Hormone therapy and physical activity as predictors of lung cancer risk and survival: The California Teachers Study

Cigarette smoking is responsible for the majority of lung cancer cases worldwide; however, a proportion of never smokers still develop lung cancer over their lifetime, prompting investigation into additional factors that may modify lung cancer incidence, as well as mortality. Although hormone therapy (HT), physical activity (PA), and lung cancer have been previously examined, the associations remain unclear. This study investigated exposure to HT and PA that may modulate underlying mechanisms of lung cancer etiology and progression among women by using existing, de-identified data from the California Teachers Study (CTS).^ The CTS cohort, established in 1995–1996, has 133,479 active and retired female teachers and administrators, recruited through the California State Teachers Retirement System, and followed annually for cancer diagnosis, death, and change of address. Each woman enrolled in the CTS returned a questionnaire covering a wide variety of issues related to cancer risk and women's health, including recent and past HT use and physical activity, as well as active and environmental cigarette smoke exposure. Complete data to assess the associations between HT and lung cancer risk and survival were available for 60,592 postmenopausal women. Between 1995 and 2007, 727 of these women were diagnosed with invasive lung cancer; 441 of these died. Complete data to assess the associations between PA and lung cancer risk and survival were available for 118,513 women. Between 1995 and 2007, 853 of these women were diagnosed with invasive lung cancer; 516 of these died.^ After careful adjustment for smoking habits and other potential confounders, no measure of HT use was associated with lung cancer risk; however, any HT use (vs. no use) was associated with a decrease in lung-cancer-specific mortality. Specifically, among women who only used estrogen (E-only), decreases in lung cancer mortality were seen for recent use, but not for former use; no association was observed for estrogen plus progestin (E+P). Furthermore, among former users of HT, a statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality was observed for E-only use within 5 years prior to baseline, but not for E-only use >5 years prior to baseline. Neither long-term recreational PA nor recent recreational PA alone were associated with lung cancer risk; however, among women with a BMI<25 and ever smokers, high long-term moderate+strenuous PA was associated with a decrease in lung cancer risk. Women with non-local disease showed a decrease in lung cancer mortality associated with increasing duration of strenuous long-term activity, and 1.50-3.00 h/wk/y of recent moderate or recent strenuous PA. Long-term moderate PA was associated with decreased lung cancer mortality in never smokers, whereas recent moderate PA was associated with increased lung cancer mortality in current smokers. ^ Placing our findings in the context of the current literature, HT does not appear to be associated with lung cancer risk and previous studies reporting a protective effect of HT use on lung cancer risk may be subject to residual confounding by smoking. Looking at our findings regarding PA overall, the evidence still remains inconclusive regarding whether or not physical activity influence lung cancer risk or mortality. Our results suggest that recreational PA may associated with decreased lung cancer risk among women with BMI<25 and ever smoking-women; however, residual confounding by smoking should be strongly considered. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate lifetime recreational PA and lung cancer mortality among women. Our results contribute to the growing body of knowledge regarding non-smoking-related risk factors for lung cancer incidence and mortality among women. Given the potential clinical and interventional significance, further study and validation of these findings is warranted.^

The success of worksite nutrition and physical activity interventions with environmental modifications A systematic review

Background: As obesity increases among U.S. workers, employers are implementing programs to increase physical activity and improve diets. Although programs to address individual determinants of obesity have been evaluated, less is known about the effects of workplace programs that change environmental factors, because most reviews have not isolated environmental programs; the one that did was published in 2005. ^ Objective: To update the 2005 review to determine the effectiveness of workplace environmental interventions. ^ Methods: The Medline database was searched for published English language reports (2003-2011) of randomized controlled (RCTs) or quasi-experimental trials (NRCTs) that evaluated strategies to modify physical activity opportunities or food services, targeting employees at least 18 years, not including retirees and that provided data for at least one physical activity, dietary, or health risk indicator. Three coders independently extracted study characteristics and scored the quality of study methods. Program effectiveness was determined using the 2005 review's best evidence approach. ^ Results: Seven studies represented in nine reports met eligibility criteria; three focused on diet and the remainder targeted diet and physical activity interventions. All but one study received a high quality score for internal validity. The evidence for the effectiveness of workplace environmental interventions was at best, inconclusive for diet and physical activity and limited for health risk indicators. The outcome constructs were inconsistent across the studies. ^ Conclusions: Limitations in the methods of the 2005 review made it challenging to draw conclusions about findings for this review that include: variation in outcome measures, reliance on distal measures without proximal behavior change measures, no distinction between changes at the workplace versus outside the workplace, and inappropriate analyses of cluster designs that biased findings toward statistical significance. The best evidence approach relied on vote-counting, using statistical significance alone rather than effect size and confidence intervals. Future research should address these limitations and use more rigorous methods; systematic reviews should use methods of meta-analysis to summarize study findings. These recommendations will help employers to better understand how environmental modifications in the workplace can support their efforts to combat the effects of obesity among employees.^