Susan C Gilchrist1,2, Virginia J Howard3, Tomi Akinyemiju4, Suzanne E Judd5, Mary Cushman6, Steven P Hooker7, Keith M Diaz8. 1. Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 2. Department of Cardiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama School of Public Health, Birmingham. 4. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama School of Public Health, Birmingham. 6. Vermont Cancer Center, Department of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington. 7. College of Health and Human Services, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 8. Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
Importance: Sedentary behavior is associated with several health outcomes, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality. Less is known about the association between objectively measured sedentary behavior and cancer mortality, as well as the association with physical activity. Objective: To examine the association between accelerometer-measured sedentary behavior (total volume and accrual in prolonged, uninterrupted bouts) and cancer mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study conducted in the contiguous US included 8002 black and white adults aged 45 years or older enrolled in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study. The present analysis was performed from April 18, 2019, to April 21, 2020. Exposures: Sedentary time, light-intensity physical activity (LIPA), and moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) were measured using a hip-mounted accelerometer worn for 7 consecutive days. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cancer mortality. Results: Of the 8002 study participants, 3668 were men (45.8%); mean (SD) age was 69.8 (8.5) years. Over a mean (SD) follow-up of 5.3 (1.5) years, 268 participants (3.3%) died of cancer. In multivariable-adjusted models, including MVPA, greater total sedentary time was associated with a greater risk of cancer mortality (tertile 2 vs tertile 1: hazard ratio [HR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.00-2.11; tertile 3 vs tertile 1: HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.01-2.27). Longer sedentary bout duration was not significantly associated with greater cancer mortality risk: after adjustment for MVPA (tertile 2 vs tertile 1: HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.90-1.78; tertile 3 vs tertile 1: HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.96-1.93). Replacing 30 minutes of sedentary time with LIPA was significantly associated with an 8% (per 30 minutes: HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97) lower risk of cancer mortality; MVPA was significantly associated with a 31% (per 30 minutes: HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97) lower risk of cancer mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, greater sedentary time, as measured with accelerometry, appeared to be independently associated with cancer mortality risk. Replacing sedentary time with either LIPA or MVPA may be associated with a lower risk of cancer mortality. These findings suggest that the total volume of sedentary behavior is a potential cancer mortality risk factor and support the public health message that adults should sit less and move more to promote longevity.
Importance: Sedentary behavior is associated with several health outcomes, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality. Less is known about the association between objectively measured sedentary behavior and cancer mortality, as well as the association with physical activity. Objective: To examine the association between accelerometer-measured sedentary behavior (total volume and accrual in prolonged, uninterrupted bouts) and cancer mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study conducted in the contiguous US included 8002 black and white adults aged 45 years or older enrolled in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study. The present analysis was performed from April 18, 2019, to April 21, 2020. Exposures: Sedentary time, light-intensity physical activity (LIPA), and moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) were measured using a hip-mounted accelerometer worn for 7 consecutive days. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cancer mortality. Results: Of the 8002 study participants, 3668 were men (45.8%); mean (SD) age was 69.8 (8.5) years. Over a mean (SD) follow-up of 5.3 (1.5) years, 268 participants (3.3%) died of cancer. In multivariable-adjusted models, including MVPA, greater total sedentary time was associated with a greater risk of cancer mortality (tertile 2 vs tertile 1: hazard ratio [HR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.00-2.11; tertile 3 vs tertile 1: HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.01-2.27). Longer sedentary bout duration was not significantly associated with greater cancer mortality risk: after adjustment for MVPA (tertile 2 vs tertile 1: HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.90-1.78; tertile 3 vs tertile 1: HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.96-1.93). Replacing 30 minutes of sedentary time with LIPA was significantly associated with an 8% (per 30 minutes: HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97) lower risk of cancer mortality; MVPA was significantly associated with a 31% (per 30 minutes: HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97) lower risk of cancer mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, greater sedentary time, as measured with accelerometry, appeared to be independently associated with cancer mortality risk. Replacing sedentary time with either LIPA or MVPA may be associated with a lower risk of cancer mortality. These findings suggest that the total volume of sedentary behavior is a potential cancer mortality risk factor and support the public health message that adults should sit less and move more to promote longevity.
Authors: Genevieve N Healy; David W Dunstan; Jo Salmon; Ester Cerin; Jonathan E Shaw; Paul Z Zimmet; Neville Owen Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-02-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Genevieve N Healy; Charles E Matthews; David W Dunstan; Elisabeth A H Winkler; Neville Owen Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Keith M Diaz; Jeff Goldsmith; Heather Greenlee; Garrett Strizich; Qibin Qi; Yasmin Mossavar-Rahmani; Denise C Vidot; Christina Buelna; Carrie E Brintz; Tali Elfassy; Linda C Gallo; Martha L Daviglus; Daniela Sotres-Alvarez; Robert C Kaplan Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Hannah Arem; Steve C Moore; Yikyung Park; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Albert Hollenbeck; Michael Leitzmann; Charles E Matthews Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Brent Hutto; Virginia J Howard; Steven N Blair; Natalie Colabianchi; John E Vena; David Rhodes; Steven P Hooker Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Preetha Anand; Ajaikumar B Kunnumakkara; Ajaikumar B Kunnumakara; Chitra Sundaram; Kuzhuvelil B Harikumar; Sheeja T Tharakan; Oiki S Lai; Bokyung Sung; Bharat B Aggarwal Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Britni R Belcher; Dong-Woo Kang; Alexandra G Yunker; Christina M Dieli-Conwright Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 5.945
Authors: Ashleigh M Johnson; K Scott Baker; Miriam J Haviland; Karen L Syrjala; Mark Abbey-Lambertz; Eric J Chow; Jason A Mendoza Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 1.757
Authors: Dong Hoon Lee; Leandro F M Rezende; Gerson Ferrari; Dagfinn Aune; NaNa Keum; Fred K Tabung; Edward L Giovannucci Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Kelly R Evenson; John Bellettiere; Carmen C Cuthbertson; Chongzhi Di; Rimma Dushkes; Annie Green Howard; Humberto Parada; Benjamin T Schumacher; Eric J Shiroma; Guangxing Wang; I-Min Lee; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Aline Rachel Bezerra Gurgel; Pedro Mingroni-Netto; Jose Carlos Farah; Christina May Moran de Brito; Anna S Levin; Patricia Chakur Brum Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 4.566