MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016178892 · doi:10.1002/ijc.25548

Physical activity and pancreatic cancer risk

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

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePancreatic cancerCancerPancreasPhysical activityProspective cohort studyInternal medicineGerontologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.018
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CancerSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207