BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have shown inconsistent results for the association between body size and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Inconsistencies may be because of the reliance on self-reported measures of body size. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association of self-reported and directly assessed anthropometric data (body height, weight, body mass index (BMI), waist, hip, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and chest circumference) with CRC risk in the EPIC-Norfolk study. DESIGN: A total of 20,608 participants with complete self-reported and measured height and weight and without any history of cancer were followed up an average of 11 years, during which 357 incident CRC cases were recorded. Hazard Ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounders, HRs among women in the highest quintile of the body size measure relative to the lowest quintile showed that measured height (HR=1.98, 95% CI=1.19-3.28, P (trend)=0.009), measured waist circumference (HR=1.65, 95% CI=0.97-2.86, P (trend)=0.009) and measured WHR (HR=2.07, 95% CI=1.17-3.67, P (trend)=0.001) were associated with increased CRC risk. Associations using corresponding self-reported measures were attenuated and not statistically significant. Conversely, the association of BMI with CRC risk in women was weaker using measured BMI (HR=1.57, 95% CI=0.91-2.73, P (trend)=0.05) compared with self-reported BMI (HR=1.97, 95% CI=1.18-3.30, P (trend)=0.02). In men no significantly increased CRC risk was observed with any of the anthropometric measures. CONCLUSIONS: Measured height, waist circumference and WHR were associated with CRC risk in women, whereas any significant associations with those measures were attenuated when self-reported data were used.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have shown inconsistent results for the association between body size and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Inconsistencies may be because of the reliance on self-reported measures of body size. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association of self-reported and directly assessed anthropometric data (body height, weight, body mass index (BMI), waist, hip, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and chest circumference) with CRC risk in the EPIC-Norfolk study. DESIGN: A total of 20,608 participants with complete self-reported and measured height and weight and without any history of cancer were followed up an average of 11 years, during which 357 incident CRC cases were recorded. Hazard Ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounders, HRs among women in the highest quintile of the body size measure relative to the lowest quintile showed that measured height (HR=1.98, 95% CI=1.19-3.28, P (trend)=0.009), measured waist circumference (HR=1.65, 95% CI=0.97-2.86, P (trend)=0.009) and measured WHR (HR=2.07, 95% CI=1.17-3.67, P (trend)=0.001) were associated with increased CRC risk. Associations using corresponding self-reported measures were attenuated and not statistically significant. Conversely, the association of BMI with CRC risk in women was weaker using measured BMI (HR=1.57, 95% CI=0.91-2.73, P (trend)=0.05) compared with self-reported BMI (HR=1.97, 95% CI=1.18-3.30, P (trend)=0.02). In men no significantly increased CRC risk was observed with any of the anthropometric measures. CONCLUSIONS: Measured height, waist circumference and WHR were associated with CRC risk in women, whereas any significant associations with those measures were attenuated when self-reported data were used.
Authors: Milena A Gianfrancesco; Brigid Acuna; Ling Shen; Farren B S Briggs; Hong Quach; Kalliope H Bellesis; Allan Bernstein; Anna K Hedstrom; Ingrid Kockum; Lars Alfredsson; Tomas Olsson; Catherine Schaefer; Lisa F Barcellos Journal: Obes Res Clin Pract Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 2.288
Authors: Geoffrey C Kabat; Mimi Y Kim; Ulrike Peters; Marcia Stefanick; Lifang Hou; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Catherine Messina; James M Shikany; Thomas E Rohan Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Elinor Zhou; Lin Wang; Celina N Santiago; Julie Nanavati; Samara Rifkin; Emma Spence; Linda M Hylind; Joell J Gills; Louis La Luna; David R Kafonek; David M Cromwell; Julia L Drewes; Cynthia L Sears; Francis M Giardiello; Gerard E Mullin Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Mingyang Song; Frank B Hu; Donna Spiegelman; Andrew T Chan; Kana Wu; Shuji Ogino; Charles S Fuchs; Walter C Willett; Edward L Giovannucci Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Annika Steffen; José-Maria Huerta; Elisabete Weiderpass; H B As Bueno-de-Mesquita; Anne M May; Peter D Siersema; Rudolf Kaaks; Jasmine Neamat-Allah; Valeria Pala; Salvatore Panico; Calogero Saieva; Rosario Tumino; Alessio Naccarati; Miren Dorronsoro; Emilio Sánchez-Cantalejo; Eva Ardanaz; J Ramón Quirós; Bodil Ohlsson; Mattias Johansson; Bengt Wallner; Kim Overvad; Jytte Halkjaer; Anne Tjønneland; Guy Fagherazzi; Antoine Racine; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon; Tim J Key; Kay-Tee Khaw; Nick Wareham; Pagona Lagiou; Christina Bamia; Antonia Trichopoulou; Pietro Ferrari; Heinz Freisling; Yunxia Lu; Elio Riboli; Amanda J Cross; Carlos A Gonzalez; Heiner Boeing Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Henri S Tapp; Daniel M Commane; D Michael Bradburn; Ramesh Arasaradnam; John C Mathers; Ian T Johnson; Nigel J Belshaw Journal: Aging Cell Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 9.304