Relation of Height, Body Mass, Energy Intake, and Physical Activity to Risk of Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the Netherlands Cohort Study

Boukje A. C. van Dijk1 , Leo J. Schouten1, Lambertus A. L. M. Kiemeney2, R. Alexandra Goldbohm3 and Piet A. van den Brandt1

1 Department of Epidemiology, Nutrition and Toxicology Research Institute Maastricht (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
2 Departments of Epidemiology and Urology, University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
3 Department of Nutritional Epidemiology, TNO Nutrition and Food Research, Zeist, the Netherlands.

Received for publication April 8, 2004; accepted for publication July 21, 2004.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Data from the Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer were used to investigate the association between anthropometry, energy intake, and physical activity and risk of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer consists of 120,852 men and women aged 55–69 years who completed a self-administered questionnaire at baseline (1986). A case-cohort approach was used. After 9.3 years of follow-up, 275 microscopically confirmed incident cases were available for analysis. Incidence rate ratios for RCC were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Height was associated with RCC risk only in women (per 5-cm increment, rate ratio (RR) = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03, 1.46). Body mass index (weight (kg)/height (m)2) was associated with increased risk of RCC (per 1-kg/m2 increment, RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.12) for men and women, as was gain in body mass index from age 20 years to baseline (per 1-kg/m2 increment, RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.10). Energy intake was not related to RCC risk, while a possible protective effect was observed for physical activity in men. These results suggest that body mass index and gain in body mass index since age 20 are associated with increased risk of RCC.

anthropometry; body height; body mass index; carcinoma, renal cell; energy intake; exercise; kidney neoplasms; leisure activities

Abbreviations: Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; IGF-I, insulin-like growth factor I; RCC, renal cell carcinoma; RR, rate ratio.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Body mass index (BMI), the ratio of weight (kg) to the square of height (m2), is believed to be an important risk factor for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In a quantitative review, a summary relative risk per 1-kg/m2 increase in BMI of 1.07 (95 percent confidence interval (CI): 1.05, 1.09) was found for men and women (1). The attributable proportion of RCC for excess body weight is estimated to be 25 percent for both men and women in the European Union (2). Most studies have reported an association between BMI and RCC for both sexes (310), but some studies have reported associations confined to men (1113) or women (14, 15). Inconsistent reports exist on the association between height and RCC risk (10, 13, 16). High body weight is associated with increased risk of RCC, particularly among women (17, 18), and weight changes should be investigated further (18). Reports on energy intake (15, 19) and physical activity (16, 20, 21) have been inconsistent.

BMI is a measure of body mass relative to height. In general, there is good correlation between BMI and percentage of body fat. Obesity or excess body fat is caused by excess energy intake relative to energy expenditure, which consists of resting metabolic rate, the thermic effect of food, posture and spontaneous activity, and voluntary physical activity (22).

Two different biologic mechanisms have been proposed to explain the observed relation between BMI and renal cancer risk. Physical activity and energy intake may also fit these mechanisms. Yu and Rohan (23) proposed that the insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) system may be the mechanistic link between obesity and the development of RCC. IGF-I has been shown to stimulate cell proliferation and inhibit apoptosis (23), both of which favor tumor growth. In humans, it has been shown that obese persons have increased serum levels of free IGF-I (22). Overnutrition has been reported to increase levels of IGF-I (23), while no conclusions can be drawn regarding the effect of physical activity on IGF-I levels (22, 2428).

Secondly, the process of lipid peroxidation may be involved (29). Byproducts of lipid peroxidation have been shown to react with renal cell DNA to form adducts, which may lead to mutations. Obese subjects are known to exhibit increased lipid peroxidation, while exercise programs result in reduced lipid peroxidation. Furthermore, it has been proposed that lipid peroxidation may also explain the roles of other risk factors, such as smoking, and protective factors, such as intake of foods high in antioxidants, in the development of RCC (29).

