Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Sep 1;18(9):e0290994. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290994

Prevalence, trend and associated factors of obesity-related cancers among U.S. adults with metabolic syndrome: Evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001–2018

Harun Mazumder 1,2, Maidul Husain 3, Md Faruk Hossain 1, Sultan Mahmud 4,*
Editor: Meisam Akhlaghdoust5
PMCID: PMC10473473  PMID: 37656713

Abstract

Introduction

This study evaluated the prevalence, associated factors and trends in the prevalence of obesity-related cancer (ORC) among U.S. adults with metabolic syndrome (MetS) and age ≥20 years.

Methods

This study used cross-sectional data from the 2001–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The total period analyses included prevalence estimation, chi-square tests for comparing ORC vs non-ORC within subgroups, and a multivariable-logistic regression model to evaluate associated factors of ORC. For trend analysis, the total period was divided into three time periods: 2001–2006, 2007–2012 and 2013–2018. Age-standardized prevalence of ORC in each time period was calculated.

Results

The ORC prevalence was 35.8% representing 4463614 adults with MetS. A higher odds of ORC was observed among females (OR = 7.1, 95% CI = 4.9–10.3) vs males, Hispanic (OR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.7–4.8) and non-Hispanic Black (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.8–4) vs non-Hispanic White, age ≥60 (OR = 5.4, 95% CI = 1.9–15.4) vs age 20–39 years. Individual ORCs were thyroid (10.95%), breast (10%), uterine (9.18%), colorectal (7.86%), ovarian (5.74%), and stomach (0.80%). The age-standardized prevalence of ORC was observed stable in three time periods (30.6%, 30.3% and 30.7%). However, an increasing trend was seen for thyroid, uterine, colorectal and ovarian cancers while decreasing trend for breast cancer. Hispanic people showed a significant increasing trend of ORC (p = 0.004).

Conclusions

ORC was found significantly higher among female, Hispanic, non-Hispanic black and older people with MetS. The stable temporal trend of overall ORC, with an increasing trend in certain ORCs, makes the disease spectrum a public health priority. The findings imply the importance of intensifying efforts to reduce the burden of MetS comorbidities among U.S. adults.

Introduction

Obesity and cancer are two interlinked major public health issues in the United States and globally [1, 2]. Overall cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States [3], and nearly 40% of all cancer diagnoses in the U.S. are obesity-related cancer (ORC) [4]. Excess body fat can lead to ORC by causing changes in the body such as chronic inflammation and hormonal imbalance, and altering microbiome composition [5]. Obesity has been found to be linked to a higher risk for cancer in at least 13 anatomic sites [2, 4, 6, 7]. Research shows that ORCs have biological properties that are associated with poor prognosis [8, 9]. The average incremental cost of treating ORC is 2.1 times higher than that of non-ORC [10]. A substantial burden of ORC morbidity and mortality is attributable to poor metabolic health [11]. Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) is the current indicator of metabolic health [12, 13].

MetS is referred to as a group of conditions that includes three or more of the following conditions: diabetes, hypertension, abdominal obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, or low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) [12]. MetS is very common and about one-third of U.S. adults have it [14]. It can independently act as the major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes in adults [15, 16]. CVD is the most common cause of death among cancer survivors [17], which can be attributed to MetS, a long-term complication of curative cancer treatment [18]. An increasing number of studies suggest that MetS is associated with ORC [1922]. Obesity or overweight and physical inactivity are major risk factors for MetS [23]. Although being overweight or obese does not mean one will definitely develop ORC, the longer duration of being overweight increase the risk [4, 24]. Some modifiable factors such as maintaining a balanced diet and engaging in regular physical activity can positively influence the morbidity of MetS [25].

Research shows a slightly increasing trend in MetS prevalence among U.S. adults during 2011–2016 [14], which may be due to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle [26]. Although overall cancer incidence has declined since the 1990s, an increase in the incidence rate of ORCs, excluding colorectal cancer, was observed among U.S. adults of age 20–74 years in 32 states during 2005–2014 [4]. The advances in knowledge of ORC etiology and improvement in medical treatment to control or prevent serious comorbidities associated with MetS should reduce ORC prevalence over time. However, less is known about the temporal trend in the prevalence of ORC among adults with MetS, though MetS is steadily increasing among U.S. adults. Furthermore, there is a link between obesity in adult cancer patients and several challenges including a reduced likelihood of obtaining cancer screening, difficulties identifying cancer due to overlapping fat tissue, and receiving inadequate chemotherapy doses [8]. Knowing the current prevalence, related risk factors and temporal trends of ORC may identify high-risk groups with MetS who would benefit from adherence to recommended cancer screening guidelines and minimize the risk for ORC. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and associated factors of ORC, relative to non-ORC, based on recent data, and further evaluated the temporal trends in ORC among U.S. adults with MetS. To better inform future research on MetS and ORC, it is also important to know the prevalence and trend of currently existing individual ORCs (e.g., colorectal cancer) among U.S. adults with MetS. Therefore, the prevalence and trends of individual ORCs were also evaluated.

Methods

Study population

Data were collected from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2001–2018. NHANES uses a complex, multistage, probability sampling design to collect a representative sample of the non-institutionalized U.S. population. NHANES collects data in two-year cycles. More information on NHANES design, questionnaires, and examination procedures is provided elsewhere [27]. The current study was not reviewed by the Institutional Review Board since the data analyzed are de-identified and publicly accessible. However, the NHANES protocol was reviewed and approved by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Ethics Review Board [28]. Adults of age 20 and over with diagnoses of MetS and cancer were included in this study. Pregnant women were excluded from the study as they tend to have temporary MetS. Data from the 9 NHANES cycles were combined to obtain a total period 2001–2018. For evaluating the temporal trend in ORC prevalence, we divided the total period into three time periods of equal length: 2001–2006, 2007–2012 and 2013–2018.

The individuals with cancer diagnoses were identified who answered “yes” to the question “Have you ever been told by a doctor or health professional that you had cancer or malignancy of any kind?" The MetS was defined based on the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel-III guidelines [12]. A diagnosis of MetS was determined when three or more of the five conditions were present: 1) elevated waist circumference (≥88 cm for women and ≥102 cm for men), 2) taking medication to reduce triglyceride levels or having elevated triglycerides (≥150 mg/dL), 3) low HDL cholesterol (<50 mg/dL for women and <40 mg/ dL for men) or taking HDL boosting medication, 4) elevated blood pressure (systolic ≥130 mmHg, or diastolic ≥85 mmHg, or both) or taking antihypertensive medication, 5) elevated fasting glucose (≥100 mg/dL) or drug treatment for elevated glucose. Note that participants that were selected to give a fasting blood sample constructed the smallest survey subsample, and appropriate probability sampling weights were calculated by NHANES to make it representative of the U.S. population [29]. Participants who were unable to obtain fasting glucose levels had missing values in sampling weights and were excluded from this study.

Study variables

The response variable was the ORC status (ORC, non-ORC). A diagnosis of brain, bladder, esophagus, kidney, endometrial, thyroid, ovarian, breast, liver, gallbladder, stomach, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer was required for the presence of an ORC to be established [2, 4, 6, 7]. All other cancers were considered non-ORC. Participants could list up to three separate cancer diagnoses when asked if they had cancer. The respondent was labeled as having an ORC even if the other two cancers were not obesity-related. The associated factors included: age (20–39, 40–59 and 60+), gender (male, female), race (Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Other), education (high school graduate or less, some college degree, some college or above), annual household income ($35,000, $35,000 to $74,999, or $75,000+), country of birth (US-born, Mexico-born, and others), insurance status (yes, no), physical activity (yes: moderate or vigorous activity, no: otherwise), smoking (never, former, current), and alcohol use (never, former-drinker, mild, and heavy-drinker). The ‘Other’ races were excluded due to the limited sample size. Participants who did not smoke at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime were considered never smokers. The current and former smokers were those who smoked at least 100 cigarettes and reported their current smoking status as yes and no, respectively. Participants who did not drink at least 12 drinks in their lifetime were never drinkers; Former drinkers were those who had 12 drinks in their lifetime but did not have 12 drinks in the last year; heavy were those who had 12 drinks in the last year with a frequency of drinks ≥5 in at least one day; mild drinkers had this frequency <5.

