Note: The Overview section summarizes the published evidence on this topic. The rest of the summary describes the evidence in more detail.
Other PDQ summaries on
Who Is at Risk?
Smoking and drinking alcohol may account for roughly 90% of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma cases in Western countries like the United States.[
Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus
Factors with adequate evidence of increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus
Cigarette smoking and drinking alcohol
Based on solid evidence, smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol increases the risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Smoking and drinking alcohol may account for roughly 90% of esophageal squamous cell carcinomas in Western countries like the United States.[
Magnitude of Effect: Increased risk, moderate magnitude.
Study Design: Evidence from population-based case-control and cohort studies. |
Internal Validity: Fair. |
Consistency: Good. |
External Validity: Fair. |
Factors with adequate evidence of decreased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus
Avoidance of tobacco and alcohol
Based on solid evidence, avoidance of tobacco and alcohol would decrease the risk of squamous cell carcinoma.[
Magnitude of Effect: Large positive benefit.
Study Design: Evidence obtained from cohort or case-control studies. |
Internal Validity: Fair. |
Consistency: Multiple studies. |
External Validity: Fair. |
Chemoprevention
Aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use: benefits
Based on fair evidence, epidemiological studies have found that aspirin or NSAID use is associated with decreased risk of developing or dying from esophageal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.71).[
Magnitude of Effect: Small positive.
Study Design: Evidence obtained from cohort or case-control studies. |
Internal Validity: Fair. |
Consistency: Good. |
External Validity: Fair. |
Aspirin and NSAID use: harms
Based on solid evidence, harms of NSAID use include upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction, heart failure, hemorrhagic stroke, and renal impairment.
Magnitude of Effect: Increased risk, small magnitude.
Study Design: Evidence obtained from randomized controlled trials. |
Internal Validity: Fair. |
Consistency: Good. |
External Validity: Fair. |
Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus
Factors with adequate evidence of increased risk of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus
Gastroesophageal reflux
Based on fair evidence, an association exists between GERD and adenocarcinoma, particularly if the GERD is long-standing and symptoms are severe.[
It is unknown whether elimination of gastroesophageal reflux by surgical or medical means will reduce the risk of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.[
Magnitude of Effect: Unknown.
Study Design: Case-control studies. |
Internal Validity: Fair. |
Consistency: Good; multiple studies. |
External Validity: Fair. |
Interventions with adequate evidence of decreased risk of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus
Aspirin and NSAID use: benefits
Based on fair evidence, epidemiological studies have found that aspirin or NSAID use is associated with decreased risk of developing or dying from esophageal cancer (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47–0.71).[
Magnitude of Effect: Unknown magnitude.
Study Design: Evidence obtained from cohort or case-control studies. |
Internal Validity: Fair. |
Consistency: Good. |
External Validity: Fair. |
Aspirin and NSAID use: harms
Based on solid evidence, harms of NSAID use include upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction, heart failure, hemorrhagic stroke, and renal impairment.
Magnitude of Effect: Increased risk; small magnitude.
Study Design: Evidence obtained from randomized controlled trials. |
Internal Validity: Good. |
Consistency: Good. |
External Validity: Good. |
Ablation of Barrett esophagus with dysplasia: benefits
A randomized controlled trial has found that radiofrequency ablation of Barrett esophagus with severe dysplasia may lead to eradication of both dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia and a reduced risk of disease progression.[
Magnitude of Effect: Impact on cancer mortality not known.
Study Design: Evidence obtained from a randomized controlled trial. |
Internal Validity: Good. |
Consistency: Single study. |
External Validity: Good. |
Ablation of Barrett esophagus with dysplasia: harms
Based on solid evidence, harms of radiofrequency ablation include esophageal stricture and requirement for dilatation and upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage but at low rates. It is possible that overdiagnosis and overtreatment of Barrett esophagus, particularly without severe dysplasia, could lead to a substantial number of harms.
Magnitude of Effect: The low rates of esophageal stricture and requirement for dilatation and upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage may be an understatement of the risks if this practice is widely adopted by less-experienced physicians.
Study Design: Evidence obtained from a randomized controlled trial. |
Internal Validity: Good. |
Consistency: Single study. |
External Validity: Patients representative of a subset of people with dysplasia, particularly severe dysplasia; physicians may not be representative of practicing physicians because this is a new technology and requires specialized knowledge. |
References:
Two histological types account for most malignant esophageal neoplasms: adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. The epidemiology of these types varies markedly. In the 1960s, squamous cell carcinomas comprised over 90% of all esophageal tumors. The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinomas has risen markedly for the past 2 decades; it is now more prevalent than squamous cell carcinomas in the United States and Western Europe, with most tumors located in the distal esophagus.[
References:
In 2024, it is estimated that 22,370 Americans will be diagnosed with esophageal cancer and 16,130 will die of this disease. Of the new cases, it is estimated that 17,690 will occur in men and 4,680 will occur in women.[
Although the overall incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus is declining, this histological type remains six times more likely to occur in Black men than in White men.[
Male sex is an important predictor of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The attributable risk is low enough in women that, although the risk from sex is not modifiable, other risk factors necessarily have limited impact.[
References:
Factors With Adequate Evidence of Increased Risk of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus
Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol
In the United States, squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus is strongly associated with tobacco and alcohol abuse. The relative risk associated with tobacco use is 2.4, and the population attributable risk is 54.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0%–76.2%).[
In a multicenter, population-based, case-control study of 221 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and 695 controls, ever-smoking, alcohol consumption, and low fruit and vegetable consumption accounted for 56.9% (95% CI, 36.6%–75.1%), 72.4% (95% CI, 53.3%–85.8%), and 28.7% (95% CI, 11.1%–56.5%) of esophageal squamous cell carcinomas, respectively, with a combined population attributable risk of 89.4% (95% CI, 79.1%–95.0%).[
In China, where the overall prevalence of esophageal carcinoma is much higher than in the United States, esophageal cancer is associated with deficiencies of nutrients, such as retinol, riboflavin, alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, alpha-tocopherol, ascorbate and zinc, and with exposure to specific carcinogens (e.g., N-nitroso compounds).[
Factors With Adequate Evidence of Decreased Risk of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus
Chemoprevention
A prospective, placebo-controlled, esophagus chemoprevention study randomly assigned 610 high-risk Chinese patients.[
The second report of this study presented micronuclei frequency results.[
Aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between aspirin and NSAID use and esophageal cancer identified two cohort and seven case-control studies published between 1980 and 2001.[
References:
Factors Associated With Increased Risk of Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)
The most important epidemiological difference between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma is the strong association between GERD and adenocarcinoma. The results of a population-based case-controlled study suggest that symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux is a risk factor for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The frequency, severity, and duration of reflux symptoms were positively associated with an increased risk of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.[
A population-based cohort study in Sweden shows that patients with Barrett esophagus develop adenocarcinoma of the esophagus at about 1.2 cases per 1,000 person-years of follow-up monitoring, which is about 11.3 times higher than in the general population. Thus, while the relative risk may be elevated, the absolute risk is still not high. Furthermore, over half of the cases of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus are not associated with GERD symptoms.
Interventions With Adequate Evidence of Decreased Risk of Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus
Aspirin and NSAID use
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use and esophageal cancer identified two cohort and seven case-control studies published between 1980 and 2001.[
Radiofrequency ablation in dysplastic Barrett esophagus
A randomized controlled trial [
This study suggests that the treatment of patients with Barrett esophagus and dysplasia may ablate Barrett esophagus and prevent disease progression, but the study provides only weak evidence about whether treatment reduces the outcome of esophageal cancer (because it was not designed to answer that question). Evidence from the study suggests that ablation does not simply coagulate and hide dangerous cells under the surface of the esophagus (those cells could later evolve to cancer). A question entirely separate from this study is whether patients should be screened for Barrett esophagus (this study focused on the treatment of patients with Barrett esophagus who had been identified as having dysplasia). Furthermore, the study does not discuss the net benefits and harms of an overall program of screening (e.g., screening of patients with GERD or certain GERD symptoms) and the surveillance of patients with Barrett esophagus. The potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment may be considerable if physicians used results of this study to treat patients with Barrett esophagus and no dysplasia.
References:
The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.
Revised
This summary is written and maintained by the
Purpose of This Summary
This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about esophageal cancer prevention. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.
Reviewers and Updates
This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the
Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:
Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.
Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website's
Levels of Evidence
Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Screening and Prevention Editorial Board uses a
Permission to Use This Summary
PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as "NCI's PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary]."
The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:
PDQ® Screening and Prevention Editorial Board. PDQ Esophageal Cancer Prevention. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at:
Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in
Disclaimer
The information in these summaries should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the
Contact Us
More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our
Last Revised: 2024-10-31
This information does not replace the advice of a doctor. Ignite Healthwise, LLC, disclaims any warranty or liability for your use of this information. Your use of this information means that you agree to the
Healthwise, Healthwise for every health decision, and the Healthwise logo are trademarks of Ignite Healthwise, LLC.
Individual and family medical and dental insurance plans are insured by Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company (CHLIC), Cigna HealthCare of Arizona, Inc., Cigna HealthCare of Illinois, Inc., Cigna HealthCare of Georgia, Inc., Cigna HealthCare of North Carolina, Inc., Cigna HealthCare of South Carolina, Inc., and Cigna HealthCare of Texas, Inc. Group health insurance and health benefit plans are insured or administered by CHLIC, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (CGLIC), or their affiliates (see
All insurance policies and group benefit plans contain exclusions and limitations. For availability, costs and complete details of coverage, contact a licensed agent or Cigna sales representative. This website is not intended for residents of New Mexico.