4.5 Review

Lifestyle factors and colorectal cancer risk (1): systematic review and meta-analysis of associations with body mass index

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 547-563

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01766.x

关键词

Body mass index; obesity; colorectal cancer risk; systematic review

资金

  1. British Medical Association
  2. HEFCE
  3. Department of Pathology, Trafford General Hospital
  4. Medical Research Council [G0501286] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [G0501286] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Excess body weight, defined by body mass index (BMI), may increase the risk of colorectal cancer. As a prerequisite to the determination of lifestyle attributable risks, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies to quantify colorectal cancer risk associated with increased BMI and explore for differences by gender, sub-site and study characteristics. Method We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (to December 2007), and other sources, selecting reports based on strict inclusion criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions of study-specific incremental estimates were performed to determine the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) associated with a 5 kg/m(2) increase in BMI. Results We analysed 29 datasets from 28 articles, including 67 361 incident cases. Higher BMI was associated with colon (RR 1.24, 95% CIs: 1.20-1.28) and rectal (1.09, 1.05-1.14) cancers in men, and with colon cancer (1.09, 1.04-1.12) in women. Associations were stronger in men than in women for colon (P < 0.001) and rectal (P = 0.005) cancers. Associations were generally consistent across geographic populations. Study characteristics and adjustments accounted for only moderate variations of associations. Conclusion Increasing BMI is associated with a modest increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancers, but this modest risk may translate to large attributable proportions in high-prevalence obese populations. Inter-gender differences point to potentially important mechanistic differences, which merit further research.

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

4.5
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