Statistical analysis

All analyses in this study were adjusted by appropriate sampling weights (fasting sampling weights) to ensure nationally representative estimates [29]. The analyses were conducted in R using survey package [30]. The prevalence of ORC for sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics was calculated. The Rao-Scott chi-square tests were performed to determine differences in these characteristics between ORC and non-ORC for categorical factors and the t-test for a continuous variable. To determine the related factors of ORC, we performed univariate logistic regressions and a multivariable logistic regression model. The age-standardized prevalence of ORC, overall and within subgroups, was calculated in each of the three time periods by applying direct method of standardization based on the U.S. 2000 population [31]. Age standardization was applied to adjust for differences in population age distributions across the time periods. Hence, the prevalence estimates were comparable across the three time periods. The differences in the age-standardized prevalence between time periods were also calculated with corresponding 95% confidence intervals using the two-proportion Z-test. The linear trends in ORC prevalence were assessed using univariate logistic regressions after regressing ‘ORC status’ on the continuous variable ‘time period’ (e.g., 1, 2, 3). Age standardization was applied before fitting these logistic regressions. Linear trends were assessed on the logit scales. More specifically, the P-values for linear trends were calculated considering a one-sided t-test based on positive (increasing trend) or negative (decreasing trend) values of the rate of change in log-odds from the logistic regressions.

Result

Study participants and prevalence of ORC

In the total study period 2001–2018, a total of 91351 participants were screened for eligibility. After removing incomplete data (who were not selected to give a fasting blood sample), 30065 participants were found to be eligible initially. Next, 19536 participants were excluded due to being pregnant women, having metabolic syndrome, and being aged < 20 years. Further, a total of 9146 participants with no history of cancer were removed to obtain a final analytical sample of 1383 participants (Fig 1). The analytical sample sizes in the three time periods (2001–2006, 2007–2012, and 2013–2018) were 354, 507, and 522, respectively (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Time period construction diagram and selection of analytical sample.

Fig 1

Table 1 shows the number of participants and the prevalence of ORC, overall and within each subgroup, during the total study period 2001–2018. A lower prevalence of ORCs (n = 544, 35.8%) was observed compared to non-ORCs (n = 839, 64.2%) representing 4463614 and 8021267 U.S. adult populations with MetS, respectively. The mean age of the adults with and without ORC was 67.40 years and 64.43 years, respectively. Among 720 females with MetS, the prevalence of ORC was 52.3% (n = 412). Among total adults with MetS within each subgroup characteristic, the higher prevalence of ORC also existed in: Hispanics (n = 106, 53.34%), Non-Hispanic Blacks (n = 94, 52.5%), Mexican-born (55.5%), and never-drinkers (54.35%). The significant differences (p<0.05) between the prevalence of ORC and non-ORC were observed according to gender, race, age, education, income, country of birth, physical activity and alcohol use.

Table 1. Demographic and behavioral factors associated with ORC status among U.S. adults with metabolic syndrome, NHANES 2001–2018.

Characteristics Na ORC non-ORC P-valuec
N (wt %)b N (wt %)b
Projected populationd 4463614 8021267 <0.001
Total 1383 544 (35.8) 839 (64.2)
Gender
Male 663 132 (14.92) 531 (85.08) <0.001
Female 720 412 (52.3) 308 (47.7)
Race
Non-Hispanic white 945 324 (33.53) 621 (66.47) <0.001
Hispanic 186 106 (53.34) 80 (46.66)
Non-Hispanic black 194 94 (52.5) 100 (47.5)
Age
20–39 34 10 (25.74) 24 (74.26) 0.001
40–59 233 80 (24.96) 153 (75.04)
60 and over 1116 454 (40.1) 662 (59.9)
Mean ± SE 1383 67.40 (0.70) 64.43 (0.64) 0.002
Education
High school graduate or less 685 305 (40.49) 380 (59.51) 0.040
Some college degree 401 143 (35.17) 258 (64.83)
College graduate and above 296 96 (29.17) 200 (70.83)
Income
Less 35000 593 263 (43.68) 330 (56.32) <0.001
35000–75000 407 153 (36.44) 254 (63.56)
Over 75000 253 71 (23.33) 182 (76.67)
Birth Country
US-born 1216 459 (34.73) 757 (65.27) 0.030
Mexico born 126 66 (55.5) 60 (44.5)
Other 40 19 (41.24) 21 (58.76)
Health Insurance
No 67 35 (48.42) 32 (51.58) 0.078
Yes 1312 509 (35.16) 803 (64.84)
Physical Activity
No 812 358 (40.92) 454 (59.08) 0.002
Yes 571 186 (30.03) 385 (69.97)
Smoking
Never 618 275 (37.35) 343 (62.65) 0.595
Current 174 63 (36.22) 111 (63.78)
Former 590 205 (33.67) 385 (66.33)
Alcohol Use
Never 194 107 (54.35) 87 (45.65) <0.001
Former 319 141 (39.65) 178 (60.35)
Mild 473 166 (34.69) 307 (65.31)
Heavy 116 28 (21.39) 88 (78.61)

aUnweighted sample size.

bWeighted percentage for categorical factors by applying NHANES sampling weights, or weighted mean and standard error (SE) for continuous variables (e.g., age).

cP-values are based on the Rao-Scott Chi-square tests for categorical variables or weighted linear regression for continuous variables. The P-value for comparing total ORC vs non-ORC proportions was obtained from Z-test.

dEstimate of the U.S. population, NHANES sampling weighted N, representing the results.

Associated factors of ORC among adults with MetS

Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the associated factors of ORC among U.S. adults with MetS during 2001–2018 (Table 2). Among the seven factors, three (Gender, Race, and Age) were found to be significantly associated with ORC. The odds of having ORC in females was approximately 7.1 times higher than in males (95% CI = 4.9–10.3; p<0.001). For race, the odds of having ORC among Hispanic and non-Hispanic black were 2.9 times (95% CI = 1.7–4.8; p<0.001) and 2.7 times (95% CI = 1.8–4; p<0.001) higher than the non-Hispanic. The adults of age 60 years and over were 5.4 times (95% CI = 1.9–15.4; p<0.001) more likely to have ORC compared to adults aged 20–39 years. Furthermore, a higher risk of ORC, though not statistically significant, was seen in time period-3 participants compared to period-1, age 40–59 vs age 20–39, those who were highly educated, and who had lower income. Those who had health insurance, and who were physically active had less risk for ORC, though not statistically significant.

Table 2. Multivariable logistic regression analysis of sociodemographic factors associated with obesity-related cancers in adults with metabolic syndrome, NHANES 2001–2018.

