Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 8;18(6):e0287129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287129

Physical activity is inversely associated with overall cancer risk among college students in the United States: Results from the National College Health Assessment

Shenghui Wu 1,*, Martie Thompson 1, Adam Hege 1, Richard W Christiana 1, Jennifer Schroeder Tyson 1
Editor: Bojan Masanovic2
PMCID: PMC10249847  PMID: 37289804

Abstract

To our knowledge, this is the first epidemiologic study to examine the association between physical activity (PA) and cancer using data from the American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA). The goal of the study was to understand the dose-response relation between PA and cancer, as well as the associations between meeting US PA guidelines and overall cancer risk in US college students. The ACHA-NCHA provided self-reported information on demographic characteristics, PA, body mass index, smoking status, and overall cancer during 2019–2022 (n = 293,682; 0.08% cancer cases). To illustrate the dose-response relationship, a restricted cubic spline logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of overall cancer with moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) on a continuous basis. Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for the associations between meeting the three U.S. PA guidelines and overall cancer risk. The cubic spline observed that MVPA was inversely associated with the odds of overall cancer risk after adjusting for covariates; a one hour/week increase in moderate and vigorous PA was associated with a 1% and 5% reduced overall cancer risk, respectively. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses showed that meeting the US guidelines for aerobic PA for adults (≥150 minutes/week of moderate aerobic PA or ≥75 minutes of vigorous PA) (OR: 0.85), for PA for adults (≥2 days of muscle strengthening activity in addition to aerobic MVPA) (OR: 0.90), and for highly active adults (≥2 days of muscle strengthening activity and ≥300 minutes/week of aerobic moderate PA or 150 minutes/week of vigorous PA) (OR: 0.89) were statistically significant and inversely associated with cancer risk. MVPA, especially meeting US guidelines, may be inversely associated with overall cancer among college students in the US. To reduce cancer risks, multilevel interventions to promote US physical activity guidelines among college students are warranted.

Introduction

In the United States (U.S.), approximately 41 out of 100 men and 39 out of 100 women will develop cancer during their lifetime [1]. In 2023, there is estimated to be more than 1.9 million new cancer cases diagnosed and 609,820 cancer deaths in the U.S [1]. The role of physical activity (PA) in cancer incidence are marked, and a large number of cancer cases and deaths could be prevented with the adoption of healthier lifestyles, including not smoking, maintaining healthy body weight, and being physically active [2]. Although epidemiologic studies have shown that inadequate PA was associated with many sites of cancer [36] (such as an inverse association of leisure time PA [4] and household PA [6] with cancer risk, and a negative association between PA and cancer mortality in both the general population and cancer survivors [5], a few gaps in research remain and further research is needed to determine the diverse amounts and intensities of PA required for cancer prevention and survival [3]. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the American Cancer Society recommend that adults should get 150–300 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75–150 minutes of vigorous intensity aerobic activity each week (or a combination) [2,47].

The college student population in the U.S. is growing [8] and forms an gradually important portion of the U.S. community. Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions in 2021 was 18,961,280, and it is projected to be 20,233,776 in 2031 [8]. Therefore, the research focused on understanding or changing health risk behaviors of college students, such as lack of PA is very important. However, less than 50% of college students meet PA guidelines [9], and the prevalence of chronic diseases (such as cancer, diabetes, auto-immune disorder) is 6.4% in college students [10]. To our knowledge, there are no epidemiological studies to examine the association between PA and cancer risk among U.S. college students. To understand the dose-response relation between PA and cancer, as well as the associations between meeting U.S. PA guidelines and overall cancer risk in U.S. college students, we examined these associations using data from the American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA) in the U.S.

