4.7 Editorial Material

The fraction of cancer attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors in the UK in 2010 Introduction

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 105, Issue -, Pages S2-S5

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.474

Keywords

cancer; environment; lifestyle; risk factors; UK

Categories

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK [C500/A104293, C8162/A10406] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The overall objective of the study is to estimate the percentage of cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) in the UK in 2010 that were the result of exposure to 14 major lifestyle, dietary and environmental risk factors: tobacco, alcohol, four elements of diet (consumption of meat, fruit and vegetables, fibre and salt), overweight, lack of physical exercise, occupation, infections, radiation (ionising and solar), use of hormones and reproductive history (breast feeding). The number of new cases attributable to suboptimal exposure levels in the past, relative to a theoretical optimum exposure distribution, is evaluated. For most of the exposures, the attributable fraction was calculated based on the distribution of exposure prevalence (around 2000), the difference from the theoretical optimum (by age group and sex) and the relative risk per unit difference. For tobacco smoking, the method developed by Peto et al (1992) was used, which relies on the ratio between observed incidence of lung cancer in smokers and that in non-smokers, to calibrate the risk. This article outlines the structure of the supplement - a section for each of the 14 exposures, followed by a Summary chapter, which considers the relative contributions of each factor to the total number of cancers diagnosed in the UK in 2010 that were, in theory, avoidable. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 105, S2-S5; doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.474 www.bjcancer.com (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available