The Association between Leisure Time Physical Activity and Pancreatic Cancer Risk in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

We conducted a meta-analysis of the association between leisure time physical activity (LTPA) and risk of pancreatic cancer to update previous analyses in light of newly published studies, to examine subgroups of interest and potential sources of heterogeneity. We searched the PubMed and MEDLINE dat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention biomarkers & prevention, 2015-10, Vol.24 (10), p.1462-1473
Main Authors: Farris, Megan S, Mosli, Mohammed H, McFadden, Alison A, Friedenreich, Christine M, Brenner, Darren R
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Global Health
Humans
Incidence
Leisure Activities
Motor Activity
Pancreatic Neoplasms - epidemiology
Pancreatic Neoplasms - prevention & control
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Survival Rate - trends
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We conducted a meta-analysis of the association between leisure time physical activity (LTPA) and risk of pancreatic cancer to update previous analyses in light of newly published studies, to examine subgroups of interest and potential sources of heterogeneity. We searched the PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies until February 2015. Study information was collected using a standardized form to abstract relevant data on study design, number of cases, participant and study characteristics, assessment of LTPA, risk estimates, and adjustments for confounding by two independent abstractors. We used random-effects models to pool estimates from included studies of lowest versus highest comparison of LTPA. The search identified 26 studies eligible for inclusion into the meta-analysis. The combined summary risk estimate was [relative risk (RR), 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.96]. There was evidence of heterogeneity across studies (I(2) = 22.1%, Pheterogeneity = 0.130). Some of the heterogeneity could be explained by study design, with stronger protective effects observed among case-control studies (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.81) compared with cohort studies (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.02). Across study designs, age of population was a source of heterogeneity, with stronger effects observed among younger (
ISSN:1055-9965
1538-7755
DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-0301