Alicja Wolk

Body-mass index and mortality among 1.46 million white adults.

BACKGROUND A high body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) is associated with increased mortality from cardiovascular disease and certain cancers, but the precise relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality remains uncertain. METHODS We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for an association between BMI and all-cause mortality, adjusting for age, study, physical activity, alcohol consumption, education, and marital status in pooled data from 19 prospective studies encompassing 1.46 million white adults, 19 to 84 years of age (median, 58). RESULTS The median baseline BMI was 26.2. During a median follow-up period of 10 years (range, 5 to 28), 160,087 deaths were identified. Among healthy participants who never smoked, there was a J-shaped relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality. With a BMI of 22.5 to 24.9 as the reference category, hazard ratios among women were 1.47 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 1.62) for a BMI of 15.0 to 18.4; 1.14 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.22) for a BMI of 18.5 to 19.9; 1.00 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04) for a BMI of 20.0 to 22.4; 1.13 (95% CI, 1.09 to 1.17) for a BMI of 25.0 to 29.9; 1.44 (95% CI, 1.38 to 1.50) for a BMI of 30.0 to 34.9; 1.88 (95% CI, 1.77 to 2.00) for a BMI of 35.0 to 39.9; and 2.51 (95% CI, 2.30 to 2.73) for a BMI of 40.0 to 49.9. In general, the hazard ratios for the men were similar. Hazard ratios for a BMI below 20.0 were attenuated with longer-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS In white adults, overweight and obesity (and possibly underweight) are associated with increased all-cause mortality. All-cause mortality is generally lowest with a BMI of 20.0 to 24.9.

Overweight as an avoidable cause of cancer in Europe

There is growing evidence that excess body weight increases the risk of cancer at several sites, including kidney, endometrium, colon, prostate, gallbladder and breast in post‐menopausal women. The proportion of all cancers attributable to overweight has, however, never been systematically estimated. We reviewed the epidemiological literature and quantitatively summarised, by meta‐analysis, the relationship between excess weight and the risk of developing cancer at the 6 sites listed above. Estimates were then combined with sex‐specific estimates of the prevalence of overweight [body mass index (BMI) 25–29 kg/m2] and obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) in each country in the European Union to obtain the proportion of cancers attributable to excess weight. Overall, excess body mass accounts for 5% of all cancers in the European Union, 3% in men and 6% in women, corresponding to 27,000 male and 45,000 female cancer cases yearly. The attributable proportion varied, in men, between 2.1% for Greece and 4.9% for Germany and, in women, between 3.9% for Denmark and 8.8% for Spain. The highest attributable proportions were obtained for cancers of the endometrium (39%), kidney (25% in both sexes) and gallbladder (25% in men and 24% in women). The largest number of attributable cases was for colon cancer (21,500 annual cases), followed by endometrium (14,000 cases) and breast (12,800 cases). Some 36,000 cases could be avoided by halving the prevalence of overweight and obese people in Europe.

Cohort Studies of Fat Intake and the Risk of Breast Cancer — A Pooled Analysis

BACKGROUND Experiments in animals, international correlation comparisons, and case-control studies support an association between dietary fat intake and the incidence of breast cancer. Most cohort studies do not corroborate the association, but they have been criticized for involving small numbers of cases, homogeneous fat intake, and measurement errors in estimates of fat intake. METHODS We identified seven prospective studies in four countries that met specific criteria and analyzed the primary data in a standardized manner. Pooled estimates of the relation of fat intake to the risk of breast cancer were calculated, and data from study-specific validation studies were used to adjust the results for measurement error. RESULTS Information about 4980 cases from studies including 337,819 women was available. When women in the highest quintile of energy-adjusted total fat intake were compared with women in the lowest quintile, the multivariate pooled relative risk of breast cancer was 1.05 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.16). Relative risks for saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fat and for cholesterol, considered individually, were also close to unity. There was little overall association between the percentage of energy intake from fat and the risk of breast cancer, even among women whose energy intake from fat was less than 20 percent. Correcting for error in the measurement of nutrient intake did not materially alter these findings. CONCLUSIONS We found no evidence of a positive association between total dietary fat intake and the risk of breast cancer. There was no reduction in risk even among women whose energy intake from fat was less than 20 percent of total energy intake. In the context of the Western lifestyle, lowering the total intake of fat in midlife is unlikely to reduce the risk of breast cancer substantially.

Diabetes mellitus and risk of breast cancer: A meta‐analysis

Diabetes mellitus has been associated with an increased risk of several types of cancers, but its relationship with breast cancer remains unclear. We conducted a meta‐analysis of case–control and cohort studies to assess the evidence regarding the association between diabetes and risk of breast cancer. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (1966–February 2007) and the references of retrieved articles. We identified 20 studies (5 case–control and 15 cohort studies) that reported relative risk (RR) estimates (odds ratio, rate ratio/hazard ratio, or standardized incidence ratio) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the relation between diabetes (largely Type II diabetes) and breast cancer incidence. Summary RRs were calculated using a random‐effects model. Analysis of all 20 studies showed that women with (versus without) diabetes had a statistically significant 20% increased risk of breast cancer (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12–1.28). The summary estimates were similar for case–control studies (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05–1.32) and cohort studies (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11–1.30). Meta‐analysis of 5 cohort studies on diabetes and mortality from breast cancer yielded a summary RR of 1.24 (95% CI, 0.95–1.62) for women with (versus without) diabetes. Findings from this meta‐analysis indicate that diabetes is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

A prospective study of obesity and cancer risk (Sweden)

AbstractObjective: We evaluated the relation between obesity and the risks for various forms of cancer. Methods: In a population-based cohort of 28,129 hospital patients (8165 men, 19,964 women) with any discharge diagnosis of obesity (9557 only diagnosis, 5266 primary, 13,306 secondary) during 1965–1993, cancer incidence was ascertained through 1993 by record linkage to the nationwide Swedish Cancer Registry. Cancer risk was estimated using the standardized incidence ratio (SIR, with 95% confidence interval), which is the ratio of the observed number of cancers to that expected. Results: Overall, a 33% excess incidence of cancer was seen in obese persons, 25% in men and 37% in women. Significant risk elevations were observed for cancers of the small intestine (SIR = 2.8; 95% CI 1.6–4.5), colon (1.3; 1.1–1.5), gallbladder (1.6; 1.1–2.3), pancreas (1.5; 1.1–1.9), larynx (2.1; 1.1–3.5), renal parenchyma (2.3; 1.8–2.8), bladder (1.2; 1.0–1.6), cervix uteri (1.4; 1.1–1.9), endometrium (2.9; 2.5–3.4), ovary (1.2; 1.1–1.5), brain (1.5; 1.2–1.9), and connective tissue (1.9; 1.1–3.0), and for lymphomas (1.4; 1.0–1.7), with higher risk observed for Hodgkins disease only in men (3.3; 1.4–6.5) and for non-Hodgkins lymphoma only in women (1.6; 1.2–2.1). The association of obesity with risk of breast, prostate and pancreas cancers was modified by age. Conclusions: Obesity is associated with more forms of cancer than previously reported.

Meta-Analysis for Linear and Nonlinear Dose-Response Relations: Examples, an Evaluation of Approximations, and Software

Two methods for point and interval estimation of relative risk for log-linear exposure-response relations in meta-analyses of published ordinal categorical exposure-response data have been proposed. The authors compared the results of a meta-analysis of published data using each of the 2 methods with the results that would be obtained if the primary data were available and investigated the circumstances under which the approximations required for valid use of each meta-analytic method break down. They then extended the methods to handle nonlinear exposure-response relations. In the present article, methods are illustrated using studies of the relation between alcohol consumption and colorectal and lung cancer risks from the ongoing Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer. In these examples, the differences between the results of a meta-analysis of summarized published data and the pooled analysis of the individual original data were small. However, incorrectly assuming no correlation between relative risk estimates for exposure categories from the same study gave biased confidence intervals for the trend and biased P values for the tests for nonlinearity and between-study heterogeneity when there was strong confounding by other model covariates. The authors illustrate the use of 2 publicly available user-friendly programs (Stata and SAS) to implement meta-analysis for dose-response data.

Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Accumulating epidemiologic evidence indicates that high consumption of red meat and of processed meat may increase the risk of colorectal cancer. We quantitatively assessed the association between red meat and processed meat consumption and the risk of colorectal cancer in a meta‐analysis of prospective studies published through March 2006. Random‐effects models were used to pool study results and to assess dose‐response relationships. We identified 15 prospective studies on red meat (involving 7,367 cases) and 14 prospective studies on processed meat consumption (7,903 cases). The summary relative risks (RRs) of colorectal cancer for the highest vs. the lowest intake categories were 1.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15–1.42) for red meat and 1.20 (95% CI = 1.11–1.31) for processed meat. The estimated summary RRs were 1.28 (95% CI = 1.18–1.39) for an increase of 120 g/day of red meat and 1.09 (95% CI = 1.05–1.13) for an increase of 30 g/day of processed meat. Consumption of red meat and processed meat was positively associated with risk of both colon and rectal cancer, although the association with red meat appeared to be stronger for rectal cancer. In 3 studies that reported results for subsites in the colon, high consumption of processed meat was associated with an increased risk of distal colon cancer but not of proximal colon cancer. The results of this meta‐analysis of prospective studies support the hypothesis that high consumption of red meat and of processed meat is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Diabetes mellitus and risk of endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis

Aims/hypothesisDiabetes has been associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of endometrial cancer in most, but not all studies. To provide a quantitative assessment of the association between diabetes and risk of endometrial cancer, we conducted a meta-analysis of case-control studies and cohort studies.Subjects and methodsWe identified studies by a literature search of PubMed and Embase through to January 2007 and by searching the reference lists of relevant articles. Summary relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects model.ResultsThe analysis of diabetes (largely type 2) and endometrial cancer is based on 16 studies (three cohort and 13 case-control studies), including 96,003 participants and 7,596 cases of endometrial cancer. Twelve of the studies showed a statistically significantly increased risk and four a non-significant increased risk of endometrial cancer. In our meta-analysis we found that diabetes was statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer (summary RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.75–2.53). The risk estimates were somewhat stronger among case-control (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.80–2.74) than among cohort studies (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.21–2.16), stronger among studies adjusting only for age (RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.87–4.00) compared with multivariate adjustment (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.58–2.33) and slightly lower in studies performed in the USA than in those performed Europe. The analysis of type 1 diabetes and endometrial cancer was based on three studies and found a statistically significant positive association (summary RR 3.15, 95%CI 1.07–9.29).Conclusions/interpretationResults from the meta-analysis support a relationship between diabetes and increased risk of endometrial cancer.

The Swedish Twin Registry in the Third Millennium: An Update

The Swedish Twin Registry was first established in the late 1950s. Today it includes more than 170,000 twins--in principle, all twins born in Sweden since 1886. In this article we describe some ongoing and recently completed projects based on the registry. In particular, we describe recent efforts to screen all twins born between 1959 and 1985, and young twin pairs when they turn 9 and 12 years of age. For these studies, we present initial frequencies of common conditions and exposures.

Overweight, obesity and risk of liver cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies

Cohort studies of excess body weight and risk of liver cancer were identified for a meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1966 to June 2007 and the reference lists of retrieved articles. Results from individual studies were combined using a random-effects model. We identified 11 cohort studies, of which seven on overweight (with a total of 5037 cases) and 10 on obesity (with 6042 cases) were suitable for meta-analysis. Compared with persons of normal weight, the summary relative risks of liver cancer were 1.17 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02–1.34) for those who were overweight and 1.89 (95% CI: 1.51–2.36) for those who were obese. This meta-analysis finds that excess body weight is associated with an increased risk of liver cancer.