. Several individual epidemiological studies have examined the effect that alcohol cessation has on the risk of cancer. The studies have generally been relatively consistent in demonstrating a reduction in the risk of developing cancer of oesophagus, as well as of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx; however, there is considerable variation in the estimates reported of both the magnitude of the risk reduction and the time lag after which the reduction occurs. The present meta-analysis aimed to quantify the effect of alcohol cessation on the risk of developing oesophageal cancer based on nine studies (eight case–control studies and one prospective cohort study). The authors report that about 16.5 years [95% confidence interval (CI): 12.7–23.7] are required until all elevated alcohol-related risk has disappeared. The risk falls faster during the first few years of drinking cessation, and about half the elevated risk disappears after a third of the total required time. Recently, our team conducted a pooled analysis to evaluate the temporal sequence and the strength of the association between alcohol cessation and reduction in oesophageal and head and neck cancer risks [9]. We included data from five individual studies of oesophageal cancer (all of which were also included in the analysis of Johan & Gerdtham [1]). We found that there was a 63% risk reduction for oesophageal cancer after 15 years of alcohol cessation (95% CI: 59–67%). After more than 20 years of alcohol cessation, the risks for both types of cancer were no longer statistically significantly different from their ‘never drinkers’ counterparts. Furthermore, in our study for oesophageal cancer, we found that the risk increased significantly within the first 2 years following cessation (odds ratio: 2.50, 95% CI: 2.23–2.80). This is not surprising, as it reflects the trend that the majority of the existing individual studies observed an increase in risk following cessation due, presumably, to ‘sick quitter’ behaviour [10,11], sample characteristics (e.g. over-representation of heavy drinkers), different patterns of drinking in different countries and/or for some other reasons, as speculated in the Johan & Gerdtham paper [1]. It may be that the linear methodology they selected smoothed over these peaks, but nevertheless this is irrelevant, as there are no indications that cessation of alcohol consumption would be causally responsible for an increased risk in oesophageal cancer. Overall, several questions, such as (i) whether a beneficial effect of drinking cessation is greater among smokers than non-smokers or (ii) what is the effect of a reduction in drinking rather than quitting, as cessation might not be an option for many drinkers, remain unanswered at this stage because of a limited number of epidemiological studies on this topic, as well as their limitations. It should also be noted that there are potentially important differences between the existing studies in terms of methodology and/or reporting; particularly, ex-drinkers were defined differently across the studies, and the age at which individuals started to drink, the duration of the habit and the reasons for stopping alcohol consumption were not reported in the majority of the studies. Furthermore, beverage- and pattern-specific risks were not controlled for, and the studies are incomparable in terms of potential confounders and the effect–measure modifiers addressed (e.g. smoking, diet, education, etc.). Due to the above limitations of the previous studies, it may not be possible to refine the existing meta/pooled analyses [1,9] much further. More valid epidemiological studies—in different countries, with different patterns of alcohol consumption—are needed in order to advance our knowledge further on the effect of drinking cessation on the risk of oesophageal cancer. Ultimately, accurate quantification of the beneficial effects that quitting or a reduction of drinking has on the risk of developing cancer will have important public health implications for prevention and health promotion. Fifteen to 20 years for a complete reversal of risk of oesophageal cancer to take place sounds like a long stretch; however, the effect of stopping alcohol consumption appears to emerge shortly after cessation, which is encouraging and should provide extra motivation for the promotion of this life-style change. None.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsFrench-language works237,207