↓ Skip to main content

Association of Leisure-Time Physical Activity With Risk of 26 Types of Cancer in 1.44 Million Adults

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 3,827)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
363 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
647 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Association of Leisure-Time Physical Activity With Risk of 26 Types of Cancer in 1.44 Million Adults
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1548
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven C. Moore, I-Min Lee, Elisabete Weiderpass, Peter T. Campbell, Joshua N. Sampson, Cari M. Kitahara, Sarah K. Keadle, Hannah Arem, Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, Patricia Hartge, Hans-Olov Adami, Cindy K. Blair, Kristin B. Borch, Eric Boyd, David P. Check, Agnès Fournier, Neal D. Freedman, Marc Gunter, Mattias Johannson, Kay-Tee Khaw, Martha S. Linet, Nicola Orsini, Yikyung Park, Elio Riboli, Kim Robien, Catherine Schairer, Howard Sesso, Michael Spriggs, Roy Van Dusen, Alicja Wolk, Charles E. Matthews, Alpa V. Patel

Abstract

Leisure-time physical activity has been associated with lower risk of heart-disease and all-cause mortality, but its association with risk of cancer is not well understood. To determine the association of leisure-time physical activity with incidence of common types of cancer and whether associations vary by body size and/or smoking. We pooled data from 12 prospective US and European cohorts with self-reported physical activity (baseline 1987-2004). We used multivariable Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals for associations of leisure-time physical activity with incidence of 26 types of cancer. Leisure-time physical activity levels were modeled as cohort-specific percentiles on a continuous basis and cohort-specific results were synthesized by random-effects meta-analysis. Hazard ratios for high vs low levels of activity are based on a comparison of risk at the 90th vs 10th percentiles of activity. The data analysis was performed from January 1, 2014, to June 1, 2015. Leisure-time physical activity of a moderate to vigorous intensity. Incident cancer during follow-up. A total of 1.44 million participants (median [range] age, 59 [19-98] years; 57% female) and 186 932 cancers were included. High vs low levels of leisure-time physical activity were associated with lower risks of 13 cancers: esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.89), liver (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.98), lung (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.77), kidney (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.85), gastric cardia (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.95), endometrial (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92), myeloid leukemia (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.92), myeloma (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.95), colon (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.91), head and neck (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.93), rectal (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95), bladder (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.82-0.92), and breast (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.93). Body mass index adjustment modestly attenuated associations for several cancers, but 10 of 13 inverse associations remained statistically significant after this adjustment. Leisure-time physical activity was associated with higher risks of malignant melanoma (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.40) and prostate cancer (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08). Associations were generally similar between overweight/obese and normal-weight individuals. Smoking status modified the association for lung cancer but not other smoking-related cancers. Leisure-time physical activity was associated with lower risks of many cancer types. Health care professionals counseling inactive adults should emphasize that most of these associations were evident regardless of body size or smoking history, supporting broad generalizability of findings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,911 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 647 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 630 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 97 15%
Student > Master 96 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 93 14%
Student > Bachelor 87 13%
Other 52 8%
Other 142 22%
Unknown 80 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 259 40%
Sports and Recreations 63 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 59 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 4%
Other 86 13%
Unknown 123 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2454. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2020.
All research outputs
#560
of 14,329,767 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#12
of 3,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19
of 265,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#1
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,329,767 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 132.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,107 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.