Hence, it would be logical to investigate BMI, energy intake, and physical activity simultaneously. To our knowledge, only one study has investigated the roles of BMI, physical activity, and energy intake together (21), but the emphasis of that study was on physical activity. In this study, a prospective cohort study with a relatively large number of cases, we estimated the effects of height, weight, BMI, BMI at age 20 years, BMI change since age 20 years, energy intake, and physical activity on risk of RCC. We also investigated the effects of BMI, energy intake, and physical activity simultaneously.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer
The study design, including data collection strategies, has been described in detail previously (30). Briefly, this population-based prospective cohort study on diet and cancer started in the Netherlands in September 1986. The cohort includes 58,279 men and 62,573 women who were aged 55–69 years at baseline. The study was designed as a case-cohort study, using all cases and a random sample of 5,000 persons from the cohort (subcohort), who have been followed for estimation of the accumulated person-years in the entire cohort (31).

Follow-up
Incident cancer cases occurring in the total cohort were identified through record linkage to the Netherlands cancer registries and PALGA (the national automated pathology archive) (32). The completeness of cancer follow-up was estimated to be more than 96 percent (33). This gave us 275 incident cases (179 men and 96 women) with microscopically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the renal parenchyma and no prevalent cancer at baseline. Follow-up of the subcohort was almost complete; out of the 5,000 subcohort members (2,411 men and 2,589 women), only two men were lost to follow-up after 9.3 years (September 1986–December 1995). Subcohort members with prevalent cancer (other than skin cancer) at baseline were excluded (76 men and 145 women) from the analyses, leaving 4,779 subcohort members (2,335 men and 2,444 women).

Questionnaire
At baseline, all cohort members completed a self-administered questionnaire, which has been described elsewhere (34). Questions were asked about current height, current weight, weight at age 20 years, family history of cancer, physical activity, job history, and usual consumption of foods and beverages during the year preceding the start of the study.

BMI was calculated by dividing weight (kg) by height squared (m2). Rate ratios are presented per 1-kg/m2 increment for BMI at baseline, BMI at age 20 years, and BMI gain between age 20 years and baseline. In addition, BMI at baseline was categorized into the following categories: BMI < 23, 23 ≤ BMI < 25, 25 ≤ BMI < 27, 27 ≤ BMI < 30, and BMI ≥ 30. Because of missing values, analyses for BMI were based on 264 incident cases and 4,592 subcohort members. For BMI at age 20 years, participants were categorized into four groups: BMI < 20, 20 ≤ BMI < 21, 21 ≤ BMI < 23, and BMI ≥ 23. Gain in BMI (kg/m2) was categorized as <0, 0–4, 4–8, or ≥8. Analyses for BMI at age 20 and BMI gain since age 20 were based on 227 cases and 3,905 subcohort members, since not all participants provided information on their weight at age 20.

Energy intake was calculated from the food frequency questionnaire (34, 35) using the computerized Dutch food composition table (36). Fifteen cases and 338 subcohort members with incomplete or inconsistent dietary data were excluded from the analyses. Details are given elsewhere (34). On the basis of the distribution in the subcohort, energy intake was divided into quintiles for men and women separately.

Physical activity was divided into occupational and nonoccupational activity. In this paper, we use the term "nonoccupational physical activity" to cover both recreational physical activity and the physical activity involved in getting to and from work (e.g., walking, cycling). For estimation of occupational activity, participants were asked to report job title(s) and job duration(s). Assessment of physical activity at work was based on the job held for the longest amount of time. Total energy expenditure was based on a rating system developed by Hettinger et al. (37). Participants were classified into three energy expenditure groups: <8 kJ/minute, 8–12 kJ/minute, and ≥12 kJ/minute. Occupational physical activity was not calculated for women, since most women of this generation had not held a job or had worked for only a short period of time, mostly in the distant past.

Baseline nonoccupational physical activity was calculated by adding up the number of minutes spent per day on cycling/walking to work, shopping, and walking the dog and the number of hours spent per week on gardening/odd jobs, recreational cycling/walking, and sports/exercise, as reported (38).

Statistical analysis
On the basis of the literature, age (continuous variable), sex, and cigarette smoking (current smoking (yes/no), number of years of smoking, and number of cigarettes smoked per day) were considered as confounders. We did not adjust for family history of RCC (present or not present in a first-degree relative), since only 49 participants (four cases and 45 subcohort members) reported having a first-degree relative with RCC. Incidence rate ratios for height and weight were obtained from models in which both variables were always entered simultaneously. Results for BMI were additionally adjusted for energy intake and physical activity. We also investigated whether BMI at age 20 years (as a proxy for young adulthood) or BMI gain between age 20 and baseline was an independent predictor of RCC risk. In all BMI gain regression models, we adjusted for BMI at age 20. Furthermore, we calculated RCC rate ratios for energy intake and physical activity variables (entered into a model together) with adjustment for age only and adjustment for age, smoking, and BMI. Results are shown for men and women together to enhance the precision of our statistical analyses, unless the p value for the interaction term between sex and the variable of interest was less than or equal to 0.05.

Rate ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for RCC were estimated in Cox proportional hazards models using 2001 Stata statistical software (release 7; Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas), after testing of the proportional hazards assumption using scaled Schoenfeld residuals (39). Standard errors were estimated using the robust Huber-White sandwich estimator to account for additional variance introduced by sampling from the cohort (40). To obtain p values for dose-response trends, we fitted ordinal exposure variables as continuous terms. Two-sided p values are reported throughout this paper.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Mean weight, height, and BMI at baseline were higher for cases than for subcohort members (table 1). Cases more often smoked than subcohort members: 44.7 percent of male cases and 24.2 percent of female cases smoked at baseline as compared with 36.8 percent of male subcohort members and 21.0 percent of female subcohort members (table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Distribution of data on anthropometric variables, energy intake, physical activity, and potential confounders among patients with renal cell carcinoma and subcohort members at baseline, Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer, 1986–1995*
 
Results for height, weight, and nonoccupational physical activity are shown stratified by sex. The interaction term for sex x height was statistically significant (p = 0.02). Even though the interaction terms for weight and nonoccupational physical activity were not statistically significant (p = 0.20 and p = 0.21, respectively), we decided to show results stratified by sex, since category limits for weight differed for men and women and estimates for nonoccupational physical activity pointed in different directions for men and women.

Height was not associated with RCC risk in men (table 2). In women, however, an increased risk of 1.23 per 5-cm increment (95 percent CI: 1.03, 1.46) was observed (table 2). Weight increased RCC risk approximately 10 percent per 5 kg for men and women (table 2), while further adjustment for smoking did not materially change the risk estimates.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Rate ratios for renal cell carcinoma according to height and weight, Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer, 1986–1995*
 
A high BMI was associated with increased risk of RCC (per 1 kg/m2, rate ratio (RR) = 1.05, 95 percent CI: 1.01, 1.10), though the trend was not linear (table 3). Additional adjustment for smoking did not alter the estimates (data not shown). After further adjustment for energy intake and physical activity, the increased risk of BMI remained (RR = 1.07, 95 percent CI: 1.02, 1.12) (table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3. Rate ratios for renal cell carcinoma according to BMI,* BMI at age 20 years, and change in BMI between age 20 years and baseline, Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer, 1986–1995{dagger}
 
BMI at age 20 years was not related to RCC (table 3). However, gaining body mass in adult life was associated with an increase in risk of RCC. A BMI gain of 1 kg/m2 was associated with increased RCC risk (RR = 1.06, 95 percent CI: 1.01, 1.10) (table 3).

Energy intake was not related to risk of RCC. Estimates did not change after adjustment for smoking or after further adjustment for BMI and physical activity (data not shown). In addition, we tested the highest quintile against the first quintile for energy intake. We did not observe an increased risk for persons in the highest quintile, either in the model with age, sex, and physical activity (RR = 0.80, 95 percent CI: 0.50, 1.27) or in the model additionally adjusted for smoking and BMI (RR = 0.83, 95 percent CI: 0.51, 1.36).

For men, estimates for occupational physical activity greater than or equal to 8 kJ/minute or nonoccupational physical activity greater than or equal to 30 minutes/day were all less than 1 (table 4). Moreover, the risk for men was significantly decreased for nonoccupational physical activity of 30–60 minutes/day (RR = 0.52, 95 percent CI: 0.30, 0.91), but there was no significant trend (p = 0.63). Estimates for nonoccupational physical activity for women (table 4) were mostly larger than 1 but never statistically significant.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 4. Rate ratios for renal cell carcinoma according to physical activity, Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer, 1986–1995*
 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Our results suggest that a high BMI is an independent risk factor for RCC and that this relation is not influenced by energy intake and/or physical activity. Furthermore, energy intake does not seem to be an independent risk factor for RCC, while the role of physical activity remains unclear. BMI at age 20 years was not related to RCC risk, while BMI gain between young adulthood and baseline was associated with increased RCC risk. For women, height was associated with increased risk of RCC.

Since RCC is relatively rare, most studies that have evaluated the relation between anthropometric measures and RCC risk have been case-control studies. Only four cohort studies have reported on the relation between anthropometric factors and RCC risk (10, 13, 15, 41). The prospective cohort setting makes selection bias in our study unlikely, while case-control studies, especially hospital-based case-control studies, may suffer from selection and information bias. In the current study, the estimated rate ratio for the association between BMI and RCC was 1.07, based on 264 incident cases. This is in line with the findings of a meta-analysis of 14 studies (1) and the results of other cohort studies reporting on BMI and RCC risk (10, 13, 15, 41). Only one hospital-based case-control study reported no association between BMI and RCC risk (42). Height and weight were self-reported in our study, as in most other studies, which means misclassification might be present. Systematic underestimation of weight and overestimation of height have been reported (43, 44). More specifically, the higher the measured BMI, the greater the underestimation of weight and the overestimation of height for men and women (44). This tendency could have led to underestimation of the effect of BMI on RCC risk in our study.

An increased risk of RCC with increasing BMI has been reported consistently. This observation may fit both suggested biologic mechanisms, since it has been reported that obese persons have higher levels of free IGF-I (22) and exhibit increased lipid peroxidation (29). Both factors have been linked to tumor development. In view of the strong relation between BMI and RCC, it is remarkable that no convincing mechanism has yet been proposed for this relation. Further research is needed.

In this study, we found RCC risk to increase with height (contradictory to most other studies on height and RCC) in women. An increased cancer risk with height has been observed before for women in the Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer for breast cancer (45) and ovarian cancer (46). However, for men, an increased risk with height was not observed in the current study or in a study of prostate cancer carried out within the Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer (47). Biologic mechanisms through which height and cancer risk are linked are not yet clear, but IGF-I is known to play a fundamental role in somatic growth (48). A real albeit relatively weak association between height and risk of several cancers possibly exists (48), but the relation has been unclear for RCC because research on this topic is scarce (48). It is unclear to us why sex would modify the association between height and RCC. As far as we know, no other studies have reported differences between men and women.

Another cohort study found weight at age 18 years and weight gain since age 18 to be independent risk factors for women (15). Our results on BMI at age 20 and BMI change between young adulthood and baseline do not support the hypothesis that BMI in young adulthood is an independent risk factor of RCC, but BMI gain might be. However, BMI at age 20 and BMI gain between age 20 and baseline were retrospectively reported, which means recall bias might have been present. However, the effect of any recall bias would have been nondifferential, since only incident cases were included in the analyses, and this would have resulted in attenuated rate ratios for these factors.

Only the International Renal Cell Cancer Study (19), a large case-control study, reported a positive association between energy intake and RCC risk, but this association might have been due to recall bias. In the current study, no association was observed between energy intake and RCC. This is in line with the findings of another cohort study (15). This is remarkable, since a high BMI is associated with increased risk of RCC and a high BMI results from excess energy intake in relation to energy expenditure (22). This might be explained by the fact that energy intake tends to be underreported by overweight persons (49). It might also be possible that measurement error concealed a possible effect of energy intake on RCC. The validity of reported energy intake in our study was checked by comparing the results of the food frequency questionnaire with 3-day diaries completed at three time points during a calendar year. Reported intakes were, on average, 300 kcal lower than those reported by means of the diaries. However, the questionnaire was able to rank subjects according to their energy intake (34). Energy intake does not seem to be an independent risk factor for RCC in the current study or in the other cohort study that reported on energy intake, but replication, preferably by other cohort studies, is desirable.

We did not find a clear association between physical activity and risk of RCC. Results of other studies are also inconsistent (16, 2022, 50). In general, there has been little standardization of the methods used for assessing physical activity in epidemiologic studies, and few methods have been appropriately tested for reliability and validity. The use of crude measures of physical activity is likely to result in measurement error and difficulty in determining the true nature of the relation between physical activity and cancer risk (51). Our measures of nonoccupational physical activity might have been affected by nondifferential misclassification, since it is socially desirable to be active. Thus, persons engaging in little or no activity may have overestimated their nonoccupational physical activity. The result of nondifferential misclassification is hard to predict. Our findings might be an underestimation of the real effect, but it is also possible that the effect in one of the categories was overestimated. An inverse association of leisure-time physical activity with obesity and mean BMI in men and women has been reported (52), which would suggest that the risk of RCC should be decreased for higher levels of (leisure-time) physical activity. Our results point in the direction of a possible protective effect of physical activity on RCC risk for men, though not as clearly as the results reported by Mahabir et al. (21). The study by Mahabir et al. was restricted to male smokers; thus, its results may not be generalizable. Furthermore, there were only five cases in the highest leisure-time physical activity category, and men with a higher level of recreational physical activity showed a healthier lifestyle (i.e., smoked less) (21). A more standardized manner of investigating the role of physical activity in large study groups might contribute to an unraveling of the role of physical activity.

In summary, our results confirm an increased risk of RCC with BMI, while BMI gain between young adulthood and baseline may also increase RCC risk. An effort should be undertaken to elucidate possible underlying mechanisms between factors such as BMI, BMI gain in adulthood, physical activity, and energy intake and cancer risk, specifically RCC risk.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This study was financially supported by the Dutch Cancer Society and the Dutch Kidney Foundation (grant C99.1863).

The authors thank the staffs of the Dutch regional cancer registries and the Netherlands national database for pathology (PALGA) for providing incidence data. They also thank Dr. E. Dorant and C. A. de Brouwer for their preparatory work for this study; Dr. A. Volovics and Dr. A. Kester for statistical advice; S. van de Crommert, H. Brants, J. Nelissen, C. de Zwart, M. Moll, W. van Dijk, M. Jansen, and A. Pisters for data entry and processing; and H. van Montfort, T. van Moergastel, L. van den Bosch, and R. Schmeitz for programming assistance.


    NOTES
 
Correspondence to Boukje van Dijk, Department of Epidemiology, NUTRIM, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands (e-mail: Boukje.vanDijk{at}epid.unimaas.nl). Back


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Bergstrom A, Hsieh CC, Lindblad P, et al. Obesity and renal cell cancer—a quantitative review. Br J Cancer 2001;85:984–90.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  2. Bergstrom A, Pisani P, Tenet V, et al. Overweight as an avoidable cause of cancer in Europe. Int J Cancer 2001;91:421–30.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  3. Muscat JE, Hoffmann D, Wynder EL. The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma: a second look. Cancer 1995;75:2552–7.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Benhamou S, Lenfant MH, Ory-Paoletti C, et al. Risk factors for renal-cell carcinoma in a French case-control study. Int J Cancer 1993;55:32–6.[ISI][Medline]
  5. McLaughlin JK, Gao YT, Gao RN, et al. Risk factors for renal-cell cancer in Shanghai, China. Int J Cancer 1992;52:562–5.[ISI][Medline]
  6. Goodman MT, Morgenstern H, Wynder EL. A case-control study of factors affecting the development of renal cell cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1986;124:926–41.[Abstract]
  7. Shapiro JA, Williams MA, Weiss NS. Body mass index and risk of renal cell carcinoma. Epidemiology 1999;10:188–91.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  8. Yuan JM, Castelao JE, Gago Dominguez M, et al. Hypertension, obesity and their medications in relation to renal cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer 1998;77:1508–13.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Boeing H, Schlehofer B, Wahrendorf J. Diet, obesity and risk for renal cell carcinoma: results from a case control-study in Germany. Z Ernahrungswiss 1997;36:3–11.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Tulinius H, Sigfusson N, Sigvaldason H, et al. Risk factors for malignant diseases: a cohort study on a population of 22,946 Icelanders. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997;6:863–73.[Abstract]
  11. Asal NR, Risser DR, Kadamani S, et al. Risk factors in renal cell carcinoma: I. Methodology, demographics, tobacco, beverage use, and obesity. Cancer Detect Prev 1988;11:359–77.[ISI][Medline]
  12. Maclure M, Willett W. A case-control study of diet and risk of renal adenocarcinoma. Epidemiology 1990;1:430–40.[Medline]
  13. Chow WH, Gridley G, Fraumeni JF Jr, et al. Obesity, hypertension, and the risk of kidney cancer in men. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1305–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Kreiger N, Marrett LD, Dodds L, et al. Risk factors for renal cell carcinoma: results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Causes Control 1993;4:101–10.[ISI][Medline]
  15. Prineas RJ, Folsom AR, Zhang ZM, et al. Nutrition and other risk factors for renal cell carcinoma in postmenopausal women. Epidemiology 1997;8:31–6.[ISI][Medline]
  16. Mellemgaard A, Lindblad P, Schlehofer B, et al. International renal-cell cancer study. III. Role of weight, height, physical activity, and use of amphetamines. Int J Cancer 1995;60:350–4.[ISI][Medline]
  17. McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L. Epidemiologic aspects of renal cell cancer. Semin Oncol 2000;27:115–23.[ISI][Medline]
  18. Wolk A, Lindblad P, Adami HO. Nutrition and renal cell cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1996;7:5–18.[ISI][Medline]
  19. Wolk A, Gridley G, Niwa S, et al. International renal-cell cancer study. VII. Role of diet. Int J Cancer 1996;65:67–73.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  20. Bergstrom A, Terry P, Lindblad P, et al. Physical activity and risk of renal cell cancer. Int J Cancer 2001;92:155–7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  21. Mahabir S, Leitzmann MF, Pietinen P, et al. Physical activity and renal cell cancer risk in a cohort of male smokers. Int J Cancer 2004;108:600–5.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  22. Vainio H, Bianchini F. Weight control and physical activity. (IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, vol 6). Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2002.
  23. Yu H, Rohan T. Role of the insulin-like growth factor family in cancer development and progression. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1472–89.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Allen NE, Appleby PN, Kaaks R, et al. Lifestyle determinants of serum insulin-like growth-factor-I (IGF-I), C-peptide and hormone binding protein levels in British women. Cancer Causes Control 2003;14:65–74.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  25. Baibas N, Bamia C, Vassilopoulou E, et al. Dietary and lifestyle factors in relation to plasma insulin-like growth factor I in a general population sample. Eur J Cancer Prev 2003;12:229–34.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  26. Chang S, Wu X, Yu H, et al. Plasma concentrations of insulin-like growth factors among healthy adult men and postmenopausal women: associations with body composition, lifestyle, and reproductive factors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:758–66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Holmes MD, Pollak MN, Hankinson SE. Lifestyle correlates of plasma insulin-like growth factor I and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 concentrations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:862–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Voskuil DW, Bueno de Mesquita HB, Kaaks R, et al. Determinants of circulating insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGF binding proteins 1–3 in premenopausal women: physical activity and anthropometry (Netherlands). Cancer Causes Control 2001;12:951–8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  29. Gago-Dominguez M, Castelao JE, Yuan JM, et al. Lipid peroxidation: a novel and unifying concept of the etiology of renal cell carcinoma (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2002;13:287–93.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  30. Van den Brandt PA, Goldbohm RA, van ‘t Veer P, et al. A large-scale prospective cohort study on diet and cancer in the Netherlands. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:285–95.[ISI][Medline]
  31. Volovics A, van den Brandt PA. Methods for the analyses of case-cohort studies. Biom J 1997;39:159–214.
  32. Van den Brandt PA, Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, et al. Development of a record linkage protocol for use in the Dutch Cancer Registry for Epidemiological Research. Int J Epidemiol 1990;19:553–8.[Abstract]
  33. Goldbohm RA, van den Brandt PA, Dorant E. Estimation of the coverage of Dutch municipalities by cancer registries and PALGA based on hospital discharge data. Tijdschr Soc Gezondheidsz 1994;72:80–4.
  34. Goldbohm RA, van den Brandt PA, Brants HA, et al. Validation of a dietary questionnaire used in a large-scale prospective cohort study on diet and cancer. Eur J Clin Nutr 1994;48:253–65.[ISI][Medline]
  35. Goldbohm RA, van ‘t Veer P, van den Brandt PA, et al. Reproducibility of a food frequency questionnaire and stability of dietary habits determined from five annually repeated measurements. Eur J Clin Nutr 1995;49:420–9.[ISI][Medline]
  36. Voorlichtingsbureau voor de Voeding. NEVO table: Dutch food composition table 1986–1987. The Hague, The Netherlands: Voorlichtingsbureau voor de Voeding, 1986.
  37. Hettinger TH, Müller BH, Gebhard H. Calculation of metabolic activity in dynamic musculoskeletal labor. (In German). Schriften der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (Fa 22). Dortmund, Germany: Federal Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 1989.
  38. Dirx MJ, Voorrips LE, Goldbohm RA, et al. Baseline recreational physical activity, history of sports participation, and postmenopausal breast carcinoma risk in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Cancer 2001;92:1638–49.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  39. Schoenfeld D. Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika 1982;69:239–41.[ISI]
  40. Lin DY, Wei LJ. The robust inference for the Cox proportional hazards model. J Am Stat Assoc 1989;84:1074–8.[ISI]
  41. Wolk A, Gridley G, Svensson M, et al. A prospective study of obesity and cancer risk (Sweden). Cancer Causes Control 2001;12:13–21.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  42. Talamini R, Baron AE, Barra S, et al. A case-control study of risk factors for renal cell cancer in northern Italy. Cancer Causes Control 1990;1:125–31.[ISI][Medline]
  43. Kuczmarski MF, Kuczmarski RJ, Najjar M. Effects of age on validity of self-reported height, weight, and body mass index: findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. J Am Diet Assoc 2001;101:28–34.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  44. Niedhammer I, Bugel I, Bonenfant S, et al. Validity of self-reported weight and height in the French GAZEL cohort. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000;24:1111–18.[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Van den Brandt PA, Dirx MJ, Ronckers CM, et al. Height, weight, weight change, and postmenopausal breast cancer risk: The Netherlands Cohort Study. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:39–47.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  46. Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, van den Brandt PA. Height, weight, weight change, and ovarian cancer risk in the Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:424–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Schuurman AG, Goldbohm RA, Dorant E, et al. Anthropometry in relation to prostate cancer risk in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol 2000;151:541–9.[Abstract]
  48. Gunnell D, Okasha M, Smith GD, et al. Height, leg length, and cancer risk: a systematic review. Epidemiol Rev 2001;23:313–42.[ISI][Medline]
  49. Seidell JC. Dietary fat and obesity: an epidemiologic perspective. Am J Clin Nutr 1998;67(suppl):546S–50S.
  50. Mellemgaard A, Engholm G, McLaughlin JK, et al. Risk factors for renal-cell carcinoma in Denmark. III. Role of weight, physical activity and reproductive factors. Int J Cancer 1994;56:66–71.[ISI][Medline]
  51. Friedenreich CM, Orenstein MR. Physical activity and cancer prevention: etiologic evidence and biological mechanisms. J Nutr 2002;132(suppl):3456S–64S.
  52. Lahti Koski M, Pietinen P, Heliovaara M, et al. Associations of body mass index and obesity with physical activity, food choices, alcohol intake, and smoking in the 1982–1997 FINRISK Studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;75:809–17.[Abstract/Free Full Text]