Characteristics COR (95% CI)a P-valuea AOR (95% CI)b p-valueb
Time period
Period 1 (ref) - - - -
Period 2 0.94 (0.65, 1.34) 0.717 0.9 (0.59, 1.37) 0.628
Period 3 0.92 (0.63, 1.36) 0.689 1.06 (0.67, 1.69) 0.807
Gender
Male (ref) - - - -
Female 6.25 (4.43, 8.82) <0.001 7.06 (4.85, 10.28) <0.001
Race
Non-Hispanic white (ref) - - - -
Hispanic 2.27 (1.42, 3.61) 0.001 2.86 (1.69, 4.83) <0.001
Non-Hispanic black 2.19 (1.51, 3.18) <0.001 2.65 (1.75, 4) <0.001
Age
20–39 (ref) - - - -
40–59 0.96 (0.38, 2.44) 0.932 1.78 (0.61, 5.2) 0.292
60 and over 1.93 (0.78, 4.8) 0.159 5.42 (1.9, 15.4) 0.002
Education
High school graduate or less (ref) - - - -
Some college degree 0.8 (0.58, 1.09) 0.158 0.87 (0.6, 1.28) 0.485
College graduate and above 0.61 (0.40, 0.92) 0.022 1.06 (0.65, 1.73) 0.808
Income
Over 75000 (ref) - - - -
Less 35000 2.55 (1.77, 3.67) <0.001 1.25 (0.82, 1.89) 0.302
35000–75000 1.88 (1.21, 2.93) 0.006 1.31 (0.77, 2.23) 0.328
Missing 2.15 (1.23, 3.75) 0.008 1.14 (0.6, 2.18) 0.688
Health Insurance
No (ref) - - - -
Yes 0.58 (0.31, 1.07) 0.082 0.78 (0.37, 1.66) 0.517
Physical Activity
No (ref) - - - -
Yes 0.62, (0.46, 0.84) 0.002 0.8 (0.56, 1.13) 0.203

aCrude odds ratio (COR) and p-value obtained from univariate logistic regression of an associated factor on ORC.

bAdjusted odds ratio (AOR) and p-value obtained from a multivariable logistic regression model of associated factors on ORC. The model was also adjusted for alcohol use, which was highly insignificant and not reported.

Temporal trends in the age-adjusted prevalence

The overall age-adjusted ORC prevalence in all three periods remained stable (Table 3). But the age-standardized ORC prevalence increased gradually among females, increasing from 40.44% in 2001–2006 to 46.35% in 2013–2018, while the prevalence decreased for males from 13.73% in 2001–2006 to 8.17% in 2013–2018. This difference in ORC prevalence between males and females grew large over time. Among non-Hispanic black persons, age-standardized ORC prevalence was 62.56% in 2001–2006, declining to 42.16% in 2007–2012 and then substantially increasing to 54.72% in 2013–2018. On the other hand, among Hispanics, the most significant upward age-standardized ORC prevalence was observed, which increased from 23.23% in 2001–2006 to 63.13% in 2013–2018. A decreasing trend of ORC prevalence was observed for age groups 40–59 and 60+ years, while an increasing trend for the age group 20–39 years. Although for US-born people, the age-standardized ORC prevalence remained stable for the three time periods, the ORC prevalence changed dramatically for Mexican-born people in the first two periods, from 37.07% in 2001–2006 to 71.07% in 2007–2012, and then substantially decreased to 56.07% in 2013–2018. A decreasing trend in ORC prevalence was seen among higher or lower education groups, however, participants with some college degrees had a significantly increasing trend in ORC prevalence, from 28% in 2001–2006 to 42.53% in 2013–2018. Never and current smokers had a decreasing trend while former smokers had an increasing trend in ORC prevalence, from 22.14% in 2001–2006 to 37.82% in 2013–2018. Furthermore, the ORC prevalence significantly increased for mild alcohol drinkers from 29.47% in 2001–2006 to 48.87% in 2013–2018, however, within the first two periods the trend was stable.

Table 3. Age-standardized and age-specific prevalence of ORC by associated factors.

Characteristics T1: 2001–06 T2: 2007–12 T3: 2013–18 T3-T2 (95% CI)b T3-T1 (95% CI)b Betac P trendc
Wt % (SE)a Wt % (SE)a Wt % (SE)a
Overall 30.55 (0.57) 30.33 (0.38) 30.65 (0.40) 0.32 (-0.76, 1.40) 0.1 (-1.26, 1.46) 0.004 0.491
Gender
Male 13.73 (0.50) 9.01 (0.26) 8.17 (0.2) -0.84 (-1.48, -0.20) -5.56 (-6.62, -4.50) -0.278 0.137
Female 40.44 (0.80) 45.24 (0.50) 46.35 (0.62) 1.11 (-0.45, 2.67) 5.91 (3.98, 7.89) 0.114 0.285
Race
Non-Hispanic white 29.87 (0.45) 25.15 (0.38) 24.17 (0.41) -0.98 (-2.08, 0.12) -5.7 (-6.89, -4.51) -0.134 0.205
Non-Hispanic Black 62.56 (1.27) 42.16 (1.1) 54.72 (0.78) 12.6 (9.92, 15.2) -7.84 (-10.8, -4.92) -0.171 0.294
Hispanic 23.23 (0.64) 50.03 (0.85) 63.13 (0.94) 13.10 (10.6, 15.6) 39.9 (37.7, 42.1) 0.828 0.004
Age group
20–39d 15.2 (1.74) 20.79 (1.34) 33.08 (1.30) 12.3 (9.73, 14.9) 17.9 (15.3, 20.5) 0.541 0.283
40–59 25.37 (0.73) 26.7 (0.61) 23.07 (0.47) -3.63 (-5.14, -2.12) -2.3 (-4.00, -0.60) -0.069 0.381
60+ 42.86 (0.34) 39.41 (0.31) 39.16 (0.36) -0.25 (-1.18, 0.68) -3.7 (-4.67, -2.73) -0.070 0.253
Education
High school grad or less 40.38 (0.66) 44.26 (0.51) 30.86 (0.70) -13.4 (-15.1, -11.7) -9.52 (-11.4, -7.63) -0.226 0.138
Some college degree 28.03 (0.81) 21.33 (0.55) 42.53 (0.79) 21.2 (19.3, 23.1) 14.5 (12.3, 16.7) 0.422 0.063
College grad or above 23.28 (0.72) 22.97 (0.54) 17.93 (0.49) -5.04 (-6.47, -3.61) -5.35 (-7.06, -3.64) -0.195 0.227
Income
Less 35000 30.8 (0.86) 49.04 (0.37) 43.15 (0.76) -5.89 (-7.55, -4.23) 12.4 (10.1, 14.6) 0.234 0.173
35000–75000 36.63 (0.65) 27.5 (0.69) 33.42 (0.87) 5.92 (3.74, 8.10) -3.21 (-5.34, -1.08) -0.034 0.448
Over 75000 19.81 (0.68) 14.16 (0.34) 17.75 (0.45) 3.59 (2.48, 4.70) -2.06 (-3.66, -0.46) 0.018 0.475
Country born
US-born 29.67 (0.59) 29.05 (0.40) 28.66 (0.46) -0.39 (-1.58, 0.80) -1.01 (-2.48, 0.46) 0.447
Mexico born 37.07 (1.82) 71.07 (0.71) 56.07 (1.13) -15.0 (-17.6, -12.4) 19.0 (14.8, 23.2) -0.024 0.427
Health Insurance
No 57.59 (1.6) 53.6 (0.78) 42.97 (1.2) -10.6 (-13.4, -7.82) -14.6 (-18.5, -10.7) -0.024 0.253
Yes 28.65 (0.61) 27.65 (0.39) 30.9 (0.41) 3.25 (2.14, 4.36) 2.25 (0.81, 3.69) -0.078 0.351
Physical activity
No 39.97 (0.80) 33.99 (0.59) 32.71 (0.65) -1.28 (-3.00, 0.44) -7.26 (-9.28, -5.24) -0.134 0.284
Yes 26.97 (0.57) 22.72 (0.35) 27.42 (0.52) 4.70 (3.47, 5.93) 0.45 (-1.06, 1.96) 0.020 0.459
Smoking
Never 31.79 (1.02) 25.73 (0.43) 28 (0.62) 2.27 (0.79, 3.75) -3.79 (-6.13, -1.45) -0.066 0.405
Current 47.47 (0.64) 42.35 (0.89) 26.38 (0.81) -15.9 (-18.3, -13.6) -21.1 (-23.1, -19.1) -0.474 0.032
Former 22.14 (0.62) 27.12 (0.55) 37.82 (0.71) 10.7 (8.94, 12.5) 15.7 (13.8, 17.5) 0.395 0.051
Alcohol use
Never 59.61 (1.31) 68.08 (0.76) 38.97 (1.26) -29.1 (-32.0, -26.2) -20.6 (-24.2, -17.1) -0.427 0.146
Former 39.48 (1.16) 35.84 (0.79) 29.78 (0.62) -6.06 (-8.03, -4.09) -9.7 (-12.3, -7.12) -0.219 0.217
Mild 29.47 (0.66) 27.7 (0.76) 48.87 (1.0) 21.2 (18.7, 23.7) 19.4 (17.1, 21.8) 0.534 0.042
Heavy 19.99 (0.99) 20.73 (0.72) 15.39 (0.56) -5.34 (-7.13, -5.16) -4.6 (-6.83, -2.37) -0.180 0.310