Materials and methods

Data source and sample

The ACHA-NCHA is a nationwide survey conducted with college students that collects data on a wide range of health and health-related behaviors. Data were obtained from the 2019 to 2022 administration of the ACHA-NCHAIII [11], which captured cross-sectional web-based self-reported information from college students in the U.S. Institutions. Schools that self-selected to participate conducted the survey to a random sample of enrolled students aged 18 years or older. The national database consists of only the data from institutions that randomly selected students or classrooms for participation. Considering the schools are self-selecting, the data limit the generalizability to the U.S. population of college students and schools; nonetheless, a previous evaluation of generalizability found the data to be reliable and valid for representing U.S. students overall, in comparison with other representative samples of U.S. students [12]. This study was exempt from the Appalachian State University Institutional Review Board review as the data were de-identified.

Exposure and outcome measurements

Collected data included demographic information (such as age, sex, race, ethnicity, health insurance, education, etc.), weight, height, tobacco or nicotine products ever used, moderate and vigorous PA (total minutes) and muscle strengthening activities in the last seven days. Moderate aerobic PA ≥ 150 minutes/week or vigorous PA ≥ 75 minutes/week was considered meeting the U.S. aerobic PA guidelines; muscle strengthening activity ≥ 2 days in addition to aerobic PA was considered meeting the US PA guidelines for adults; and muscle strengthening activity ≥ 2 days and moderate aerobic activity ≥ 300 minutes/week (or vigorous activity ≥ 150 minutes/week) was considered meeting the U.S. PA guidelines for highly active adults [7]. One minute (hour)/week of vigorous PA is equivalent to two minutes (hours)/week of moderate PA. Cancer diagnosis was identified in participants as being told by a healthcare provider that they had cancer. This study only collected data for the overall cancer but not specific types of cancer. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated by weight in kilograms divided by height squared in meters (kg/m2).

Statistical analysis

Chi-square test was used to compare participant characteristics for categorical data. To illustrate the dose-response relationship between PA and overall cancer risk, we used a restricted cubic spline logistic regression analysis to evaluate the odds ratios (ORs) of the association of overall cancer with moderate or vigorous PA (hours/week) on a continuous basis [13]. The extreme values (95th percentile of the distribution of PA) were excluded to minimize the influence of outliers. Knots were placed at the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of the distribution of PA. Logistic regression models were used to calculate univariate and fully adjusted ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between meeting the three U.S. PA guidelines and overall cancer risk. All models adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, BMI, and smoking status. The differences between ORs for the three PA guidelines were examined by using the method described by Allison [14]. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Among 293,682 participants, 80.04% were 25 years or younger; 67.70% were female. A total of 68.03% of the participants met the U.S. aerobic PA guidelines, 41.96% met the U.S. PA guidelines for adults, and 33.06% met the US PA guidelines for highly active adults. Among all participants, 2,475 (0.08%) reported cancer, and 291,207 (99.82%) did not report cancer (Table 1). Compared with those without cancer, participants with cancer were more likely to be older, female, whites, non-Hispanic, undergraduates, cigarette smoking, overweight/obese, and less likely to meet the recommended U.S. PA guidelines (all Ps < 0.05).

Table 1. Characteristics stratified by cancer status: American College Health Association National College Health Assessment (2019–2022).

Characteristics Cancer status (number, percentage) P value
Yes
(n = 2,475; 0.84%)
No
(n = 291,207; 99.16%)
Total (n = 293,682)
Age (years)b
    ≤25 1,186 (46.97) 235,519 (80.32) 236,705 <0.0001
    >25 1,339 (53.03) 57,700 (19.68) 59,039
Gender 0.02
    Female 1,633 (69.91) 188,744 (67.68) 190,377
    Male 703 (30.09) 90,115 (32.32) 90,818
Race <0.0001
    White 1,717 (75.11) 177,351 (67.74) 179,068
    Asian 215 (9.41) 47,424 (18.11) 47,639
    Black 122 (5.34) 17,442 (6.66) 17,564
    American Indian or Native Alaskan 105 (4.59) 6,078 (2.32) 6,183
    Others 127 (5.56) 13,522 (5.16)
Ethnicity
    Hispanic 325 (12.87) 44,189 (15.07) 44,514 0.002
    Non-Hispanic 2,200 (87.13) 249,030 (84.93) 251,230
Education
    Undergraduate 1,465 (58.32) 222,832 (76.09) 224,297 <0.0001
    Master’s and above degrees 917 (36.50) 66,111 (22.58) 67,028
    Other 130 (5.18) 3,892 (1.33) 4,022
Insurance 0.07
    Yes 2,406 (97.02) 277,496 (96.82) 279,902
    No 74 (2.98) 9,121 (3.18) 9,195
Ever smokers
    Yes 993 (39.45) 97,238 (33.22) 98,231 <0.0001
    No 1,524 (60.55) 195,437 (66.78) 196,961
Body mass index (kg/m2)
    Normal (<25) 1,274 (50.46) 182,490 (62.24) 183,764 <0.0001
    Overweight/obese (≥25) 1,251 (49.54) 110,729 (37.76) 111,980
Met the US guidelines for only aerobic PA for adultsa
    Yes 1,564 (62.84) 197,058 (68.08) 198,622 <0.0001
    No 925 (37.16) 92,410 (31.92) 93,335
Met the US guidelines for PA for adultsb
    Yes 935 (37.57) 121,541 (41.99) 122,476 <0.0001
    No 1,554 (62.43) 167,881 (58.01) 169,435
Met the US guidelines for PA for highly active adultsc
    Yes 708 (28.45) 95,798 (33.10) 96,506 <0.0001
    No 1,781 (71.55) 193,624 (28.45) 195,405

PA: Physical activity.

a ≥150 minutes/week of moderate aerobic PA or ≥75 minutes of vigorous PA.

b ≥2 days of muscle strengthening activity in addition to aerobic PA.

c ≥2 days of muscle strengthening activity and ≥300 minutes/week of moderate aerobic PA (or ≥150 minutes/week of vigorous aerobic PA).

Fig 1 visually depicts the dose-response relationship between moderate (Fig 1A) or vigorous (Fig 1B) PA and the overall cancer risk after adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, BMI, and smoking status in a restricted cubic spline model. Total hours of moderate/vigorous PA per week was inversely associated with the risk for overall cancer (P for overall relation = 0.01 and P for linear relation = 0.02). The statistically significant linear inverse dose-response association indicated that for each one hour/week increase in moderate PA and vigorous PA was associated with a 3% [0.97 (95% CI: 0.96–0.99)] and 5% [0.95 (95% CI: 0.91–0.99)] reduced overall cancer risk, respectively.

Fig 1. Smoothed plot for Odds Ratios (ORs) of the overall cancer risk according to moderate or vigorous physical activity (PA) (hours/week).

Fig 1

A. The Association between Moderate Physical Activity and Cancer. B. The Association between Vigorous Physical Activity and Cancer.

The ORs were estimated by using the restricted cubic-spline logistic regression models with knots placed at the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of moderate or vigorous PA. The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, body mass index, and smoking status.

Meeting PA guidelines of 150 moderate or 75 vigorous minutes per week was inversely associated with a 22% (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.72–0.85) reduced cancer risk without adjusting for covariates and a 15% reduced cancer risk (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78–0.93) after adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, BMI, and smoking status compared with not meeting guidelines (Table 2). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models showed that meeting PA for adults (≥ 2 days of muscle strengthening activity in addition to aerobic PA), and for highly active adults (≥ 2 days of muscle strengthening activity and ≥300 minutes/week of moderate aerobic PA) was inversely associated with a 10% (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82–0.98) and a 11% (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81–0.98) reduced overall cancer risk, respectively. The differences between ORs for the three PA guidelines were not statistically significant (all Ps>0.05).

Table 2. Associations between physical activity and cancer: American College Health Association National College Health Assessment (2019–2022).

Univariate Analysis Multivariable adjusted Analysisa
OR (95%CI) P OR (95%CI) P
Met the US guidelines for only aerobic PA for adultsb 0.78 (0.72–0.85) <0.0001 0.85 (0.78–0.93) 0.0005
Met the US guidelines for PA for adultsc 0.83 (0.77–0.90) <0.0001 0.90 (0.82–0.98) 0.02
Met the US guidelines for PA for highly active adultsd 0.80 (0.74–0.88) <0.0001 0.89 (0.81–0.98) 0.01

OR: Odds Ratios; CI: Confidence Intervals; PA: Physical activity.

aAdjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, body mass index, and smoking status.

b ≥150 minutes/week of moderate aerobic PA or ≥75 minutes of vigorous PA.

c ≥2 days of muscle strengthening activity in addition to aerobic PA.

d ≥2 days of muscle strengthening activity and ≥300 minutes/week of moderate aerobic PA (or ≥150 minutes/week of vigorous aerobic PA).

Discussions

Among 293,682 U.S. college students, moderate or vigorous PA was inversely associated with a reduced risk of overall cancer; one hour/week increase in moderate PA and vigorous PA was associated with a 1% and 5% reduced overall cancer risk, respectively. Meeting the US guidelines for aerobic PA for adults (≥150 minutes/week of moderate aerobic PA or ≥75 minutes of vigorous PA), for PA for adults (≥2 days of muscle strengthening activity in addition to aerobic PA), and for highly active adults (≥2 days of muscle strengthening activity and ≥300 minutes/week of moderate aerobic PA) were inversely associated with a 15%, 10%, and 11% reduced overall cancer risk, respectively, after adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, BMI, and smoking status. These data strongly indicate the potential for PA to have a deep effect on reported overall cancer risk, and they are more notable because there seems to be a dose-response effect with moderate or vigorous PA as well as exceeding the PA guidelines being associated with lower cancer risk.

To our knowledge, although no study examined the association between PA and cancer in U.S. college students, one study with a total of 193 French college students indicated that PA could be an effective way to diminish cancer stereotypes and decrease prejudicing against cancer patients (all Ps < 0.05) [15]. We found inverse associations between PA and overall cancer risk, especially meeting the three U.S. PA guidelines, were associated with reduced risk of overall cancer. Although differences of inverse associations between meeting the three U.S. PA guidelines and overall cancer risk were not statistically significant, the cubic spline showed that each one hour per week of vigorous PA was associated with a 5% reduced risk of overall cancer while each one hour per week of moderate PA was associated with a 1% reduction in overall cancer risk. It indicates that vigorous PA might bring more beneficial effects than moderate PA regarding the reduction in overall cancer risk. We further found that the multivariable-adjusted inverse association between muscle strengthening PA (≥ 2 vs. < 2 days/week) was not statistically significant with overall cancer risk (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.85–1.02; P = 0.12). It indicated that aerobic moderate or vigorous PA part of the guidelines provides the most benefit in terms of risk reduction compared to the muscle strengthening part. When sample size for meeting three PA guidelines became larger, we may have an opportunity to further examine associations between meeting three PA guidelines and cancer risk among college students. The underlying mechanisms are still mostly unknown for different sites of cancer; however, some potentially PA-modulated parameters, such as insulin sensitivity (e.g., insulin levels, C-peptide, and insulin like growth factor 1), the immune system (e.g., natural killer cell cytotoxic activity, total lytic units, and spontaneous lymphocyte proliferation), and inflammation [e.g., C-reactive protein (CRP) and serum amyloid A] appear to be involved in tumor development [1618].

There are several limitations in our research. In this cross-sectional study, we only examined an association but not a cause-and-effect relationship because both were accessed at the same time. We are unable to investigate whether cancer came after PA in time or exercise level was caused by cancer; thus, we are unable to provide evidence of a temporal relationship between PA and cancer. Prospective cohort studies and clinical trials are needed to further explore the mechanisms and the dose-response relationship between PA and cancer risk. We used self-reported data to identify cancer status, and hence we are unable to confirm the cancer diagnosis; however, one study has validated the self-reported method [19], and another study suggested that self-reported cancer diagnoses in the U.S. Health Retirement Study showed rational validity which can be used in population-based research that is maximized with linkage to Medicare [20]. We could not examine the associations between PA and risk for cancer in specific sites because the information on cancer specific sites was not collected. The presence of residual confounding due to unmeasured or insufficiently/misclassified collected covariates cannot be completely excluded, but a few potential confounders were adjusted for in our study.

This study has some strengths. First, to our knowledge, this is the first epidemiological study to examine the association between PA and cancer among the U.S. college students. Specifically, we identified the dose-response relationships between PA and overall cancer risk, which provided the data for future research related to cancer prevention. Second, this is a large random sample, hence reducing bias intrinsic in studies taking samples from non-random populations. Third, we can conduct a relatively thorough analysis including pertinent factors because the information on PA and other multiple factors related to cancer was available.

In conclusion, increased moderate and vigorous PA, especially meeting U.S. recommended guidelines, was significantly associated with the reduced risk of overall cancer after excluding the effect of other confounding factors despite limitations of the cross-sectional study design and possible residual confounding. Therefore, PA might be a modifiable protective factor for which college students can make changes to reduce their cancer risk. Efforts need to be focused on improving multilevel interventions to promote MVPA among college students. Future prospective cohort studies and clinical trials are warranted to further confirm our findings.

Acknowledgments

The opinions, finds, and conclusions reported in this article are those of the authors, and are in no way meant to represent the corporate opinions, views, or policies of the American College Health Association (ACHA). ACHA does not warrant nor assume any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented in this article.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the American College Health Association, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data which are not publicly available. Please see the contact information of the American College Health Association below: American College Health Association National College Health Assessment Program Office 8455 Colesville Road, Suite 740 Silver Spring, MD 20910 P: (410) 859-1500 F: (410) 859-1510 www.acha.org.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures-2023. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society Guideline for Diet and Physical Activity. https://www.cancer.org/healthy/eat-healthy-get-active/acs-guidelines-nutrition-physical-activity-cancer-prevention/guidelines.html. Accessed 11/04/2022.
  • 3.Lemanne D, Cassileth B, Gubili J (2013) The role of physical activity in cancer prevention, treatment, recovery, and survivorship. Oncology (Williston Park) 27:580–585. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Liu L, Shi Y, Li T, Qin Q, Yin J, Pang S, et al. (2016) Leisure time physical activity and cancer risk: evaluation of the WHO’s recommendation based on 126 high-quality epidemiological studies. Br J Sports Med 50:372–378. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094728 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Li T, Wei S, Shi Y, Pang S, Qin Q, Yin J, et al. (2016) The dose-response effect of physical activity on cancer mortality: findings from 71 prospective cohort studies. Br J Sports Med 50:339–345. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094927 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shi Y, Li T, Wang Y, Zhou L, Qin Q, Yin J, et al. (2015) Household physical activity and cancer risk: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Sci Rep 5:14901. doi: 10.1038/srep14901 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2018 Physical activity guidelines for Americans. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.National Center for Education Statistics Digest of Education Statistics-Advance Release of Selected 2022 Digest tables. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/. Accessed 02/17/2023.
  • 9.American College Heath Association (ACHA) American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Executive Summary. Silver Spring, MD.
  • 10.Friedenreich CM, Stone CR, Cheung WY, Hayes SC (2020) Physical Activity and Mortality in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JNCI Cancer Spectr 4:pkz080. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkz080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.American College Health Association. American Colle ge Health Association-National College Health Assessment, Fall 2019-Spring 2022. [data file]. American College Health Association [producer and distributor]. Silver Spring, MD. 11/02/2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.American College Health Association. American College Health Association–National College Health Assessment II: Reliability and validity analyses 2011. Hanover, MD. 2013.
  • 13.Harrell FJJ. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, survival analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Allison PD (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods & Research 28:186–208. 10.1177/0049124199028002003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Clement-Guillotin C, Falzon C, d’Arripe-Longueville F (2015) Can exercise change the stereotypes associated with individuals with cancer? Scand J Med Sci Sports 25:552–557. doi: 10.1111/sms.12272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Barbaric M, Brooks E, Moore L, Cheifetz O (2010) Effects of physical activity on cancer survival: a systematic review. Physiother Can 62:25–34. doi: 10.3138/physio.62.1.25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Maury J, Senesse P, Ninot G (2018) Role of physical activity in cancer survival and recurrence: A narrative review from relationship evidence to crucial research perspectives. Journal of Sports Medicine and Therapy 3:102–117. 10.29328/journal.jsmt.1001034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ballard-Barbash R, Friedenreich CM, Courneya KS, Siddiqi SM, McTiernan A, Alfano CM (2012) Physical activity, biomarkers, and disease outcomes in cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:815–840. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Airewele G, Adatto P, Cunningham J, Mastromarino C, Spencer C, Sharp M, et al. (1998) Family history of cancer in patients with glioma: a validation study of accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:543–544. doi: 10.1093/jnci/90.7.543 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mullins MA, Kler JS, Eastman MR, Kabeto M, Wallner LP, Kobayashi LC (2022) Validation of Self-reported Cancer Diagnoses Using Medicare Diagnostic Claims in the US Health and Retirement Study, 2000–2016. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 31:287–292. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0835 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bojan Masanovic

11 Apr 2023

PONE-D-23-06157Physical Activity is Inversely Associated with Overall Cancer Risk Among College Students in the United States: Results from the National College Health AssessmentPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 26 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bojan Masanovic, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

- http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajcp/4/1/1/

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Therefore, we cannot consider your manuscript as it stands. Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text and fully cite all your sources, where appropriate.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have carefully read the manuscript and my opinion is that the manuscript has a merit to be published in your reputable journal with some minor corrections. The manuscript is original, informative and readable. The authors aimed to understand the dose-response relation between physical activity and cancer, as well as the associations between meeting US physical activity guidelines and overall cancer risk in US college students. This is the first epidemiological study to examine the association between physical activity and cancer using data from the American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA) and the feedback might have the great practical implications. The abstract is missing the description of the method precisely. Some of the experienced researchers can reach the relevant information from the method section, but I suggest authors to briefly describe the method of the study as I expect that many young researchers and students will read it, so has to be clearly understandable. The introduction is well written, while materials and methods section is very well prepared and organized according to contemporary methodological rules. At the end, I have no amendments on results and discussion part but I would recommend to the authors to prepare the separate conclusion part in the following order: the main conclusions (with practical implication), the limitations of the study (more precisely) as well as recommendations for the further studies (it is very important to briefly elaborate it and highlight the most important notes). Lastly, I would recommend you to accept this manuscript right after I confirm the authors revise it in the adequate manner.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is very well written and the topic is quite interesting for a general audience. The methodology and content are also well done. I recommend that it be accepted with minor revisions. However, I do have some comments.

First, I suggest that in the abstract, you include only the necessary numerical values and limit their use as much as possible.

Secondly, in the introduction, in addition to listing previous studies (3-6) that have examined the given topic, it is important to highlight some relevant findings that are important for the research.

Finally, in the discussion section, I recommend that you relate the results of your study to similar studies and explain the mechanisms behind the obtained results by referring to the existing literature. Expand the discussion and provide a more detailed explanation of the mechanisms underlying the obtained results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Stevo Popovic

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 8;18(6):e0287129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287129.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 May 2023

Authors’ Responses to Editor and Reviewers’ Comments

RE: Physical Activity is Inversely Associated with Overall Cancer Risk Among College Students in the United States: Results from the National College Health Assessment

Responses to Editor

1. Editor: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: Thank you for your guidance. Please see the revised manuscript which meets PLOS ONE's style requirements.

2. Editor: Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

- http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajcp/4/1/1/

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Therefore, we cannot consider your manuscript as it stands. Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text and fully cite all your sources, where appropriate.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The manuscript was revised as suggested, and some duplicated text was rephrased. The reference list was reviewed, and it is complete and correct. There are no cited papers that have been retracted.

Responses to Reviewer 1

Reviewer: I have carefully read the manuscript and my opinion is that the manuscript has a merit to be published in your reputable journal with some minor corrections. The manuscript is original, informative and readable. The authors aimed to understand the dose-response relation between physical activity and cancer, as well as the associations between meeting US physical activity guidelines and overall cancer risk in US college students. This is the first epidemiological study to examine the association between physical activity and cancer using data from the American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA) and the feedback might have the great practical implications. The abstract is missing the description of the method precisely. Some of the experienced researchers can reach the relevant information from the method section, but I suggest authors to briefly describe the method of the study as I expect that many young researchers and students will read it, so has to be clearly understandable. The introduction is well written, while materials and methods section is very well prepared and organized according to contemporary methodological rules. At the end, I have no amendments on results and discussion part but I would recommend to the authors to prepare the separate conclusion part in the following order: the main conclusions (with practical implication), the limitations of the study (more precisely) as well as recommendations for the further studies (it is very important to briefly elaborate it and highlight the most important notes). Lastly, I would recommend you to accept this manuscript right after I confirm the authors revise it in the adequate manner.

Response: Thank you for your encouraging words and valuable comments. Your suggestions (the method of the study in the abstract and separating conclusion part) have been taken in the revised manuscript (abstract and the first paragraph of the introduction section).

Responses to Reviewer 2

Reviewer: The manuscript is very well written and the topic is quite interesting for a general audience. The methodology and content are also well done. I recommend that it be accepted with minor revisions. However, I do have some comments.

First, I suggest that in the abstract, you include only the necessary numerical values and limit their use as much as possible.

Secondly, in the introduction, in addition to listing previous studies (3-6) that have examined the given topic, it is important to highlight some relevant findings that are important for the research.

Finally, in the discussion section, I recommend that you relate the results of your study to similar studies and explain the mechanisms behind the obtained results by referring to the existing literature. Expand the discussion and provide a more detailed explanation of the mechanisms underlying the obtained results.

Response: Thank you for your encouraging words and valuable comments. The numerical values in the abstract were limited as much as possible as suggested. In the introduction, some relevant findings were highlighted. In the discussion section, although no study examined the association between PA and cancer in U.S. college students, we cited several relevant studies in the second graph and moved the mechanism section from introduction to the discussion section and provided a more detailed explanation of the mechanisms underlying the obtained results as suggested (second paragraph of the discussion section).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers 05092023.docx

Decision Letter 1

Bojan Masanovic

31 May 2023

Physical Activity is Inversely Associated with Overall Cancer Risk Among College Students in the United States: Results from the National College Health Assessment

PONE-D-23-06157R1

Dear Dr. Wu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bojan Masanovic, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: No further requirements from my side. The authors satisfied all the requirements I requested in the initial review.

Reviewer #2: I think that the authors have put in effort and made the necessary revisions. Therefore, I propose that the work should be accepted for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Borko Katanic

**********

Acceptance letter

Bojan Masanovic

1 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-06157R1

Physical Activity is Inversely Associated with Overall Cancer Risk Among College Students in the United States: Results from the National College Health Assessment

Dear Dr. Wu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bojan Masanovic

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers 05092023.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data that support the findings of this study are available from the American College Health Association, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data which are not publicly available. Please see the contact information of the American College Health Association below: American College Health Association National College Health Assessment Program Office 8455 Colesville Road, Suite 740 Silver Spring, MD 20910 P: (410) 859-1500 F: (410) 859-1510 www.acha.org.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES