Deaths from alcohol-related cancers doubled from 1990 to 2021, study finds
New research is showing just how much alcohol has impacted cancer mortality rates in the past three decades.
In the analysis, released Thursday ahead of being presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2025 conference in Chicago, researchers found alcohol-associated cancer deaths in the United States doubled from 1990 to 2021, rising from 11,896 to 23,207.
The authors also found mortality rates were significantly higher in males and those above age 55. On a state level, the analysis found Washington, D.C., had the highest alcohol-related mortality rate across both sexes, while Utah had the lowest.
The analysis used data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) database, which provides incidence and mortality estimates for 35 cancer types. The GBD also highlights dozens of attributable risk factors, including alcohol use, allowing the authors to extract the total alcohol-associated cancer deaths for analysis.
"Despite growing awareness of alcohol as a risk factor for cancer development, alcohol continues to contribute significantly to cancer mortality," the authors wrote. "Our findings highlight the critical need for targeted prevention efforts and increased awareness to address the rising impact of alcohol consumption on cancer-related mortality,"
Alcohol consumption has long been a known risk factor for cancer.
In a September report, the American Association for Cancer Research found excessive levels of alcohol consumption can increase the risk for six different types of cancer, including breast, colorectal, liver, stomach, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and certain types of head and neck cancers.
Earlier this year, former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy called for cancer risk warnings to be included on alcoholic beverages.
"Alcohol is a well-established, preventable cause of cancer responsible for about 100,000 cases of cancer and 20,000 cancer deaths annually in the United States - greater than the 13,500 alcohol-associated traffic crash fatalities per year in the U.S. - yet the majority of Americans are unaware of this risk," Murthy said in a news release at the time.
Alcohol was already classified as a Group 1 carcinogen, a substance or exposure known to cause cancer in humans, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer due to sufficient evidence linking it to liver, breast, colorectal, esophagus, larynx, mouth, and throat cancers.
Social ties to alcohol can make quitting difficult, but experts say limiting consumption has benefits beyond limiting cancer risk.
"All organs can be affected by alcohol intake depending on dose and frequency," Dr. Angela Tatiana Alistar, medical director of GI Medical Oncology at Morristown Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, previously told CBS News. "There is vast scientific literature regarding the impact of alcohol consumption on the liver described as hepatitis (in the acute form), liver cirrhosis (chronic form) and possible liver cancer."
Drinking alcohol can also affect organs like the brain, disrupting the sleep-wake cycle.
"It can also affect cognition, coordination and emotional regulation," Alistar said. "Acute and chronic dependence and tolerance to alcohol is a high-risk factor for social functioning and mental health."
Reducing alcohol isn't the only way to decrease your risk of cancer, either. There are several other modifiable risk factors that researchers found are linked to more than 40% of all cancer fatalities, including smoking, excess body weight, physical inactivity and diet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former LeBron James Teammate Tells Wild Club Story About Lakers Star
Former LeBron James Teammate Tells Wild Club Story About Lakers Star originally appeared on Athlon Sports. Los Angeles Lakers star LeBron James takes precise care of his body, which has helped him play 22 seasons in the NBA at an elite level. Advertisement James is 40 years old. He's the oldest active player in the NBA. The average person wouldn't know that by watching him play, as James made the All-NBA Second Team this year and became the oldest player in NBA history to receive an MVP vote, breaking Michael Jordan's 23-year-old record. A four-time MVP, James has played for the Cleveland Cavaliers (twice), Miami Heat and Lakers. He's a four-time champion and a four-time Finals MVP. James is the only player in NBA history to win a Finals MVP Award with three teams. Los Angeles Lakers star LeBron James© Soobum Im-Imagn Images A future Hall of Famer, James won his first two titles with the Heat in 2012 and 2013. Mario Chalmers, who was on those Miami teams, recently told NFL legend Shannon Sharpe that James used to get treatment in the clubs. Advertisement "I tell people this all the time, Bron will really get treatment if he was in the club. Like, he would literally have something on his knees or something on his back inside the club. So it's like why is somebody doing that, like that's a real dedication to just be in the club with treatment." Chalmers said. Sharpe went on asking what were the kind of treatments he is doing in the club. "Not ice bags, it'd be like the stim, like the stim machine that shoot electrolyte or electricity in your knees and stuff like that. He always have something [for] recovery." James has said many times that he takes recovery very seriously. The leading scorer in NBA history has never undergone surgery on his body because of an injury. The small forward is arguably the most durable athlete in NBA history. Advertisement Arguably the greatest player of all time, James has career averages of 27.0 points, 7.5 rebounds, 7.4 assists, 1.5 steals and 0.7 blocks. He's the only player in NBA history to rank top five all-time in points and assists. James, who turns 41 in December, has a player option to return to the Lakers next season worth $52.6 million. The King is widely expected to pick up his option and play his 23rd NBA season. Related: Shai Gilgeous-Alexander Predicted to Repeat Feat Not Seen Since LeBron James This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 1, 2025, where it first appeared.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Remission, Attaining CV Risk Targets Drops CVD Risk in Lupus
Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) had more than double the risk for atherosclerosis progression over 10 years than healthy control individuals, but maintaining cardiovascular risk factor (CVRF) targets and achieving sustained disease remission significantly reduced this risk. METHODOLOGY: Researchers collected carotid ultrasound measurements from 111 patients with SLE and 94 age- and sex-matched controls, including baseline measurements from 2012 to 2013 with follow-up assessments at 3, 7, and 10 years. They tracked carotid plaque progression, CVRF target attainment on the basis of the 2016 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and additional CVD risk modifiers, and incident CVD events over 10 years and looked for predictors of plaque progression. TAKEAWAY: Patients with SLE demonstrated a 2.3-fold higher risk for carotid plaque progression than healthy control individuals (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.26; 95% CI, 1.34-3.81; P = .002). = .002). Each CVRF maintained at target during the 10-year follow-up reduced plaque progression risk by 32% (IRR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.89; P = .004). = .004). Achievement of definition of remission in SLE for ≥ 75% of follow-up decreased risk for plaque progression by 43% (IRR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.95; P = .033). = .033). Persistent triple antiphospholipid antibody positivity increased 10-year risk for incident cardiovascular events in SLE more than sevenfold (hazard ratio, 7.52; P = .014). IN PRACTICE: 'Patients with SLE experience a 2.3-fold higher 10-year atherosclerosis progression risk than [healthy controls], which is significantly mitigated by sustained [cardiovascular risk factor] control and prolonged clinical remission,' the study authors wrote in the abstract. 'Carotid ultrasound may have an additive role in enhancing CVD risk assessment in patients with SLE.' SOURCE: Maria G. Tektonidou, MD, PhD, of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece, presented the study at the 16th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in Toronto. LIMITATIONS: The study sample was relatively small. Carotid ultrasound is dependent on operator skill and experience, which can lead to interobserver and intraobserver variability. DISCLOSURES: Funding information for this research was not provided. Disclosure information for the authors was not available.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
ED Work Environment Discord Affects Patient Outcomes
In a recent study, emergency nurses and physicians in approximately half of the study hospitals disagreed on the quality of the work environment. An environment rated "unfavorable" by both groups was significantly associated with worse clinician and patient outcomes. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional analysis included emergency department (ED) clinicians (1190 nurses and 414 physicians) from 47 Magnet hospitals who completed the 2021 US Clinician Wellbeing Study. Researchers classified hospitals into profiles according to the level of agreement between nurses and physicians regarding the hospital work environment. Researchers assessed clinician job outcomes (burnout, job dissatisfaction, and intent to leave), patient safety, and quality-of-care metrics. TAKEAWAY: Hospital profiles revealed three distinct patterns: "Agree, Unfavorable Environment" (10 hospitals); "Agree, Favorable Environment" (15 hospitals); and "Disagree, Less Favorable Environment Among Nurses" (22 hospitals). Compared with hospitals where clinicians agreed on a favorable environment, hospitals where clinicians agreed on an unfavorable environment had significantly higher rates of burnout (β, 25.8), job dissatisfaction (β, 32.5), intent to leave (β, 31.7), and unfavorable patient safety grades (β, 29.1), after adjustment for hospital characteristics ( P < .001 for all). < .001 for all). Hospitals where nurses rated the environment less favorably than physicians demonstrated increased burnout (β, 15.4; P < .001) and poorer patient safety grades (β, 11.9; P < .01), after adjustment for hospital characteristics. < .001) and poorer patient safety grades (β, 11.9; < .01), after adjustment for hospital characteristics. Compared with physicians in hospitals with an "Agree, Favorable" profile, those in hospitals rated as having an "Unfavorable" work environment showed significantly higher rates for all outcomes except burnout and patient-care quality. Similarly, nurses in hospitals with a "Disagree, Less Favorable Among Nurses" profile experienced higher rates across all job-related and patient-care outcomes. IN PRACTICE: "This cross-sectional study found that ED nurses and physicians in close to half of study hospitals disagreed on the quality of their work environment. Clinician job and patient outcomes were worse when both clinicians rated their work environment unfavorably and when nurses only reported their work environments as unfavorable," the authors wrote. "The implication of these findings is that, if two essential partners in emergency care within the same institution do not agree on the deficiencies in ED work environments, significant interdisciplinary research is needed to bridge these gaps and disparate experiences," they added. SOURCE: The study was led by Jane Muir, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. It was published online on May 16, 2025, in BMC Health Services Research . LIMITATIONS: The study included only Magnet hospitals, which are known for favorable work environments and good physician-nurse collaboration, suggesting the findings may have underestimated the variation in clinician work environment agreement across all hospitals. The cross-sectional design prevented causal inference, and the sample had more nurses than physicians. DISCLOSURES: The research was funded by the Clinician Well-being Study Consortium and the National Institutes of Health. Additionally, it was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute of Nursing Research, the National Clinician Scholars Program, and the Emergency Medicine Foundation/Emergency Nurses Association Foundation. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
