E K Choi1, H B Park2, K H Lee3, J H Park4, M Eisenhut5, H J van der Vliet6, G Kim7, J I Shin8. 1. Mo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Nursing, Seoul. 2. Department of Nursing, Yonsei University Graduate of Nursing, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Severance Children's Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 5. Children's & Adolescent Services, Luton & Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Luton, UK. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Nursing, College of Nursing, Keimyung University, Daegu. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Severance Children's Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Institute of Kidney Disease Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: shinji@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
Background: Objectives were to provide an overview and understand the strength of evidence and extent of potential biases and validity of claimed associations between body mass index (BMI) and risk of developing cancer. Methods: We carried out an umbrella review and comprehensively re-analyzed the data of dose-response meta-analyses on associations between BMI and risk of 20 specific cancers (bladder, brain, breast, colonic, rectal, endometrial, gallbladder, gastric, leukemia, liver, lung, melanoma, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, esophagus, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, renal, thyroid) by adding big data or missed individual studies. Convincing evidence for an association was defined as a strong statistical significance in fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses at P < 0.001, 95% prediction interval (PI) excluded null, there was no large between-study heterogeneity and no small study effects. Suggestive evidence was defined as meeting the significance threshold for the random summary effects of P < 0.05, but 95% PI included the null. Weak evidence was defined as meeting the significance threshold for the random summary effects at a P < 0.05, but 95% PI included the null and there was large between-study heterogeneity or there were small study effects. Results: Convincing evidence for an association with BMI was detectable for six cancers (leukemia, multiple myeloma, pancreatic, endometrial, rectal, and renal cell carcinoma). Suggestive evidence was detectable for malignant melanoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Weak evidence was detectable for brain and central nervous system tumors, breast, colon, gall bladder, lung, liver, ovarian, and thyroid cancer. No evidence was detectable for bladder, gastric, and prostate cancer. Conclusions: The association of increased BMI and cancer is heterogeneous across cancer types. Leukemia, multiple myeloma, pancreatic, endometrial, rectal, and renal cell carcinoma are convincingly associated with an increased BMI by dose-response meta-analyses.
Background: Objectives were to provide an overview and understand the strength of evidence and extent of potential biases and validity of claimed associations between body mass index (BMI) and risk of developing cancer. Methods: We carried out an umbrella review and comprehensively re-analyzed the data of dose-response meta-analyses on associations between BMI and risk of 20 specific cancers (bladder, brain, breast, colonic, rectal, endometrial, gallbladder, gastric, leukemia, liver, lung, melanoma, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, esophagus, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, renal, thyroid) by adding big data or missed individual studies. Convincing evidence for an association was defined as a strong statistical significance in fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses at P < 0.001, 95% prediction interval (PI) excluded null, there was no large between-study heterogeneity and no small study effects. Suggestive evidence was defined as meeting the significance threshold for the random summary effects of P < 0.05, but 95% PI included the null. Weak evidence was defined as meeting the significance threshold for the random summary effects at a P < 0.05, but 95% PI included the null and there was large between-study heterogeneity or there were small study effects. Results: Convincing evidence for an association with BMI was detectable for six cancers (leukemia, multiple myeloma, pancreatic, endometrial, rectal, and renal cell carcinoma). Suggestive evidence was detectable for malignant melanoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Weak evidence was detectable for brain and central nervous system tumors, breast, colon, gall bladder, lung, liver, ovarian, and thyroid cancer. No evidence was detectable for bladder, gastric, and prostate cancer. Conclusions: The association of increased BMI and cancer is heterogeneous across cancer types. Leukemia, multiple myeloma, pancreatic, endometrial, rectal, and renal cell carcinoma are convincingly associated with an increased BMI by dose-response meta-analyses.
Authors: Jacqueline A Murtha; Natalie Liu; Jen Birstler; Bret M Hanlon; Manasa Venkatesh; Lawrence P Hanrahan; Tudor Borza; David M Kushner; Luke M Funk Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 5.551
Authors: Francisco O Cortés-Ibañez; Sunil Belur Nagaraj; Ludo Cornelissen; Gerjan J Navis; Bert van der Vegt; Grigory Sidorenkov; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Keum Hwa Lee; Hyo Jin Seong; Gaeun Kim; Gwang Hun Jeong; Jong Yeob Kim; Hyunbong Park; Eunyoung Jung; Andreas Kronbichler; Michael Eisenhut; Brendon Stubbs; Marco Solmi; Ai Koyanagi; Sung Hwi Hong; Elena Dragioti; Leandro Fórnias Machado de Rezende; Louis Jacob; NaNa Keum; Hans J van der Vliet; Eunyoung Cho; Nicola Veronese; Giuseppe Grosso; Shuji Ogino; Mingyang Song; Joaquim Radua; Sun Jae Jung; Trevor Thompson; Sarah E Jackson; Lee Smith; Lin Yang; Hans Oh; Eun Kyoung Choi; Jae Il Shin; Edward L Giovannucci; Gabriele Gamerith Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 8.701