Self-reported and measured anthropometric data and risk of colorectal cancer in the EPIC-Norfolk study.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have shown inconsistent results for the association between body size and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Inconsistencies may be because of the reliance on self-reported measures of body size. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association of self-reported and directly assessed anthropometric data (body height, weight, body mass index (BMI), waist, hip, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and chest circumference) with CRC risk in the EPIC-Norfolk study. DESIGN: A total of 20,608 participants with complete self-reported and measured height and weight and without any history of cancer were followed up an average of 11 years, during which 357 incident CRC cases were recorded. Hazard Ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounders, HRs among women in the highest quintile of the body size measure relative to the lowest quintile showed that measured height (HR=1.98, 95% CI=1.19-3.28, P (trend)=0.009), measured waist circumference (HR=1.65, 95% CI=0.97-2.86, P (trend)=0.009) and measured WHR (HR=2.07, 95% CI=1.17-3.67, P (trend)=0.001) were associated with increased CRC risk. Associations using corresponding self-reported measures were attenuated and not statistically significant. Conversely, the association of BMI with CRC risk in women was weaker using measured BMI (HR=1.57, 95% CI=0.91-2.73, P (trend)=0.05) compared with self-reported BMI (HR=1.97, 95% CI=1.18-3.30, P (trend)=0.02). In men no significantly increased CRC risk was observed with any of the anthropometric measures. CONCLUSIONS: Measured height, waist circumference and WHR were associated with CRC risk in women, whereas any significant associations with those measures were attenuated when self-reported data were used.

Alcohol intake and risk of colorectal cancer: results from the UK Dietary Cohort Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have suggested that excessive alcohol intake increases colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. However, findings regarding tumour subsites and sex differences have been inconsistent. METHODS: We investigated the prospective associations between alcohol intake on overall and site- and sex-specific CRC risk. Analyses were conducted on 579 CRC cases and 1996 matched controls nested within the UK Dietary Cohort Consortium using standardised data obtained from food diaries as a main nutritional method and repeated using data from food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). RESULTS: Compared with individuals in the lightest category of drinkers (>0-<5 g per day), the multivariable odds ratios of CRC were 1.16 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.88, 1.53) for non-drinkers, 0.91 (95% CI: 0.67, 1.24) for drinkers with 5-<15 g per day, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.65, 1.25) for drinkers with 15-<30 g per day, 1.02 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.58) for drinkers with 30-<45 g per day and 1.19 (95% CI: 0.75, 1.91) for drinkers with >or=45 g per day. No clear associations were observed between site-specific CRC risk and alcohol intake in either sex. Analyses using FFQ showed similar results. CONCLUSION: We found no significantly increased risk of CRC up to 30 g per day of alcohol intake within the UK Dietary Cohort Consortium.

Index-based dietary patterns and risk of colorectal cancer: the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.

The authors compared how four indexes-the Healthy Eating Index-2005, Alternate Healthy Eating Index, Mediterranean Diet Score, and Recommended Food Score-are associated with colorectal cancer in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study (n = 492,382). To calculate each score, they merged data from a 124-item food frequency questionnaire completed at study entry (1995-1996) with the MyPyramid Equivalents Database (version 1.0). Other variables included energy, nutrients, multivitamins, and alcohol. Models were stratified by sex and adjusted for age, ethnicity, education, body mass index, smoking, physical activity, and menopausal hormone therapy (in women). During 5 years of follow-up, 3,110 incident colorectal cancer cases were ascertained. Although the indexes differ in design, a similarly decreased risk of colorectal cancer was observed across all indexes for men when comparing the highest scores with the lowest: Healthy Eating Index-2005 (relative risk (RR) = 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62, 0.83); Alternate Healthy Eating Index (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.81); Mediterranean Diet Score (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.83); and Recommended Food Score (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.87). For women, a significantly decreased risk was found with the Healthy Eating Index-2005, although Alternate Healthy Eating Index results were similar. Index-based dietary patterns that are consistent with given dietary guidelines are associated with reduced risk.

Effects of body size and sociodemographic characteristics on differences between self-reported and measured anthropometric data in middle-aged men and women: the EPIC-Norfolk study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of body size and sociodemographic characteristics on differences between self-reported (SR) and measured anthropometric data in men and women. SUBJECTS/METHODS: This study comprises 9933 men and 11,856 women aged 39-79 years at baseline survey (1993-1997) in the EPIC-Norfolk study (Norfolk arm of the European Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Study). The effects of sex, measured height, weight, age group, educational level and social class on differences between SR and measured weight, height, body mass index (BMI), waist, hip and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) were examined. RESULTS: There were systematic differences between SR and measured anthropometric measurements by sex, measured height, weight and sociodemographic characteristics. Height was overestimated in both sexes while weight, waist, hip, and consequently, BMI and WHR were underestimated. Being male, shorter, heavier, older, and having no educational qualifications and manual occupation were independently associated with overreporting of height, and underreporting of weight was associated independently with being female, shorter, heavier, younger age, and higher education level and social class. Underreporting of waist circumference was strongly associated with being female and higher measured waist circumference, while underreporting of hip circumference was associated with being male and higher measured hip circumference. Furthermore, there was substantial degree of misclassification of BMI and waist circumference categories for both general and central obesity associated with SR data. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that errors in SR anthropometric data, especially waist and hip circumference are influenced by actual body size as well as sociodemographic characteristics. These systematic differences may influence associations between SR anthropometric measures and health outcomes in epidemiological studies.