4.7 Article

Adult height in relation to mortality from 14 cancer sites in men in London (UK): evidence from the original Whitehall study

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 157-166

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdj018

关键词

cancer; cohort study; height; Whitehall

类别

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G106/1133, G19/35, MC_U130059821, G0100222, G8802774] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [MC_U130059821, G106/1133] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Adult height has been related to organ-specific malignancies in relatively few studies. Findings are discrepant for some sites and several studies are subject to a series of methodological limitations. Materials and methods: We examined the association of adult height with death attributed to 14 cancer sites using data from the original Whitehall cohort. This is a prospective study of 18 403 middle-aged, non-industrial, London-based, male government employees who were examined in the late 1960s and then followed up for mortality for a maximum of 35 years. Results: There were 11 099 deaths during follow-up, 3101 (28%) of which were ascribed to cancer. Cox proportional hazards regression models revealed modest effects for height in relation to site-specific cancers. Following adjustment for covariates that included employment grade (an indicator of socioeconomic position), body mass index and smoking habit, increased height was associated with elevated mortality rates for cancer of combined sites [hazards ratio per 5 cm increase in height (95% confidence interval); P for trend across height categories: 1.05 (1.03, 1.08); P < 0.001], lung [1.13 (1.06, 1.20); P < 0.001], prostate [1.07 (0.99, 1.15); P = 0.08], kidney [1.20 (0.99, 1.46); P = 0.08], skin [1.35 (1.06, 1.70); P = 0.02] and leukaemia [1.11 (0.96, 1.28); P = 0.02]. Conclusions: Amongst other explanations, the weak positive height-cancer gradients apparent herein may be ascribed to early life exposures that correlate with adult height, such as high caloric intake.

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

4.7
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