
Alcohol and Pancreatic Cancer: New Evidence About Risk
Now, a global study of more than two million people is firming up the case that a link exists.
The study, which pooled data from 30 prospective cohorts, found that daily alcohol intake was associated with a 'modest' increased risk for pancreatic cancer in both women and men, regardless of smoking status.
However, the extent of the risk depended somewhat on how the researchers modeled alcohol intake. One model, which mapped continuous increases in alcohol consumption, suggested there is no safe dose of alcohol — any amount can increase the risk for pancreatic cancer, though only by 3% for every additional 10 g of alcohol per day or about two thirds of a standard drink.
The other model, which compared risk by alcohol volume categories, found that the risk does not become significant until a certain alcohol threshold — about two to three drinks per day for men and one to two for women.
Still, overall, 'our findings provide new evidence that pancreatic cancer may be another cancer type associated with alcohol consumption, a connection that has been underestimated until now,' the study's senior author Pietro Ferrari, PhD, head of the Nutrition and Metabolism Branch at International Agency for Research on Cancer, said in a statement.
The co-author Jeanine Genkinger, PhD, MHS, had a stronger take on the findings. 'I think this shows that alcohol use is a robust risk factor for pancreatic cancer,' said Genkinger, associate professor, epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, noting that even more moderate drinking levels— no more than one drink for women and two for men — might be enough to boost pancreatic cancer risk.
How Much of a Risk?
The latest data, published in PLoS Medicine, come at a time of increased attention to the alcohol-cancer link.
Earlier this year, then-US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory calling for cancer warnings to be added to alcohol labels. Major cancer organizations have determined alcohol to be an established risk factor for seven cancer types : those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus, liver, breast, and colon/rectum.
Despite the strong suspicion that drinking alcohol also contributes to pancreatic cancer risk, this aggressive cancer has not yet made the official list.
The major reason is that the evidence surrounding an alcohol-pancreatic cancer link has been deemed 'inconsistent,' 'suggestive,' and 'inconclusive' by expert panels. Studies have been hampered by difficulties separating alcohol use from smoking — a known risk factor for pancreatic cancer — as well as varying findings by alcohol type and geographic location. In addition, certain studies highlighting a link have indicated that any association between alcohol and pancreatic cancer is driven only by more extreme drinking habits — more than four drinks a day, and sometimes as high as nine drinks.
The latest analysis, Genkinger said, helps clarify uncertainty surrounding the alcohol-pancreatic cancer link, which is especially important for 'a disease where we don't have that many modifiable risk factors.'
The findings are based on cohorts spanning four continents, all part of the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer. Just under 2.5 million cancer-free participants were recruited between 1980 and 2013 (median age, 57 years), of whom 70% were alcohol drinkers, 47% were never-smokers, and 64% were alcohol drinkers and never smokers. Most study participants were from North America (60%), followed by Europe or Australia (32%) and Asia (8%).
Alcohol intake was modeled in two ways: continuously for every 10 g/d increase and by volume threshold, using 0.1 to < 5 g/d as the reference for nondrinkers. For context, in the US, the amount of alcohol in a standard drink is defined as 14 g of pure alcohol — equivalent to a 12-ounce can of regular beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot glass of distilled spirits.
Over a median of 16 years, the researchers observed 10,067 incidents of pancreatic cancers.
In the continuous model, the risk for pancreatic cancer rose by 3% for every additional 10 g of alcohol consumed per day (hazard ratio [HR],1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). This association remained consistent and significant among women and men (HR, 1.03 for both), current smokers (HR, 1.03), former smokers (HR, 1.02), and never-smokers (HR, 1.03), and across cohorts from Australia, Europe, and North America (HR, 1.03 for all), though not Asia (HR, 1.00).
The research team also found evidence that the type of alcohol mattered: Alcohol from beer and liquor/spirits was associated with a significantly increased risk for pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.02 and 1.04, respectively) but alcohol from wine was not (HR, 1.00). This finding is in line with some previous studies suggesting that wine may have a different relationship with cancer risk compared with other alcoholic beverages.
But Genkinger pointed out, this finding could 'reflect the ways in which people tend to drink different types of alcohol.'
Wine, she noted, is often part of a meal, and people who favor wine may be less likely to binge drink than those who typically choose other types of alcohol. This study, however, did not survey participants about specific drinking patterns, including binge-drinking.
In the threshold model, however, the increased risk only became significant once alcohol intake reached a certain level. For women, drinking one to two standard drinks per day raised their risk for pancreatic cancer by 12% compared with little to no drinking. For men, the threshold was a little higher: Consuming two to four drinks a day was associated with a 15% increase in risk, whereas drinking more than that was tied to a 36% greater risk.
Overall, this research contributes to the growing body of evidence that pancreatic cancer should be added to the official alcohol-cancer risk list, according to Alison Klein, PhD, MHS, professor of oncology, pathology, and epidemiology, at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, who was not involved in the research.
Having the Conversation
The recent Surgeon General's advisory encouraged clinicians to inform their patients that drinking is a cancer risk factor — something unknown to most Americans, according to recent survey findings.
'I think this study is a good reminder to all of us to talk to our patients about their alcohol use,' said Edward Thomas Lewis III, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Providers can take opportunities for those discussions during routine care, such as when prescribing a medication that can interact with alcohol or when a patient's health condition, such as high blood pressure or heart disease, can be exacerbated by drinking.
'I think these are opportunities to really remind people about moderation,' Lewis said, 'and to talk about some of the individual risk factors that may cause someone to make changes related to their drinking.'
It's also possible that drinking might interact with certain genetic variants to modify pancreatic cancer risk — an avenue Klein and colleagues are exploring.
What's challenging, Lewis said, is advising patients on what level of drinking is 'Okay,' given that even lower levels of alcohol consumption — around one to two drinks per day — may carry some risk.
'There is no zero-risk alcohol use,' Lewis said. But, he added, people do not necessarily have to abstain to see benefits, either. 'So it may be that a patient, at the end of the day, is able to reduce their alcohol consumption by two or three standard drinks over a given week. That still has a positive net effect,' he said.
Another challenge is patients often don't know what a 'standard drink' looks like and can underestimate how much they drink. Showing patients visual examples — such as these— can be an eye-opener, Lewis said.
Given the associations between drinking alcohol and many health outcomes, Genkinger said, it's important for clinicians to discuss alcohol use, just as they would discuss physical activity and healthy body weight.
'These are all lifestyle factors that have an impact on numerous disease outcomes, not only pancreatic cancer,' she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
22 minutes ago
- Medscape
Even Low Lead Exposure Can Impair Academic Outcomes in Kids
TOPLINE: Every 1-unit increase in blood lead levels in early childhood — even when below the 'safe' threshold of 3.5 µg/dL — was associated with declines in math and reading scores from grades 2 through 11, similar to those seen at higher lead levels. METHODOLOGY: Researchers used the 2021 US CDC's revision of the blood lead reference value to ≥ 3.5 μg/dL. They analyzed data from birth certificates of children born in Iowa from 1989 to 2010, academic test scores from grades 2 through 11, and blood lead testing data from 1990 to 2017. The analysis included 305,256 children (mean age at lead testing, 1.9 years; 49% girls) and nearly 1.8 million math and reading scores to calculate the national percentile rank (NPR). Primary outcomes included NPR scores across grades 2 through 11, comparing children with blood lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL with those at or above this threshold. TAKEAWAY: Overall, 37.7% of children had lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL. Among children with blood lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL, a 1-unit increase was associated with lower NPR scores in math (-0.47; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.30) and in reading (-0.38; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.20). Similarly, for lead levels at ≥ 3.5 μg/dL, every 1-unit increase was linked to a significant decline in NPR scores for math and reading. The trend of declining scores with increasing lead levels was persistent across grades 2 through 11; only the declines in reading scores for grades 10 and 11 were not statistically significant. IN PRACTICE: 'The present work provides further evidence to support that there are no safe levels of lead and that there is a need to continue to reduce or eliminate lead exposure,' the authors of the study wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by George L. Wehby, MPH, PhD, of the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa. It was published online on May 28, 2025, in JAMA Network Open. LIMITATIONS: Several laboratories used the old 5 μg/dL cutoff to quantify high lead levels. Researchers lacked data on any lead-related interventions the children may have received. DISCLOSURES: Wehby reported receiving grants from the Gates Foundation during the conduct of this study. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.


Medscape
22 minutes ago
- Medscape
Health Issues More Likely in Rural vs Urban Caregivers
TOPLINE: Caregivers living in rural areas reported poorer general and physical health and were more likely to smoke and have obesity than caregivers in urban areas, according to a recent analysis. METHODOLOGY: Researchers analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey to study the differences in sociodemographic characteristics, experiences, and health of caregivers in rural and urban settings. Participants were identified as unpaid caregivers if they provided regular care to a friend or family member with a health problem or disability in the past 30 days. Rurality was defined using a 2013 Urban-Rural Classification Scheme, and participants were classified as living in rural counties if they resided in micropolitan or noncore counties and living in urban counties if they resided in metro counties. A total of 44,274 unpaid caregivers (60% women) from 47 US states participated, of whom one quarter lived in rural counties. Caregiving attributes, including relationship to the care recipient, duration of caregiving, and assistance with activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, were analyzed. The well-being of caregivers was assessed through their health, health behaviors, and health-related quality of life. TAKEAWAY: Rural caregivers were more likely to have obesity (42.9% vs 37.5%; P < .0001). Rural caregivers were more likely to be current smokers (24.2% vs 15.5%; P < .0001) but less likely to be binge drinkers (12.7% vs 15.3%; P = .003) than urban caregivers. Rural caregivers were more likely than urban caregivers to report fair or poor general health (20.3% vs 17.0%; P = .0003). No significant differences were found in mental health or limited activity in the past month between rural and urban caregivers. IN PRACTICE: 'This study is extremely valuable for members of rural communities as it allows policy makers to better understand the landscape of caregiving amongst minoritized rural residents and help program developers design and implement initiatives for rural caregivers,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: The study was led by Emma Kathryn Boswell, MPH, of the University of South Carolina Rural Health Research Center at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. It was published online on June 13, 2025, in The Journal of Rural Health. LIMITATIONS: The reliance on self-reported data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System may have introduced recall and social desirability bias. The cross-sectional design limited the ability to determine cause-and-effect relationships between caregiving and health outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This research did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Americans get more than half their calories from ultraprocessed foods, CDC report says
Most Americans get more than half their calories from ultraprocessed foods, those super-tasty, energy-dense foods typically full of sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, according to a new federal report. Nutrition research has shown for years that ultraprocessed foods make up a big chunk of the U.S. diet, especially for kids and teens. For the first time, however, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed those high levels of consumption, using dietary data collected from August 2021 to August 2023. The report comes amid growing scrutiny of such foods by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who blames them for causing chronic disease. 'We are poisoning ourselves and it's coming principally from these ultraprocessed foods,' Kennedy told Fox News earlier this year. Overall, about 55% of total calories consumed by Americans age 1 and older came from ultraprocessed foods during that period, according to the report. For adults, ultraprocessed foods made up about 53% of total calories consumed, but for kids through age 18, it was nearly 62%. The top sources included burgers and sandwiches, sweet baked goods, savory snacks, pizza and sweetened drinks. Young children consumed fewer calories from ultraprocessed foods than older kids, the report found. Adults 60 and older consumed fewer calories from those sources than younger adults. Low-income adults consumed more ultraprocessed foods than those with higher incomes. The results were not surprising, said co-author Anne Williams, a CDC nutrition expert. What was surprising was that consumption of ultraprocessed foods appeared to dip slightly over the past decade. Among adults, total calories from those sources fell from about 56% in 2013-2014 and from nearly 66% for kids in 2017-2018. Williams said she couldn't speculate about the reason for the decline or whether consumption of less processed foods increased. But Andrea Deierlein, a nutrition expert at New York University who was not involved in the research, suggested that there may be greater awareness of the potential harms of ultraprocessed foods. 'People are trying, at least in some populations, to decrease their intakes of these foods,' she said. Concern over ultraprocessed foods' health effects has been growing for years, but finding solutions has been difficult. Many studies have linked them to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, but they haven't been able to prove that the foods directly cause those chronic health problems. One small but influential study found that even when diets were matched for calories, sugar, fat, fiber and micronutrients, people consumed more calories and gained more weight when they ate ultraprocessed foods than when they ate minimally processed foods. Research published this week in the journal Nature found that participants in a clinical trial lost twice as much weight when they ate minimally processed foods — such as pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables — than ultraprocessed foods, even those matched for nutrition components and considered healthy, such as ready-to-heat frozen meals, protein bars and shakes. Part of the problem is simply defining ultraprocessed foods. The new CDC report used the most common definition based on the four-tier Nova system developed by Brazilian researchers that classifies foods according to the amount of processing they undergo. Such foods tend to be 'hyperpalatable, energy-dense, low in dietary fiber and contain little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners and unhealthy fats,' the CDC report said. U.S. health officials recently said there are concerns over whether current definitions 'accurately capture' the range of foods that may affect health. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department recently issued a request for information to develop a new, uniform definition of ultraprocessed foods for products in the U.S. food supply. In the meantime, Americans should try to reduce ultraprocessed foods in their daily diets, Deierlein said. For instance, instead of instant oatmeal that may contain added sugar, sodium, artificial colors and preservatives, use plain oats sweetened with honey or maple syrup. Read food packages and nutrition information, she suggested. 'I do think that there are less-processed options available for many foods,' she said. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Jonel Aleccia, The Associated Press Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data