4.6 Article

Associations Between Anthropometry, Cigarette Smoking, Alcohol Consumption, and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 171, 期 12, 页码 1270-1281

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq085

关键词

alcoholic beverages; anthropometry; body height; body mass index; body weight; life style; lymphoma; non-Hodgkin; smoking

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prospective studies of lifestyle and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are conflicting, and some are inconsistent with case-control studies. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was used to evaluate risk of NHL and its subtypes in association with anthropometric factors, smoking, and alcohol consumption in a prospective cohort study. Lifestyle was assessed via questionnaire among 142,982 male and female participants aged 55-74 years enrolled in the PLCO Trial during 1993-2001. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression. During 1,201,074 person-years of follow-up through 2006, 1,264 histologically confirmed NHL cases were identified. Higher body mass index (BMI; weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) at ages 20 and 50 years and at baseline was associated with increased NHL risk (P-trend < 0.01 for all; e.g., for baseline BMI >= 30 vs. 18.5-24.9, hazard ratio = 1.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.13, 1.54). Smoking was not associated with NHL overall but was inversely associated with follicular lymphoma (ever smoking vs. never: hazard ratio = 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.45, 0.85). Alcohol consumption was unrelated to NHL (drinks/week: P-trend = 0.187). These data support previous studies suggesting that BMI is positively associated with NHL, show an inverse association between smoking and follicular lymphoma (perhaps due to residual confounding), and do not support a causal association between alcohol and NHL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据