aWeighted prevalence age-standardized by U.S. 2000 population. SE implies the standard error of the estimated prevalence.

bPercent difference in prevalence between the two periods. 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained using the Z test. The percent difference is significant if the CI includes 0 (p<0.05).

cBeta is obtained from univariate logistic regression of ORC on the continuous variable period(e.g., 1,2,3). It implies the rate of change in log odds from one time period to the following, implying an overall increase (+ve sign) or decrease (-ve sign) in the prevalence throughout the total study period. The p-value indicates the significance of a linear temporal trend in the prevalence.

dORC prevalence for the age group 20–39 in period-1 may not be stable due to a small sample size (<10).

Prevalence and trends of individual ORCs

During the total period 2001–2018, the U.S. adults with MetS had only 6 specific ORCs out of 13 defined ORCs (Fig 2). These 6 ORCs were thyroid (10.95%), breast (10%), uterine (9.18%), colorectal (7.86%), ovarian (5.74%), and stomach (0.80%). The age-standardized prevalence of the top 5 ORCs in three periods was obtained (Fig 3). It showed a decreasing trend for breast cancers among adults with MetS. However, increasing trends were seen for colorectal, ovarian, thyroid and uterine cancers from period-1 to period-3.

Fig 2. Prevalence of obesity-related cancers among US adults with MetS, NHANES 2001–2018; error bars are “Prevalence ±SE”.

Fig 2

Fig 3. Age-standardized prevalence of top 5 ORCs among U.S. adults with MetS in each time period; error bars are “Prevalence ± SE”.

Fig 3

Discussion

About one-third of U.S. adults are currently affected by MetS, with a higher prevalence among older individuals, women, and those who are overweight [32, 33]. Obesity is a key factor in MetS and is linked to oxidative stress, which plays a role in several illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer [34, 35]. The present study aimed to identify groups with MetS who are at higher risk for developing ORC and temporal trends of ORCs among U.S. adults with MetS during the period of 2001–2018.

According to findings, the occurrence of ORC was more common in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic participants with MetS, with a prevalence of over 50% for each group, as compared to non-Hispanic Whites with MetS. A higher prevalence was also observed among females with MetS compared to males. Even after controlling for various sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics, this greater occurrence of ORC persisted as a significant finding. More specifically, the results from multivariable regression showed that females had a greater odds of developing ORC compared to males. This finding was consistent with several previous studies [6, 10]. Additionally, we observed that Hispanic and non-Hispanic black individuals displayed elevated odds in comparison to non-Hispanic whites from multivariable logistic regression. Similarly, Monestime et al. [6] found higher odds of ORC among Hispanic and non-Hispanic black individuals with MetS compared to non-Hispanic individuals with MetS, although they did not control behavioral factors, such as physical activity, and alcohol use. On the other hand, Steele et al. [4] analyzed U.S. cancer statistics data and found higher rates of ORCs among non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites compared to other ethnic groups. However, their study focused on the U.S. general population irrespective of MetS status. Steele et al. also revealed evidence that the frequency of overweight and ORC appearing together was greater in individuals of age 50 years or over, compared to those who were younger. Our findings also supported these findings and found individuals aged 60 years and above exhibited significantly higher odds of developing ORC compared to those aged 20–39 years.

The individuals from these highly vulnerable groups may be more likely to consume a high-fat, high-calorie diet, which can contribute to obesity and metabolic syndrome. They may also be less likely to engage in regular physical activity, which can increase the risk of both obesity and cancer [36, 37].

The findings from temporal trend analysis indicate that the overall age-standardized prevalence of ORC remained stable across three time periods. However, there were some notable trends within subgroups. Specifically, there was a gradual increase in age-standardized ORC prevalence among females, while males exhibited a decrease over time. The difference in ORC prevalence between males and females also grew larger over time. Among non-Hispanic black individuals, ORC prevalence decreased from 2001–2012 but then increased substantially during 2013–2018. In contrast, among Hispanics, there was a significant upward trend in ORC prevalence. Interestingly, a decreasing trend in ORC prevalence was observed among both age groups 40–59 and 60+ years, while an increasing trend was observed in the age group 20–39 years. A study found that there was a significant increase in the incidence of several ORCs (multiple myeloma, colorectal, uterine, gallbladder, kidney, and pancreatic cancer) in young adults aged 25–49 years, indicating that the trend of increasing cancer incidence in young adults is accelerating over time [38]. A recent study by Contngco et al. [39] revealed that cancers linked to obesity are becoming more common among younger women, regardless of their race and ethnicity. The increasing burden of ORC in young adults can be attributed to conditions that often accompany excess body weight such as diabetes, gallstones, inflammatory bowel disease and poor diet.

According to the study’s results, six out of the thirteen individual ORCs were prevalent among U.S. adults with MetS. The most common among these were thyroid, breast, uterine, colorectal and ovarian cancers (Fig 2). The incidence of breast cancer decreased over time among adults with MetS, but there were increasing trends for colorectal, ovarian, thyroid, and uterine cancers between 2001–2006 and 2013–2018 (Fig 3). An earlier study also found that the incidence in the U.S. population for breast cancer decreased while that for thyroid, ovarian, kidney, and renal pelvis cancers increased across birth cohorts from 1915 to 1985 [38]. A study that analyzed cancer registry data revealed a sharp 6.7% decline in the age-adjusted incidence rate of breast cancer among U.S. women in 2003, compared to 2002, which was mostly due to a sharp drop in hormone-replacement therapy (estrogen + progesterone) use [40, 41]. Additionally, the annual age-adjusted incidence rate decreased by 8.6% between 2001 and 2004 [40]. Based on recent data, breast cancer incidence rates increased by 0.5% annually from 2010 to 2019, while the death rate declined by 43% during the period of 1989 to 2020 [3]. Despite the fact that MetS is a recognized risk factor for breast cancer [42], the current study revealed a decreasing trend in breast cancer among U.S. adults with comorbid MetS and cancer. It is an interesting finding and requires further research to understand the relevant biological mechanisms or other related factors that potentially contributed to the decline in age-adjusted prevalence of breast cancer over time in this group of individuals.

Another study reported a decline in the incidence rate of colorectal cancer in the U.S. general population from 2005–2014 [4]. However, we observed the opposite trend for adults with MetS, which may be attributed to less likelihood of obtaining colorectal cancer screening [43] and difficulties in diagnosis [8]. Several other studies also linked metabolic syndrome to colorectal cancer [44, 45]. The current study’s finding of the increasing trend in individual ORCs, excluding breast cancer, is also consistent with the rise in obesity prevalence in the U.S. during 2007–2014 [46]. Encouraging physical activity and promoting healthy eating habits within communities could help individuals maintain a healthy weight more easily.

The study utilized a large and nationally representative sample, and thus results can be generalized to the U.S. adults with MetS. This is the first study of its kind that examines temporal trends in the prevalence of ORC and identifies potential associated factors controlling for important behavioral characteristics. This study’s findings might be useful for planning on preventing and controlling Mets, as well as emphasizing regular screening to further reduce the incidence of colorectal, ovarian, thyroid, and uterine cancers.

The limitation of this study is that it used cross-sectional data, which means it cannot establish the causality of the observed associations. Additionally, the study did not examine the impact of changes in dietary habits or other factors associated with quality of life on the occurrence of ORC.

Conclusions

This study offers valuable insights into the prevalence and temporal trends of ORC among U.S. adults with MetS. The higher prevalence of ORC among females, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic blacks suggests that targeted interventions may be required for these groups to prevent ORC. Age was a significant risk factor for ORC, possibly due to age-related changes that predispose individuals to cancer. The stable overall prevalence of ORC over time, with increases in certain individual ORCs (thyroid, uterine, colorectal, and ovarian), indicates the need for more effective interventions to reduce the burden of ORCs among U.S. adults with MetS. Overall, this study underscores the importance of addressing MetS and lifestyle factors to prevent ORCs among U.S. adults with MetS.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

Data sets are publicly available in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/).

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Greenlee H, Shi Z, Sardo Molmenti CL, Rundle A, Tsai WY. Trends in obesity prevalence in adults with a history of cancer: Results from the US National Health Interview Survey, 1997 to 2014. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016;34: 3133–3140. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.4391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Avgerinos KI, Spyrou N, Mantzoros CS, Dalamaga M. Obesity and cancer risk: Emerging biological mechanisms and perspectives. Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental. W.B. Saunders; 2019. pp. 121–135. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2018.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72: 7–33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21708 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Steele CB, Thomas CC, Henley SJ, Massetti GM, Galuska DA, Agurs-Collins T, et al. Vital Signs: Trends in Incidence of Cancers Associated with Overweight and Obesity—United States, 2005–2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66: 1052–1058. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6639e1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Renehan AG, Zwahlen M, Egger M. Adiposity and cancer risk: New mechanistic insights from epidemiology. Nature Reviews Cancer. Nature Publishing Group; 2015. pp. 484–498. doi: 10.1038/nrc3967 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Monestime S, Beech B, Kermah D, Norris K. Prevalence and predictors of obesity-related cancers among racial/ethnic groups with metabolic syndrome. PLoS One. 2021;16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vaidya R, Till C, Greenlee H, Hershman DL, Unger JM. Trends in Obesity Prevalence among Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trials for Obesity-Related Cancers, 1986 to 2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; E2234445. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.34445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mehta P, Henry-Tillman R. Obesity-related cancer: an emerging need for more education. J Cancer Educ. 2008;23: 201–3. doi: 10.1080/08858190802470778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Carmichael AR. Obesity as a risk factor for development and poor prognosis of breast cancer. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2006. pp. 1160–1166. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01021.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hong YR, Huo J, Desai R, Cardel M, Deshmukh AA. Excess Costs and Economic Burden of Obesity-Related Cancers in the United States. Value in Health. 2019;22: 1378–1386. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.07.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gunter MJ, Xie X, Xue X, Kabat GC, Rohan TE, Wassertheil-Smoller S, et al. Breast cancer risk in metabolically healthy but overweight postmenopausal women. Cancer Res. 2015;75: 270–274. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-2317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection E and T of HBC in A (Adult TPI. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation. 2002;106: 3143–421. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Araújo J, Cai J, Stevens J. Prevalence of Optimal Metabolic Health in American Adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009–2016. Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders. Mary Ann Liebert Inc.; 2019. pp. 46–52. doi: 10.1089/met.2018.0105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hirode G, Wong RJ. Trends in the Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome in the United States, 2011–2016. JAMA. 2020;323: 2526–2528. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Guembe MJ, Fernandez-Lazaro CI, Sayon-Orea C, Toledo E, Moreno-Iribas C, Cosials JB, et al. Risk for cardiovascular disease associated with metabolic syndrome and its components: a 13-year prospective study in the RIVANA cohort. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2020;19. doi: 10.1186/s12933-020-01166-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shin JA, Lee JH, Lim SY, Ha HS, Kwon HS, Park YM, et al. Metabolic syndrome as a predictor of type 2 diabetes, and its clinical interpretations and usefulness. Journal of Diabetes Investigation. 2013. pp. 334–343. doi: 10.1111/jdi.12075 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Inagaki J, Rodriguez V, Bodey GP. Causes of death in cancer patients. Cancer. 1974;33: 568–573. doi: ::AID-CNCR2820330236>3.0.CO;2–2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nuver J, Smit AJ, Postma A, Sleijfer DT, Gietema JA. The metabolic syndrome in long-term cancer survivors, and important target for secondary preventive measures. Cancer Treat Rev. 2002;28: 195–214. doi: 10.1016/S0305-7372(02)00038-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Braun S, Bitton-Worms K, Leroith D. The Link between the Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer. Int J Biol Sci. 2011. Available: http://www.biolsci.org1003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Healy LA, Ryan AM, Carroll P, Ennis D, Crowley V, Boyle T, et al. Metabolic syndrome, central obesity and insulin resistance are associated with adverse pathological features in postmenopausal breast cancer. Clin Oncol. 2010;22: 281–288. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2010.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mariani M, Sassano M, Boccia S. Metabolic syndrome and gastric cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2021; 239–250. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000618 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Esposito K, Chiodini P, Colao A, Lenzi A, Giugliano D. Metabolic syndrome and risk of cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2012;35: 2402–2411. doi: 10.2337/dc12-0336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Aballay LR, Eynard AR, Díaz M del P, Navarro A, Muñoz SE. Overweight and obesity: A review of their relationship to metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and cancer in South America. Nutrition Reviews. 2013. pp. 168–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00533.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Arnold M, Freisling H, Stolzenberg-Solomon R, Kee F, O’Doherty MG, Ordóñez-Mena JM, et al. Overweight duration in older adults and cancer risk: a study of cohorts in Europe and the United States. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31: 893–904. doi: 10.1007/s10654-016-0169-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Strasser B. Physical activity in obesity and metabolic syndrome. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2013;1281: 141–159. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06785.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yang L, Cao C, Kantor ED, Nguyen LH, Zheng X, Park Y, et al. Trends in Sedentary Behavior Among the US Population, 2001–2016. JAMA. 2019;321: 1587–1597. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.3636 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zipf G, Chiappa M, Porter KS, Ostchega Y, Lewis BG, Dostal J. Health and nutrition examination survey plan and operations, 1999–2010. 2013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). NCHS Research Ethics Review Board (ERB) Approval. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/irba98.htm (accessed on 20 April 2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 29.National Center for Health Statistics. NHANES survey methods and analytic guidelines. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/analyticguidelines.aspx (accessed on 25 April 2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lumley T. Analysis of complex survey samples. J Stat Softw. 2004;9: 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Klein RJ, Schoenborn CA. Age adjustment using the 2000 projected U.S. population . Healthy People 2010 Stat Notes. 2001; 1–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mozumdar A, Liguori G. Persistent increase of prevalence of metabolic syndrome among U.S. adults: NHANES III to NHANES 1999–2006. Diabetes Care. 2011;34: 216–9. doi: 10.2337/dc10-0879 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ford ES, Li C, Zhao G. Prevalence and correlates of metabolic syndrome based on a harmonious definition among adults in the US. J Diabetes. 2010;2: 180–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-0407.2010.00078.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Khandekar MJ, Cohen P, Spiegelman BM. Molecular mechanisms of cancer development in obesity. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;11: 886–95. doi: 10.1038/nrc3174 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wolin KY, Carson K, Colditz GA. Obesity and cancer. Oncologist. 2010;15: 556–65. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hodge AM, Bassett JK, Milne RL, English DR, Giles GG. Consumption of sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks and risk of obesity-related cancers. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21: 1618–1626. doi: 10.1017/S1368980017002555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Friedenreich CM, Cust AE . Physical activity and breast cancer risk: impact of timing, type and dose of activity and population subgroup effects. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42: 636–47. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.029132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sung H, Siegel RL, Rosenberg PS, Jemal A. Emerging cancer trends among young adults in the USA: analysis of a population-based cancer registry. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4: e137–e147. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30267-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cotangco KR, Liao C-I, Eakin CM, Chan A, Cohen J, Kapp DS, et al. Trends in Incidence of Cancers Associated With Obesity and Other Modifiable Risk Factors Among Women, 2001–2018. Prev Chronic Dis. 2023;20: E21. doi: 10.5888/pcd20.220211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ravdin PM, Cronin KA, Howlader N, Berg CD, Chlebowski RT, Feuer EJ, et al. The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2007;356: 1670–4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr070105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Toriola AT, Colditz GA. Trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality in the United States: implications for prevention. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138: 665–73. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2500-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Dong S, Wang Z, Shen K, Chen X. Metabolic Syndrome and Breast Cancer: Prevalence, Treatment Response, and Prognosis. Front Oncol. 2021;11: 629666. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.629666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Murata F, Maeda M, Fukuda H. Association between metabolic syndrome and participation in colorectal cancer screening in Japan: A retrospective cohort analysis using LIFE study data. Cancer Epidemiol. 2023;83: 102335. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2023.102335 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chung K-C, Juang S-E, Chen H-H, Cheng K-C, Wu K-L, Song L-C, et al. Association between metabolic syndrome and colorectal cancer incidence and all-cause mortality: a hospital-based observational study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022;22: 453. doi: 10.1186/s12876-022-02505-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kabat GC, Kim MY, Peters U, Stefanick M, Hou L, Wactawski-Wende J, et al. A longitudinal study of the metabolic syndrome and risk of colorectal cancer in postmenopausal women. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2012;21: 326–32. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e32834dbc81 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shin D, Kongpakpaisarn K, Bohra C. Trends in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its components in the United States 2007–2014. Int J Cardiol. 2018;259: 216–219. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.01.139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Meisam Akhlaghdoust

28 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-12854Prevalence, trend and risk factors of obesity-related cancers among U.S. adults with metabolic syndrome: Evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2018PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mahmud,

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 Sep 11 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,

Meisam Akhlaghdoust, M.D., M.P.H.

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Title: Prevalence, trend and risk factors of obesity-related cancers among U.S. adults with metabolic syndrome: Evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2018

This study is about Prevalence, trend and risk factors of obesity-related cancers among U.S. adults with metabolic syndrome. The importance of this study is vague despite a similar study entitled ““Prevalence and predictors of obesity-related cancers among racial/ethnic groups with metabolic syndrome”, which was published in PLOS one journal”. By the way, I reviewed the paper and there are some comments as follows:

Abstract:

- Introduction: Please use related factors instead of predictors.

-in the results section, please identify the level of confidence for CI, i.e. (OR=7.1, 95% CI=4.9-10.3). “However, an increasing trend was seen for thyroid, uterine, colorectal and ovarian cancers while decreasing trend for breast cancer” . P value?

Introduction:

- The necessity and importance of this study is not clear. Although, you cited to a similar paper entitled “Prevalence and predictors of obesity-related cancers among racial/ethnic groups with metabolic syndrome”, which was published in PLOS one journal. But, you did not provide information about the difference between this study and yours. I know that the year of evaluation is different, and concentrated on ethnic groups. But, you could not justify the reason of conducting, which is necessary to notice that.

- “. This study aims to determine the prevalence and predictors of ORC based on recent data, and further evaluate the temporal trends in ORC 74 among U.S. adults with comorbid conditions MetS and cancer.” Please use past tense (e.g. This study aimed to …)

- This study is a cross-sectional study, which is differ from prediction model studies. Please use related factors instead of predictors. Because, the aim of this study is not to draw a prediction model and evaluate its performance. Thus, please revise it in the whole manuscript.

Methods:

- It is better to write this section according to STROBE guideline.

- There is no information on how to do a univariate logistic regression.

Results:

- Please report mean (SD) instead of mean (SE) in the table 1.

- How about univariate logistic regression analysis?

Discussion:

- Line 235-236: “Additionally, we observed that Hispanic and non-Hispanic black 236 individuals displayed elevated likelihood in comparison to non-Hispanic white”. Likelihood is not an appropriate term to use. You provide odds ratio measure. It is better to use odds instead of likelihood. If the out come prevalence is less than 5, you can use risk interchangeably. Please revise it in the whole document.

- Line 235- 239: “Additionally, we observed that Hispanic and non-Hispanic black individuals displayed elevated likelihood in comparison to non-Hispanic whites. Similarly, Monestime et al. (6) found higher odds of ORC among Hispanic and non-Hispanic black individuals with MetS compared to non-Hispanic individuals with MetS, although they did not control behavioral factors, physical activity, and alcohol use”. Adjusting for other confounders can not be the main reason to conduct another study.

Study limitation:

- The authors focused on the study strength, which can be mentioned while discussing. But, I think the major limitation is that investigator depended on the existing variables and such variables such as stress, quality of life and other factors was not considered. This section is very important, because it helps author researcher to design new studies.

Conclusion:

- In conclusion section, pleas not use reference. In this section, the authors should provide a conclusion on their own words.

Reviewer #2: The authors selected a subset of nhanes that may not adequately reflect the sampling weights used and would not allow an estimate of a population prevalence as claimed by the authors. For further concerns please, consult the attached file with details.

Reviewer #3: The document is quite interesting and addresses a subject that is increasingly being reviewed in the literature, that of ORCs and metabolic syndrome.

The document is methodologically and statistically well approached, however it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth that the findings are not fully discussed, I would have liked to see more interpretations and explanatory positions from the authors, I feel that they end up cutting it. I would like to point out, as an example, figure 3 in which the authors mention that breast cancer is one of those that present a decreasing trend over time, which can be seen in the figure, but it should have called attention that if it were the highest in the initial period, it declines until reaching almost zero in the last period. This must have caught the attention of the authors and I expected further discussion and a position from the authors on the matter.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Héctor Arreola-Ornelas

**********

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report- MN.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: editor.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: authors.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Sep 1;18(9):e0290994. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290994.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Aug 2023

Response to Reviewer #1:

Reviewer point #1: Abstract: Introduction: “Please use related factors instead of predictors.”

Author response #1:

We have replaced “predictors” with “associated factors”.

Reviewer point #2: Abstract: “in the results section, please identify the level of confidence for CI, i.e. (OR=7.1, 95% CI=4.9-10.3). “However, an increasing trend was seen for thyroid, uterine, colorectal and ovarian cancers while decreasing trend for breast cancer” . P value?”

Author response #2:

We agree that it is important to mention the level of confidence in CI and thus added in the abstract.

We did not report a p-value for the increase of thyroid, uterine, colorectal, and ovarian cancers. Because this conclusion on the increasing trend is evident from the time period-wise multiple bar charts with error bars with SE (Figure 3). Particularly, the highly non-overlapping SE error bars are implying evidence for statistical significance from one time period to another for a given cancer.

Reviewer point #3: Introduction: “The necessity and importance of this study is not clear. Although, you cited to a similar paper entitled “Prevalence and predictors of obesity-related cancers among racial/ethnic groups with metabolic syndrome”, which was published in PLOS one journal. But, you did not provide information about the difference between this study and yours. I know that the year of evaluation is different, and concentrated on ethnic groups. But, you could not justify the reason of conducting, which is necessary to notice that.”

Author response #3:

Thank you for your comment. This study clearly mentioned the gap in the current literature in lines 68-70 (However, less is known about the temporal trend in the prevalence of ORC among adults with MetS, though MetS is steadily increasing among U.S. adults). From lines 71 to 78, we also mentioned the specific aim of this study. In summary, we clearly indicated that our study is incorporating recent data to give a current and comprehensive picture of prevalence and predictors, which thereby implies no other study exists based on the publicly available most recent NHANES data in this ORC-MetS context.

We agree that we cited a similar paper that includes data up to 2014 and focused on racial/ethnic groups, which is a point of discussion in our manuscript. In our discussion, we mentioned that their multivariable model did not adjust for two important variables in ORC and MetS (Physical activity and alcohol use) particularly when we discussed that our finding is supported by their finding for two racial groups (though our model shows slightly higher OR). We did not conduct our study only to show this. Our study clearly mentioned two other aims involving the trend in the prevalence of overall ORC and particular ORCs in the introduction section.

Reviewer point #4: Introduction: “. This study aims to determine the prevalence and predictors of ORC based on recent data, and further evaluate the temporal trends in ORC 74 among U.S. adults with comorbid conditions MetS and cancer.” Please use past tense (e.g. This study aimed to …)

Author response #4:

We agree with the reviewer on this comment. And revised accordingly.

Reviewer point #5: Introduction: “This study is a cross-sectional study, which is differ from prediction model studies. Please use related factors instead of predictors. Because, the aim of this study is not to draw a prediction model and evaluate its performance. Thus, please revise it in the whole manuscript.”

Author response #5:

We agree with the reviewer that our purpose is not the prediction. Thus, we have used “associated factors” instead of “predictors”. We have incorporated this adjustment throughout the manuscript as per your recommendation. Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Reviewer point #6: Method: “It is better to write this section according to STROBE guideline.”

Author response # 6:

We have already prepared the method section according to STROBE guidelines for the submitted manuscript. We provided information on applicable STROBE items in our study such as study design and participants, variables, data source and analytical sample selection, study size, statistical methods, missing data, ethics, and subgroup analyses. We provided a diagram showing detailed steps involving the selection of the study participants/analytical sample. The effort to reduce bias was part of the NHANES survey design and data collection, thus not needed in our study. In addition, we have also submitted the STROBE checklist along with the manuscript.

Reviewer point #7: Method: “There is no information on how to do a univariate logistic regression.”

Author response #7:

Thank for your comment. We have added details on univariate logistic regression in method section. In addition, we have added the result from this regression in the result section.

Reviewer point #8: Results: “Please report mean (SD) instead of mean (SE) in the table 1.”

Author response #8:

We respectfully disagree with this comment. According to NHANES guidelines and tutorials, reporting SE is important to understand the stability and admissibility of the estimated prevalence values. According to the NHANES analytical guidelines, if standard errors are more than 30% of the prevalence estimates, then the results may not be stable. [Comment from NHANES tutorial: The NHANES guidelines recommended a relative standard error of at most 30%.] (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/tutorials/ReliabilityOfEstimates.aspx ). Therefore, it is necessary to SE instead of SD.

Furthermore, SE represents the uncertainty and is important to get an idea of the confidence interval of the estimates. Therefore, we think SE is more meaningful and necessary to be reported instead of SD. For NHANES data analysis, it is common to report SE instead of SD in the literature.

Reviewer point #9: Result: “How about univariate logistic regression analysis?”

Author response #9:

Thank you for your question. Now, we have added the univariate logistic regression analysis.

Reviewer point #10: Discussion: “Line 235-236: “Additionally, we observed that Hispanic and non-Hispanic black 236 individuals displayed elevated likelihood in comparison to non-Hispanic white”. Likelihood is not an appropriate term to use. You provide odds ratio measure. It is better to use odds instead of likelihood. If the outcome prevalence is less than 5, you can use risk interchangeably. Please revise it in the whole document.”

Author response #10:

The word likelihood is replaced with odds in the whole manuscript for describing our study findings.

Reviewer point #11: Discussion: “Line 235- 239: “Additionally, we observed that Hispanic and non-Hispanic black individuals displayed elevated likelihood in comparison to non-Hispanic whites. Similarly, Monestime et al. (6) found higher odds of ORC among Hispanic and non-Hispanic black individuals with MetS compared to non-Hispanic individuals with MetS, although they did not control behavioral factors, physical activity, and alcohol use”. Adjusting for other confounders can not be the main reason to conduct another study.”

Author response #11:

Thank you for your comment. I would like to clarify that we did not assert conducting another study merely by adjusting two additional important factors. We mentioned this study to show that our finding is supported by a study with a similar findings for racial/ethnic groups. However, our main objective is to give a current and comprehensive picture of prevalence and associated factors of ORC among the study population.

[We mentioned: Similarly, Monestime et al. (6) found higher odds of ORC among Hispanic and non-Hispanic black individuals with MetS compared to non-Hispanic individuals with MetS, although they did not control behavioral factors, such as physical activity, and alcohol use.]

Reviewer point #12: Study limitation: “The authors focused on the study strength, which can be mentioned while discussing. But, I think the major limitation is that investigator depended on the existing variables and such variables such as stress, quality of life and other factors was not considered. This section is very important, because it helps author researcher to design new studies.”

Author response #12:

We thank and agreed with the reviewer on this point that we relied on the existing variables and variables such as stress, quality of life and others were not considered in this study. Our study focused on common risk factors such as demographic and behavioral factors. Therefore, controlling for stress and quality of life is beyond the scope of this study.

We have revised the manuscript by adding this as the limitation at the end of the discussion section.

Reviewer point #13: Conclusion: “In conclusion section, please not use reference. In this section, the authors should provide a conclusion on their own words.”

Author response #13:

We agree that the conclusion should not have a reference mentioned. We removed that and revised the conclusion in the updated manuscript.

Response to Reviewer #2:

Reviewer point #1: “The authors selected a subset of nhanes that may not adequately reflect the sampling weights used and would not allow an estimate of a population prevalence as claimed by the authors. For further concerns please, consult the attached file with details.”

The remarks from the reviewer in the attached file for the authors:

Remark 1:

“There are several issues with the approach chosen by the authors. First, only subjects with a cancer diagnosis were selected. If this subset differs substantially from the subset of the population that is free of cancer it is possible to miss a risk factor that is specifically related to ORC but not a risk factor for cancer in general. The design chosen by the authors allows only the identification of factors relative to a ORC vs non-ORC cancer diagnosis. It is not clear that the weights calculated in the NHANES survey adjust for the population diagnosed with cancer. If that is the case, this needs to be stated explicitly. If not, then the weights used do not project onto the US population but only onto the cancer population. Thus, it Is not possible to calculate a prevalence of ORC but only to determine the proportion of ORC’s among all the cancers.”

Author response #1:

Thanks for your detailed comment. We agree that our design allows the identification of factors related to ORC vs non-ORC cancer diagnosis among US adults with Metabolic Syndrome (MetS). For example, the focus of the study is to estimate the prevalence of ORC and associated risk factors of ORC (response variable: ORC=1 vs No-ORC=0) among individuals with MetS. Our main subpopulation is the individuals having MetS. NHANES calculates the sampling weights (e.g., fasting subsample) by focusing more on the multi-stage nature of the survey (e.g., secondary sampling unit is nested under the primary sampling unit), the distribution of age and race (better representation by oversampling), and of course the non-response in each phase of the survey/data collection (e.g., home interview, medical examination, fasting glucose collection, etc.), NOT specifically accounting for any particular disease. The sampling weights used in this study were directly related to the components of MetS i.e., non-response adjustment during obtaining fasting glucose level. The diagnosis of cancer did not have an impact on the sampling weight calculation. Therefore, focusing on the ORC vs non-ORC does not potentially prevent us from constructing a subpopulation of individuals with MetS that represents the US population of age 20 years or older.

We also want to point out that we first defined the survey design (using survey R package) on the full population, then we obtained a subset of this survey design according to our subpopulation of interest. In this way, the survey package adjusted the sampling weights according to the subpopulation (adults 20 years or older and having MetS) so that the estimates are representative of the US population in this group.

A paper focusing on risk factors of ORC vs non-ORC among MetS individuals also reported results that projected on the US population with MetS, not just the individuals with a cancer diagnosis. Our study also has the same study population (individuals with comorbid metabolic syndrome and cancer mentioned in their study population section). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249188

Remark 2:

“The bivariate analyses, chi-squared tests chosen by the authors should only serve as a selection for relevant variables in the logistic regression model. Since the cancer cases are not a random subset of all surveyed subjects, it is not clear that the bivariate parameters have any interpretation as marginal parameters for the US population. For risk factor assessment, as the authors state, causal statements are not possible, therefore, any factor potentially related to the type of cancer should be stated as being associated with ORC or not. Furthermore, other variables such as age that are likely confounders, need to be adjusted for.”

Author response #2:

Our focus was to consider the behavioral and demographic factors. The bivariate analyses and chi-squared tests were useful in three ways: 1) one is the selection of important variables for the multivariable logistic regression model, 2) To estimate the prevalence of ORC within a subcategory of the population; for example, ORC prevalence among males with MetS. 3) To identify any significant differences in ORC prevalence between the subgroups; for example, whether the prevalence of ORC in males and females were different or not. Since this is a univariate type of analysis, the results were not adjusted for age in Table 1. We agree that age is a confounder and therefore, we adjusted for age in the risk factor assessment in Table 3. We also adjusted for age distribution across time periods to make them comparable and obtain a trend in prevalence of ORC presented in Table 2.

We agree with the remark that “For risk factor assessment, as the authors state, causal statements are not possible, therefore, any factor potentially related to the type of cancer should be stated as being associated with ORC or not”. In our writing on risk factor assessment, we did not indicate causation; we indicated association. To make it easier to follow we now used the word “associated factors” instead of “risk factors”. We have also revised the manuscript by replacing risk factors with associated factors or related factors.

Remark #3:

“The term cohort for the three groups of years is inappropriate. A cohort is a group that is selected and then observed forward. This is not the case here. There are 18 separate samples, one for each year. It is questionable to assess trends in any meaningful way over time since risk due to such factors as age, year born etc are confounded with time trends. Also, it does not seem that the authors directly tested trends over time except to see if cohort as the groupings are named is a predictor of outcome.”

Author’s response:

Thank you for catching this up. We changed the term “cohort” to “time period” everywhere in the manuscript.

We agree that the age distribution of the populations in each of the NHANES cycles and thus in each of the three periods are different. Therefore, we applied the age-standardization method based on the US 2000 population so that age distribution and thus the estimated prevalences are comparable across the time periods. The age-standardized estimates are also called the age-adjusted estimates. We provide more clarification in the statistical analysis section.

Remark #4:

“Also, it should be stated somewhere in the paper why the cancers chosen are called ORC. This is not obvious and obviously, not every breast or uterine cancer or any other cancer is due to obesity. Is it even known what proportion of these cancers are attributable in the population to obesity? Why was BMI or a similar measure not used as a covariate?”

Author’s response:

In the introduction section we mentioned: Obesity has been found to be linked to a higher risk for cancer in at least 13 anatomic sites (reference #: 2,4,6,7).

In the study variables section we provided references about defining ORC:

A diagnosis of brain, bladder, esophagus, kidney, endometrial, thyroid, ovarian, breast, liver, gallbladder, stomach, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer was required for the presence of an ORC to be established (reference #: 2,4,6,7).

Again, we agree that no cancers can be assigned 100% due to obesity. But for these 13 cancers, research shows obesity played a significantly greater risk. In the case of uterine cancers, it is well-known that a vast majority of uterine cancers are endometrial and obesity was found to be the strongest risk factor. We looked at several studies which defined these cancers as the ORC. Majority of the cancers occur in individuals of age over 40-50 years old. It is well known that after menopause, obesity significantly increases the risk of breast cancer.

We did not consider BMI as one predictor because it is correlated with the metabolic syndrome component variables.

Remark #5:

“Many of the cancers are age-related and it is not clear to what degree these ORC are due to age and to what degree due to obesity. If a person is not overweight and does not have metabolic syndrome, then whatever cancer they have, obesity is not the cause. If the purpose is to assess the degree to which obesity and metabolic syndrome contribute to cancer burden, it should bestudied in the population that includes non-cancer cases as well.”

Author’s response #5:

We somewhat agree with this remark from the reviewer. H owever, our specific focus was ORC relative to non-ORC among individuals with MetS. Maybe the reviewer’s this comment can be a direction for future research.

Some specific remarks/corrections:

Line 69: and reduced likelihood...screening and difficulties... the authors refer to 2 different

issues.

Line 72: ninimize the risk

Line 82: two-year cycle

Line 95/96: elevated triglycerides stated twice

Line 129: reference for direct method of standardization

Line 132: what Z-test was used?

Line 133: was time included as year beginning with either 2001 or 1? Also, it should be stated

that a linear trend was assessed on the logit scale.

Line 170: omit THE and start the sentence with Multivariable....

Line 171: found to be..

Line 172: higher than in males

Line 195: stable for the three cohorts

Line 233 from multivariable logistic regression

Line 265: MetS with thyroid....cancers being the most...

Line 271: MetS, which maybe attributable to unless it is known to be the case.

Author’s response for the above remarks #:

We agree to all these corrections and remarks, and revised the manuscript accordingly, except for “Line 129: reference for direct method of standardization”. Because the reference for the direct method of standardization is already provided in the submitted manuscript. In line 132, two proportions Z-test was used and in line 133 the time included as year beginning with 1. We added a sentence stating linear trend was assessed on the logit scale.

Response to Reviewer #3:

Reviewer point #1: “The document is quite interesting and addresses a subject that is increasingly being reviewed in the literature, that of ORCs and metabolic syndrome.

The document is methodologically and statistically well approached, however it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth that the findings are not fully discussed, I would have liked to see more interpretations and explanatory positions from the authors, I feel that they end up cutting it. I would like to point out, as an example, figure 3 in which the authors mention that breast cancer is one of those that present a decreasing trend over time, which can be seen in the figure, but it should have called attention that if it were the highest in the initial period, it declines until reaching almost zero in the last period. This must have caught the attention of the authors and I expected further discussion and a position from the authors on the matter.”

Author response #1:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. More discussions have been added on this declining trend in the age-adjusted prevalence of breast cancer over time. The authors want to point out that, although some studies reported a decline in the incidence rate of breast cancer during the first time period (2001-2006), further research is warranted to better understand the underlying factors that potentially contributed to this decline among individuals with metabolic syndrome.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point by Point Response.docx

Decision Letter 1

Meisam Akhlaghdoust

21 Aug 2023

Prevalence, trend and associated factors of obesity-related cancers among U.S. adults with metabolic syndrome: Evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2018

PONE-D-23-12854R1

Dear Dr. Mahmud,

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,

Meisam Akhlaghdoust, M.D., M.P.H.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Meisam Akhlaghdoust

24 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-12854R1

Prevalence, trend and associated factors of obesity-related cancers among U.S. adults with metabolic syndrome: Evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2018

Dear Dr. Mahmud:

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. Meisam Akhlaghdoust

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review report- MN.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: editor.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: authors.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Point by Point Response.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data sets are publicly available in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES