Shanliang Zhong1, Tengfei Ma, Lin Chen, Weixian Chen, Mengmeng Lv, Xiaohui Zhang, Jianhua Zhao. 1. *Center of Clinical Laboratory Science, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China; †Teaching and Research Office of General Surgery, Xuzhou Medical College, Xuzhou, China; and ‡Department of General Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies concerning the association between physical activity (PA) and risk of lung cancer yielded mixed results. We investigated the association by performing a meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE to January 2014. Twelve cohort studies and 6 case-control studies involving 2 468 470 participants and 26 453 cases of lung cancer were selected for meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We calculated the summary relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. The analyses showed that individuals who participated in any amount of PA had an RR of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.86) for risk of lung cancer. Those who participated in high PA (vs low PA) had an RR of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.84). Stratifying by study design (case-control and cohort studies), smoking status (current, former, and never smokers), and gender, similar inverse associations were found for all the subgroups except for never smokers subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled results from observational studies support a protective effect of PA against lung cancer.
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies concerning the association between physical activity (PA) and risk of lung cancer yielded mixed results. We investigated the association by performing a meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE to January 2014. Twelve cohort studies and 6 case-control studies involving 2 468 470 participants and 26 453 cases of lung cancer were selected for meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We calculated the summary relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. The analyses showed that individuals who participated in any amount of PA had an RR of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.86) for risk of lung cancer. Those who participated in high PA (vs low PA) had an RR of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.84). Stratifying by study design (case-control and cohort studies), smoking status (current, former, and never smokers), and gender, similar inverse associations were found for all the subgroups except for never smokers subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled results from observational studies support a protective effect of PA against lung cancer.
Authors: Alpa V Patel; Christine M Friedenreich; Steven C Moore; Sandra C Hayes; Julie K Silver; Kristin L Campbell; Kerri Winters-Stone; Lynn H Gerber; Stephanie M George; Janet E Fulton; Crystal Denlinger; G Stephen Morris; Trisha Hue; Kathryn H Schmitz; Charles E Matthews Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Martina Faraldi; Laura Gerosa; Marta Gomarasca; Veronica Sansoni; Silvia Perego; Ewa Ziemann; Giuseppe Banfi; Giovanni Lombardi Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-04-30
Authors: Lin Jiang; Yi-Qian Sun; Ben Michael Brumpton; Arnulf Langhammer; Yue Chen; Tom I L Nilsen; Xiao-Mei Mai Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Carmen C Cuthbertson; Hazel B Nichols; Xianming Tan; Anna Kucharska-Newton; Gerardo Heiss; Corinne E Joshu; Elizabeth A Platz; Kelly R Evenson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Benny Rana; Liang Hu; Andrew Harper; Chao Cao; Cheryl Peters; Darren Brenner; Lin Yang Journal: Sports Med Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Philipp Zimmer; Freerk T Baumann; Max Oberste; Peter Wright; Alexander Garthe; Alexander Schenk; Thomas Elter; Daniel A Galvao; Wilhelm Bloch; Sven T Hübner; Florian Wolf Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-04-10 Impact factor: 3.411