MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2016178892 · doi:10.1002/ijc.25548

Physical activity and pancreatic cancer risk

2010· letter· en· W2016178892 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claudio Pelucchi, Antonella Zucchetto, Alessandra Tavani, Luigino Dal Maso, Diego Serraino, Carlo La Vecchia

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2010
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePancreatic cancerCancerPancreasPhysical activityProspective cohort studyInternal medicineGerontologyPhysical therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on physical activity and pancreatic cancer,1 based on 22 prospective and six case-control investigations, reported no strong evidence for association. There was a modest inverse association with total and occupational physical activity, recreational activity showed inconsistent relations, whereas no association was found with high intensity activity. Several aspects of physical activity, including the role of activity in early life, have been scarcely considered to date.2 To provide further information on the issue, we analyzed data on physical activity in a case-control study of pancreatic cancer conducted in two areas of Northern Italy. The characteristics of this study have been described elsewhere.3 Briefly, cases were 326 patients (174 men and 152 women, median age 63 years) with histologically confirmed incident cancer of the pancreas, admitted to the major teaching and general hospitals in the study areas, and with no previous cancer diagnosis. Histologically confirmed neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas were excluded. Controls were 652 patients (348 men and 304 women, median age 63 years) admitted to the same hospitals as cases for a wide spectrum of acute, non-neoplastic conditions, unrelated to smoking, alcohol consumption, or long-term modifications of diet. Controls were frequency-matched to cases by sex, age, and study center. For both cases and controls, data were collected during the hospital stay by trained interviewers using a standardized, structured questionnaire. The section on physical activity included questions on self-reported intensity of activity at work and during leisure time separately, in different periods of life. For occupational physical activity, patients were asked whether their jobs were “very heavy,” “heavy,” “average,” “standing,” or “mainly sitting,” according to a structured scale classified into five categories. Physical activity during leisure time was defined on the basis of the number of hours per week of sport or activity, such as walking, gardening, cycling, etc. Scores ranged between 1 and 4, corresponding respectively to <2, 2–4, 5–7, and >7 hours of physical activity per week. The scores of the two lowest and the two highest levels of occupational physical activity and the scores of the two highest levels of recreational physical activity were combined together, since there were too few subjects in these categories. Odds ratios (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived using conditional multiple logistic regression. All regression models were stratified on age, sex, and study center, and adjusted for year of interview, education, smoking habit, alcohol drinking, diabetes, body mass index, and energy intake. Table 1 shows the distribution of cases and controls and the corresponding ORs and 95% CI according to occupational and recreational physical activity at various ages. For the highest vs. the lowest level of occupational physical activity, the ORs were 1.24 (95% CI, 0.79–1.95) at age 15–19, 1.21 (95% CI, 0.80–1.85) at age 30–39 and 1.41 (95% CI, 0.90–2.22) at age 50–59, with no significant trend in risk at any age considered. The corresponding ORs for recreational physical activity were 1.44 (95% CI, 0.97–2.13) at age 15–19, 1.52 (95% CI, 1.03–2.24) at age 30–39 and 1.39 (95% CI, 0.91–2.14) at age 50–59. A significant positive trend in risk emerged only for recreational physical activity at age 30–39 (p = 0.02). Therefore, occupational and recreational physical activity were not associated to a decreased risk of pancreatic cancer in our study. Results for physical activity during the teenage period were comparable to those at older ages, indicating a lack of association or, if any, a modest increase in risk of pancreatic cancer for high recreational physical activity in early life. Previous case-control studies were conducted in North America and generally reported inconsistent results. In a Canadian study,4 men with the highest index of total physical activity had an almost halved risk of pancreatic cancer as compared to those in the lowest level, whereas no association was found in women. A study from the San Francisco Bay area5 found a nonsignificant roughly 20% decreased risk in both sexes for subjects with high activity level as compared to inactive ones. A recent investigation from the Upper Midwest of the United States6 reported a decreased pancreatic cancer risk associated to physical activity; however, this association was limited to light and moderate activity, in the absence of any trend in risk. However, a study conducted in Missouri7 showed that men with moderate occupational activity level had a slightly increased risk of pancreatic cancer as compared to those with both high and low levels of occupational activity. In conclusion, our data do not indicate a major role of physical activity on pancreatic cancer risk. Although our point estimates of risk were somewhat higher as compared with previous investigations, the results were in broad agreement with other reports when considering the whole range of the CIs. The evidence from cohort and case-control studies, therefore, weighs against a relevant role of physical activity in pancreatic cancer risk. Claudio Pelucchi*, Antonella Zucchetto , Alessandra Tavani*, Luigino Dal Maso , Diego Serraino , Carlo La Vecchia* , * Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy, Struttura Operativa Complessa di Epidemiologia e Biostatistica, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Aviano (PN), Italy, Dipartimento di Medicina del Lavoro, Clinica del Lavoro Luigi Devoto, Sezione di Statistica Medica e Biometria Giulio, A. Maccacaro, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,034

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,018
Bibliométrie0,0040,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,367
Écart entre enseignants0,346 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of CancerMême sujetChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeTravaux en français237 207