Dataset Information

Body mass index and risk of lung cancer among never, former, and current smokers.

ABSTRACT: Although obesity has been directly linked to the development of many cancers, many epidemiological studies have found that body mass index (BMI)--a surrogate marker of obesity--is inversely associated with the risk of lung cancer. These studies are difficult to interpret because of potential confounding by cigarette smoking, a major risk factor for lung cancer that is associated with lower BMI.We prospectively examined the association between BMI and the risk of lung cancer among 448?732 men and women aged 50-71 years who were recruited during 1995-1996 for the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. BMI was calculated based on the participant's self-reported height and weight on the baseline questionnaire. We identified 9437 incident lung carcinomas (including 415 in never smokers) during a mean follow-up of 9.7 years through 2006. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with adjustment for lung cancer risk factors, including smoking status. To address potential bias due to preexisting undiagnosed disease, we excluded potentially unhealthy participants in sensitivity analyses. All statistical tests were two-sided.The crude incidence rate of lung cancer over the study follow-up period was 233 per 100?000 person-years among men and 192 per 100?000 person-years among women. BMI was inversely associated with the risk of lung cancer among both men and women (BMI ?35 vs 22.5-24.99 kg/m(2): HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.94 and HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.87, respectively). The inverse association was restricted to current and former smokers and was stronger after adjustment for smoking. Among smokers, the inverse association persisted even after finely stratifying on smoking status, time since quitting smoking, and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Sensitivity analyses did not support the possibility that the inverse association was due to prevalent undiagnosed disease.Our results suggest that a higher BMI is associated with a reduced risk of lung cancer in current and former smokers. Our inability to attribute the inverse association between BMI and the risk of lung cancer to residual confounding by smoking or to bias suggests the need for considering other explanations.

SUBMITTER: Smith L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3352831 | biostudies-other | 2012 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Body mass index and risk of lung cancer among never, former, and current smokers.

Smith Llewellyn L Brinton Louise A LA Spitz Margaret R MR Lam Tram Kim TK Park Yikyung Y Hollenbeck Albert R AR Freedman Neal D ND Gierach Gretchen L GL

Journal of the National Cancer Institute 20120327 10

<h4>Background</h4>Although obesity has been directly linked to the development of many cancers, many epidemiological studies have found that body mass index (BMI)--a surrogate marker of obesity--is inversely associated with the risk of lung cancer. These studies are difficult to interpret because of potential confounding by cigarette smoking, a major risk factor for lung cancer that is associated with lower BMI.<h4>Methods</h4>We prospectively examined the association between BMI and the risk o ...[more]

PMID: 22457475

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background DNA methylation (DNAm) performs excellently in the discrimination of current and former smokers from never smokers, where AUCs > 0.9 are regularly reported using a single CpG site (cg05575921; AHRR). However, there is a paucity of DNAm models which attempt to distinguish current, former and never smokers as individual classes. Derivation of a robust DNAm model that accurately distinguishes between current, former and never smokers would be particularly valuable to epidemiological research (as a more accurate smoking definition vs. self-report) and could potentially translate to clinical settings. Therefore, we appraise 4 DNAm models of ternary smoking status (that is, current, former and never smokers): methylation at cg05575921 (AHRR model), weighted scores from 13 CpGs created by Maas et al. (Maas model), weighted scores from a LASSO model of candidate smoking CpGs from the literature (candidate CpG LASSO model), and weighted scores from a LASSO model supplied with genome-wide 450K data (agnostic LASSO model). Discrimination is assessed by AUC, whilst classification accuracy is assessed by accuracy and kappa, derived from confusion matrices. Results We find that DNAm can classify ternary smoking status with reasonable accuracy, including when applied to external data. Ternary classification using only DNAm far exceeds the classification accuracy of simply assigning all classes as the most prevalent class (63.7% vs. 36.4%). Further, we develop a DNAm classifier which performs well in discriminating current from former smokers (agnostic LASSO model AUC in external validation data: 0.744). Finally, across our DNAm models, we show evidence of enrichment for biological pathways and human phenotype ontologies relevant to smoking, such as haemostasis, molybdenum cofactor synthesis, body fatness and social behaviours, providing evidence of the generalisability of our classifiers. Conclusions Our findings suggest that DNAm can classify ternary smoking status with close to 65% accuracy. Both the ternary smoking status classifiers and current versus former smoking status classifiers address the present lack of former smoker classification in epigenetic literature; essential if DNAm classifiers are to adequately relate to real-world populations. To improve performance further, additional focus on improving discrimination of current from former smokers is necessary. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13148-021-01191-6.

Project description:ImportanceNational guidelines recommend screening for several cancer types, yet screening rates remain below target. To date, cancer screening patterns by smoking status, a major cancer risk factor, are unknown.ObjectiveTo assess cancer screening patterns among individuals who never smoked (never smokers), formerly smoked (former smokers), and currently smoke (current smokers) in the United States.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed data from the National Health Interview Survey years 2010, 2013, and 2015. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) who had never reported a cancer diagnosis were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2018, through February 1, 2019.ExposuresReceipt of cancer screening, including colonoscopy, mammography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and Papanicolaou test per the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresMultivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs for undergoing cancer screening by smoking status. Among participants who received a specific screening test, AORs and 95% CIs of receiving the test within guideline-recommended intervals were also assessed.ResultsAmong 83 176 participants (45 851 [55.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 47 [18] years), 51 014 (61.3%) were never smokers; 17 235 (20.7%), former smokers; and 14 927 (17.9%), current smokers. Compared with never smokers, current smokers were less likely to ever have received a colonoscopy (43.8% vs 57.7%; AOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82; P < .001), mammogram (88.8% vs 93.3%; AOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P = .001), or prostate-specific antigen test (46.1% vs 60.8%; AOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.90; P = .001). Among those who had ever received a specific screening test, current smokers were less likely to have undergone colonoscopy (92.1% vs 95.1%; AOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96; P = .02), mammography (62.4% vs 79.4%; AOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45-0.60; P < .001), or Papanicolaou test (80.9% vs 90.8%; AOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67; P < .001) within the recommended time frame compared with never smokers. Former smokers were more likely than never smokers to undergo any of the screening studies evaluated, with the exception of prostate-specific antigen screening (colonoscopy, 65.2% vs 57.7%; AOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12-1.30; P < .001; mammography, 95.7% vs 93.3%; AOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01; Papanicolaou test, 97.6% vs 91.4%; AOR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.93-3.26; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that current smokers appeared to be less likely to receive guideline-concordant screening studies for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer compared with never smokers. Further research is needed to identify barriers to screening among current smokers with the goal of increasing acceptance and uptake of cancer screening among this population at high risk of cancer.

Dataset Information

Body mass index and risk of lung cancer among never, former, and current smokers.

Publications

Body mass index and risk of lung cancer among never, former, and current smokers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets