Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Oct 30;20(10):e0335750. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335750

Association between obesity and mortality from hematological malignancies among Japanese adults: The Japan Collaborative Cohort study

Hana Wakasa 1, Satoshi Sunohara 1,2, Takashi Kimura 3, Takaya Ichikawa 4, Akiko Tamakoshi 3,*
Editor: Francesco Bertolini5
PMCID: PMC12574875  PMID: 41166355

Abstract

Obesity is a growing global health concern and has been associated with increased mortality from various cancer types, including hematological malignancies. However, evidence for this association in Asian populations, particularly among Japanese adults, remains limited. Thus, this study aimed to examine the association between obesity and mortality due to hematological malignancies. Data from 97,073 participants in the Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC) Study were analyzed. The participants were followed for a mean duration of 17 years. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated using self-reported height and weight and categorized as underweight (<18.5 kg/m²), normal-weight (18.5–24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m²), and obesity (≥30.0 kg/m²). Mortality data for hematological malignancies were obtained from death certificates. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, with adjustments made for demographic, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors. During follow-up, 479 died from hematological malignancies, including lymphoma (n = 200), multiple myeloma (n = 107), and leukemia (n = 166; 106 myeloid leukemia). Compared with normal-weight individuals, those classified as obese exhibited a significantly higher risk of mortality from all hematological malignancies (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.02–3.11), multiple myeloma (HR: 2.75; 95% CI: 1.09–6.94), leukemia (HR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.07–5.69), and particularly myeloid leukemia (HR: 3.89; 95% CI: 1.66–9.11). No significant association was observed between BMI and lymphoma-related mortality. Obesity is significantly associated with increased mortality from multiple myeloma and leukemia, especially myeloid leukemia, in Japanese adults. These findings underscore the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for certain hematological malignancies in this population.

Introduction

Obesity is a significant global health concern. In 2021, the estimated number of individuals classified as overweight or obese reached approximately 1.00 billion for men and 1.11 billion for women [1]. These figures represent increases of 155.1% for men and 104.9% for women compared with those reported in 1990. In addition, by 2050, more than half of the global adult population is expected to become overweight or obese [1]. Thus, the global burden of obesity has persisted over time. In Japan, the prevalence of obesity in 2023 was reported at 31.5% among men and 21.1% among women [2], with projections indicating further increases by 2050 [1].

Extensive evidence has identified obesity as a significant risk factor for various diseases and health conditions, including cardiovascular disease [3–5], type 2 diabetes [4,6,7], mental health problems [8–10], and several forms of cancer [11–13].

Cancer represents a major global public health concern. Approximately 20 million new cases and 9.7 million deaths have been reported annually worldwide [14]. The global macroeconomic burden of cancer is projected to reach INT $ 25.2 trillion from 2020 to 2050 [15], underscoring its impact not only on health but also on economic sustainability. In Japan, cancer remains one of the most pressing societal challenges and has been the leading cause of death since 1981 [16]. It accounts for the second-highest overall medical expenditure and represents the leading medical cost among adults aged 64 years or younger [17]. Hematological malignancies, such as leukemia and lymphoma, contribute to over 10% of total cancer-related medical costs. Furthermore, insurer data indicate that these malignancies constitute a significant proportion of the top 100 high-cost medical claims [18]. As the aging population continues to grow, the incidence [19,20] and mortality [21] associated with hematological malignancies continue to increase. Therefore, increased attention to these cancers is critical to maintaining a sustainable healthcare system and society.

Especially, cancer mortality is one of the most robust and key indices, as it reflects not only the incidence of cancer but also biological and clinical outcomes, as well as social factors such as access to medical and health care. Because mortality can be influenced by such social factors, it is important to focus on this outcome. Furthermore, according to the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, cancer mortality has been set as a key indicator ever since the establishment of the Basic Plan to Promote Cancer Control Programs [22–25]. Moreover, in the Basic Plan to Promote Cancer Control Programs (Phase 4), poor-prognosis cancer mortality is included as one of the indicators, although no explicit definition is provided in the plan. In practice, however, a 5-year survival rate of less than 50% [25–27] is sometimes used as a criterion for defining poor-prognosis cancers, which include leukemia and multiple myeloma [28–30]. Given these considerations, focusing on cancer mortality remains essential for understanding and addressing the overall cancer burden.

According to a pooled analysis of 20 prospective studies [31], a higher body mass index (BMI) was significantly associated with increased mortality from multiple myeloma (hazard ratio (HR): 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03–1.16); however, all studies included in that analysis were conducted in Western countries. With regard to lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma mortality was significantly elevated per 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI (relative risk (RR): 1.04 (1.04–1.26)) based on findings from a meta-analysis [32], although the included studies were predominantly conducted in Western populations. Similarly, in the case of leukemia, a significantly higher mortality risk was observed in individuals with obesity (RR: 1.29 (1.11–1.49)), as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of six studies [33].

In contrast to findings from Western populations, where numerous studies have demonstrated a significant association between obesity and mortality from hematological malignancies, evidence from Asian populations remains limited. A pooled analysis of over 420,000 participants from the Asia-Pacific region found no clear association, possibly due to a short follow-up period [34]. Conversely, another pooled study comprising over 800,000 Asian participants reported a significant association between BMI and multiple myeloma mortality [35]. In the Japanese population, one study conducted by the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study (the JACC study) Group examined the association between obesity and hematological malignancies [36]. However, the follow-up period was not completed at the time of the study, and the analysis was restricted to multiple myeloma. Therefore, updated evidence is needed to clarify the association between obesity and mortality due to multiple myeloma and other hematological malignancies in the Japanese population. Thus, this study aimed to identify the relationship between obesity and mortality due to hematological malignancies in a Japanese population.

Materials and methods

Study design

Data for this study were obtained from the JACC study, the details of which have been described previously [37]. The JACC Study was conducted from 1988 to 1990 across 45 areas in Japan and enrolled 110,585 people aged 40–79 years who completed a self-administered questionnaire at baseline. Follow-up was carried out until the end of 2009. Individuals with missing data on height or weight (n = 5,840), cancer history at baseline (n = 1,276), or a follow-up duration of <5 years (n = 6,396) were excluded. Consequently, 97,073 individuals were included in the final analysis (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Flowchart of the participants.

Fig 1

Individual informed consent before participation in the study was obtained in 36 of the 45 study areas, with written informed consent in 35 areas and oral consent in 1 area. In the remaining 9 areas, group consent was obtained from the respective area leaders. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Graduate School of Medicine at Hokkaido University (14–044).

Outcomes

Mortality and relocation dates for study participants were obtained from the population registry of each study area. In addition, the causes of death were confirmed using death certificates and coded according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. Deaths coded from C81 to 96 were defined as mortality from hematological malignancies. To further analyze specific hematological malignancies, the following categories were examined: lymphoma (C81–C86), multiple myeloma (C90), leukemia (C91-C95), and myeloid leukemia (C92).

Exposure

BMI (kg/m2) was calculated using self-reported height and weight. The participants were categorized into four BMI groups: underweight (BMI < 18.5), normal-weight (18.5 ≤ BMI < 25), overweight (25 ≤ BMI < 30), and obese (30 ≤ BMI).

Covariates

Baseline covariates were obtained from the self-administered questionnaire and included the following variables: age, sex, childhood living area (large cities, other cities, rural areas/islands or remote areas, and others), educational attainment (<10 years, < 13 years, < 16 years, and ≥16 years), employment status at baseline (employed/part-time, self-employed, homemaker, unemployed, and others), drinking status (current drinker, former drinker, and non-drinker), smoking status (current smoker, former smoker, and non-smoker), weekly exercise habits (≥5 hours, 3–4 hours, 1–2 hours, and minimal), and daily walking habits (≥1 hour, 30 minutes to 1 hour, approximately 30 minutes, and minimal). The childhood living area was assessed using the question, “Which type of the city or area did you live in the longest until you graduated elementary school?.” Educational attainment was evaluated using the question, “How old were you when you last attended school?.” Given that children in Japan typically start school at the age of 6 years, the duration of education was calculated by subtracting six from the reported age and then categorized into five groups accordingly.

Statistical analysis

Participant characteristics were expressed as numbers and percentages for categorical values. Cox proportional hazards models were employed to estimate HRs and 95% CIs for the association between BMI and mortality from hematological malignancies. For cause-specific analyses, deaths from causes other than the outcome of interest were treated as censored at the time of death. No covariates were included in Model 1. In Model 2, adjustments were made for age and sex. Model 3 further included childhood living area, educational attainment, employment status at baseline, drinking status, smoking status, weekly exercise habits, and daily walking habits. To address missing data in covariates, multiple imputation was conducted. A total of 20 imputed datasets were aggregated, and the results were pooled using Rubin’s rule. A two-sided p-value of <0.05 was considered significant, and 95% CIs were used for interval estimation. All statistical analyses were performed using the R software (version 4.5.0) with the Survival package (version 3.8.3) and the Mice package (version 3.17.0).

Results

Participant characteristics

The baseline characteristics, including sex, age, and other demographic variables, of the 97,073 participants (40,479 men (41.7%) and 56,594 women (58.3%)) are presented in Table 1. A total of 1,671 participants (1.7%) were classified as obese. The majority of participants were of normal weight (n = 70,979 (73.1%)), followed by overweight (n = 18,976 (19.5%)) and underweight (n = 5,447 (5.6%)). Participants with obesity were more likely to be women, had a lower educational attainment, were homemakers, or were unemployed. Additionally, they were more frequently non-drinkers and non-smokers and reported lower levels of physical activity and walking compared with individuals in other BMI categories. Conversely, those in the underweight category tended to be older, unemployed, and non-drinkers.

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

Overall Underweight Normal-weight Overweight Obese
(BMI < 18.5) (18.5 ≤ BMI < 25) (25 ≤ BMI < 30) (30 ≤ BMI)
97,073 5,447 70,979 18,976 1,671
BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD) 22.86 (3.51) 17.45 (0.97) 22.03 (1.68) 26.63 (1.25) 32.99 (13.66)
Sex = men, n (%) 40,479 (41.70) 2,044 (37.53) 30,768 (43.35) 7,221 (38.05) 446 (26.69)
Age (years), mean (SD) 57.03 (9.90) 61.20 (10.64) 56.85 (9.93) 56.52 (9.34) 56.84 (9.56)
Age (years), n (%)
40s 25,450 (26.22) 978 (17.95) 19,178 (27.02) 4,872 (25.67) 422 (25.25)
50s 30,926 (31.86) 1,163 (21.35) 22,485 (31.68) 6,705 (35.33) 573 (34.29)
60s 29,220 (30.10) 1,921 (35.27) 21,115 (29.75) 5,682 (29.94) 502 (30.04)
70s 11,477 (11.82) 1,385 (25.43) 8,201 (11.55) 1,717 (9.05) 174 (10.41)
Living area of childhood, n (%)
Large cities 13,543 (13.95) 840 (15.42) 9,919 (13.97) 2,532 (13.34) 252 (15.08)
Other cities 4,840 (4.99) 260 (4.77) 3,570 (5.03) 921 (4.85) 89 (5.33)
Rural areas/Islands or remote areas 55,857 (57.54) 3,003 (55.13) 40,810 (57.50) 11,097 (58.48) 947 (56.67)
Others 3,099 (3.19) 188 (3.45) 2,225 (3.13) 633 (3.34) 53 (3.17)
Educational attainment, n (%)
<10 years 27,852 (28.69) 1,692 (31.06) 19,993 (28.17) 5,590 (29.46) 577 (34.53)
<13 years 35,657 (36.73) 1,900 (34.88) 26,556 (37.41) 6,701 (35.31) 500 (29.92)
<16 years 7148 (7.36) 434 (7.97) 5378 (7.58) 1261 (6.65) 75 (4.49)
≥16years 2411 (2.48) 111 (2.04) 1833 (2.58) 445 (2.35) 22 (1.32)
Current job at the baseline, n (%)
Employed/Part-time 25,796 (26.57) 994 (18.25) 19,680 (27.73) 4,787 (25.23) 335 (20.05)
Self-employed 22,155 (22.82) 1,066 (19.57) 16,291 (22.95) 4,445 (23.42) 353 (21.13)
Homemaker 14,953 (15.40) 906 (16.63) 10,597 (14.93) 3,122 (16.45) 328 (19.63)
Unemployed 15,061 (15.52) 1,378 (25.30) 10,655 (15.01) 2,738 (14.43) 290 (17.35)
Others 4,394 (4.53) 317 (5.82) 3,269 (4.61) 750 (3.95) 58 (3.47)
Drinking status, n (%)
Current drinker 42,542 (43.82) 1,942 (35.65) 32,105 (45.23) 7,953 (41.91) 542 (32.44)
Former drinker 2,946 (3.03) 240 (4.41) 2,109 (2.97) 536 (2.82) 61 (3.65)
Non-drinker 45,412 (46.78) 2,854 (52.40) 32,399 (45.65) 9,235 (48.67) 924 (55.30)
Smoking status, n (%)
Current smoker 23,299 (24.00) 1,430 (26.25) 17,818 (25.10) 3,773 (19.88) 278 (16.64)
Former smoker 10,895 (11.22) 492 (9.03) 8,030 (11.31) 2,222 (11.71) 151 (9.04)
Non-smoker 54,321 (55.96) 2,988 (54.86) 39,030 (54.99) 11,241 (59.24) 1,062 (63.55)
Exercise habits of the week, n (%)
≥5 hours 4,443 (4.58) 268 (4.92) 3,306 (4.66) 803 (4.23) 66 (3.95)
3–4 hours 4,910 (5.06) 251 (4.61) 3,653 (5.15) 930 (4.90) 76 (4.55)
1–2 hours 11,944 (12.30) 582 (10.68) 8,909 (12.55) 2,293 (12.08) 160 (9.58)
Minimal 57,251 (58.98) 3,227 (59.24) 41,527 (58.51) 11,414 (60.15) 1,083 (64.81)
Walking habits of the day, n (%)
≥1 hour 37,852 (38.99) 2,184 (40.10) 28,290 (39.86) 6,855 (36.12) 523 (31.30)
30 min to 1 hour 14,937 (15.39) 847 (15.55) 11,011 (15.51) 2,829 (14.91) 250 (14.96)
Around 30 min 13,230 (13.63) 783 (14.37) 9,524 (13.42) 2,695 (14.20) 228 (13.64)
Minimal 8,405 (8.66) 456 (8.37) 5,907 (8.32) 1,837 (9.68) 205 (12.27)

For each variable, percentages may not total 100% due to missing data.

BMI and cause-specific mortality from hematological malignancies

Over a mean follow-up duration of 17 years, a total of 479 participants died from hematological malignancies were recorded. These included 200 participants who died from lymphoma (41.7%), 107 from multiple myeloma (22.3%), and 166 from leukemia (34.5%), of whom 106 died due to myeloid leukemia (63.9% of leukemia deaths).

Fig 2 illustrates the HRs estimated in each model for the associations between BMI categories and mortality from hematological malignancies, with the normal-weight group serving as the reference. In Model 3, obesity was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality from all hematological malignancies combined (HR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.02–3.11). In disease-specific subgroup analyses, obesity was significantly associated with higher mortality from multiple myeloma (HR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.09–6.94), leukemia (HR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.07–5.69), and particularly myeloid leukemia (HR: 3.89, 95% CI: 1.66–9.11) in Model 3. By contrast, no significant association was observed between BMI and lymphoma-related mortality in any of the models. The HRs for each covariate included in the multivariable models are presented in S1 Table.

Fig 2. Hazard ratios for the associations between BMI categories and mortality from hematological malignancy.

Fig 2

Model 1 was the crude model. Model 2 was adjusted for sex and age. Model 3 was further adjusted for childhood living area, educational attainment, employment status at baseline, drinking status, smoking status, weekly exercise habits, and daily walking habits.

Discussion

A significant association was found between obesity and mortality due to hematological malignancies in the Japanese population. Moreover, obesity was associated with increased mortality from multiple myeloma and leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia.

The results of the present study are consistent with those of previous studies on the association between obesity and hematological malignancies. In the case of multiple myeloma, a meta-analysis of 13 prospective studies reported that the RR of multiple myeloma mortality was significantly higher among individuals with obesity compared with those of normal weight (RR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.35–1.76) [38]. Similarly, a pooled analysis of 20 studies indicated that a higher BMI was associated with increased mortality from multiple myeloma [31]. With regard to leukemia, a meta-analysis of six studies demonstrated a significant association between obesity and leukemia-related mortality [33]. In addition, a cohort study conducted among Taiwanese adults also identified a significant association between obesity and mortality from leukemia (HR: 2.30, 95% CI: 1.16–4.58) [39].

Although the mechanisms underlying the association between obesity and hematological malignancies have not been fully established, several potential pathways have been proposed. First, with regard to disease development, one plausible mechanism involves clonal hematopoiesis—a condition associated with an increased risk of hematological malignancies. Evidence indicates that clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is more frequently observed in individuals with obesity. A study investigating the association between lifestyle factors and CHIP among women reported that individuals with normal weight and overweight had lower ORs for the presence of CHIP compared with those with obesity [40]. Thus, the risk of the presence of CHIP is the highest for those with obesity. Furthermore, another study demonstrated that individuals with clonal hematopoiesis had a significantly higher HR for developing hematologic cancers (HR: 12.9, 95% CI: 5.8–28.7) compared with those without detectable somatic mutations [41]. Additionally, an analysis using data from the Biobank identified a strong association between clonal hematopoiesis and the incidence of myeloid malignancies [42].

A second possible mechanism underlying disease development involves bone marrow adipose tissue (BMAT). The vertebrae remain primary sites of hematopoiesis throughout adulthood; however, visceral fat accumulation has been associated with increased vertebral BMAT [43]. BMAT expansion compromises normal hematopoiesis by reducing the number of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) [44], which may, in turn, contribute to the development of hematologic malignancies [45].

A third proposed mechanism involves adipokines—bioactive substances secreted by adipose tissue that regulate inflammation, immune responses, and endocrine functions. Among these, adiponectin, which is typically found at reduced levels in individuals with obesity [46,47], plays a critical role in regulating inflammatory cytokines and maintaining hematopoietic stem cell self-renewal and quiescence [48]. Moreover, certain adipokines induce apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells [49].

In addition, chronic inflammation caused by obesity [50] has been implicated as a potential contributor to the pathogenesis of hematopoietic diseases [51]. Consequently, although the precise biological mechanisms still need to be elucidated, obesity may lead to the development of multiple myeloma or leukemia.

Beyond disease development, obesity may also negatively affect treatment outcomes. For instance, patients with acute myeloid leukemia who were classified as obese demonstrated poorer overall survival compared with normal-weight [52] or non-obese patients [53]. Similarly, patients classified as overweight or obese had lower overall survival and leukemia-free survival following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) [54]. In patients with multiple myeloma, a higher BMI at the time of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) was negatively associated with overall survival [55]. Additionally, a lower rate of progression-free survival after auto-HSCT was observed among patients with obesity [56]. Taken together, these findings suggest that obesity may lead to worse outcomes in patients with hematological malignancies.

In the present study, no significant association was observed between obesity and lymphoma-related mortality. One possible explanation for this finding is the heterogeneity inherent in lymphomas. Given the wide range of lymphoma subtypes, the potential effect of obesity on individual subtypes may not have been detectable in the aggregated analysis. A previous meta-analysis [57] demonstrated that the RR associated with obesity and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma varied across subgroups. Moreover, previous studies reported inconsistent results regarding the relationship between obesity and lymphoma-related mortality [34,39,58,59]. Furthermore, analysis of data from 2000–2008 revealed notable differences in the 5-year survival rates, with lymphoma showing 54.6–65.5%, compared with 29.0–36.4% for multiple myeloma and 32.1–39.2% for leukemia [28–30]. Therefore, this may partly explain why a significant association for lymphoma mortality was not observed in the present study.

However, this study has some limitations. First, self-reported data were used to assess height and weight, which may have introduced misclassification bias. Previous research has indicated a tendency for individuals to underreport weight and overreport height [60], potentially leading to an underestimation of obesity prevalence. Second, as the follow-up period ended in 2009, more recent advancements in treatment—particularly in chemotherapy and other therapeutic modalities—could not be accounted for. Given the rapid evolution of treatment strategies in recent years, outcomes in the current population may differ from those observed in this study. Third, this study did not assess the magnitude of the associations with respect to incidence or prognosis; thus, careful interpretation of the results is necessary. Fourth, due to using data from the death certificates, misclassification might occur for the death causes. However, a previous study found that the concordance between autopsy results and the cause of death on the death certificates was relatively high for cancer (81%). Therefore, it will not significantly affect our results [61]. Additionally, body weight and height were measured only at baseline, and no information on weight changes during follow-up was available. Therefore, we could not assess the potential impact of weight change over time on the association between BMI and mortality. Nevertheless, this may not critically affect our results, as previous Japanese epidemiological study have shown that the body weight of middle-aged and older adults tends to be relatively stable [62]. Moreover, participants with less than five years of follow-up were excluded to minimize reverse causation due to preclinical disease, residual bias from unmeasured weight changes cannot be completely ruled out. Finally, the stratified analysis, which would have allowed us to evaluate the influence of important covariates such as sex and smoking, was not feasible due to the insufficient number of mortalities.

This study possesses several strengths. First, the long follow-up duration was likely sufficient to evaluate the long-term outcomes. Second, as the participants were recruited from multiple regions across Japan, the findings may be representative of the Japanese population.

Conclusion

This study examined the association between obesity and mortality from hematological malignancies in the Japanese population, identifying significant associations with mortality due to leukemia and multiple myeloma. These findings are consistent with those reported in previous studies conducted in the Western population. These findings suggest that obesity may be an important modifiable risk factor for certain hematological malignancies. While the present study focused on mortality as the outcome, future studies should investigate the association between BMI and cancer incidence in the Japanese population to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their relationship.

Supporting information

S1 Table. HRs and 95% CIs for all covariates for model 2 and model 3.

(PDF)

pone.0335750.s001.pdf (100.6KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We sincerely appreciate all participants and staff members for their invaluable contributions and dedicated involvement in the conduct of this study.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of the data used in this study contain potentially sensitive information. The data provider, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, has imposed restrictions that prevent the data from being made publicly available. Requests for access to the data may be directed to the JACC Study Group, which serves as the non-author contact point for data access inquiries. Contact information: JACC Study Group JACC_study@med.hokudai.ac.jp.

Funding Statement

AT received funding from Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT) (Monbusho); Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas of Cancer; Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas of Cancer Epidemiology from MEXT (MonbuKagaku-sho) (Nos. 61010076, 62010074, 63010074, 1010068, 2151065, 3151064, 4151063, 5151069, 6279102, 11181101, 17015022, 18014011, 20014026, 20390156, and 26293138); Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP 16H06277 (CoBiA) , and 22H04923; grant–in–aid from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Health and Labor Sciences research grants, Japan (Research on Health Services: H17–Kenkou–007; Comprehensive Research on Cardiovascular Disease and Life–Related Disease: H18–Junkankitou [Seishuu]–Ippan–012; H19–Junkankitou [Seishuu]–Ippan–012; H20–Junkankitou [Seishuu]–Ippan–013; H23–Junkankitou [Seishuu]–Ippan–005; H26-Junkankitou [Seisaku]-Ippan-001; H29–Junkankitou–Ippan–003; 20FA1002; 23FA1006); the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund (27-A-4, 30-A-15, 2021-A-16, 2024-A-14).

References

  • 1.Ng M, Gakidou E, Lo J, Abate YH, Abbafati C, Abbas N, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence of adult overweight and obesity, 1990-2021, with forecasts to 2050: a forecasting study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2025;405(10481):813–38. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00355-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHNS) Japan, 2023 Summary. 25 Nov 2024 [cited 2025 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/10900000/001338334.pdf
  • 3.Dwivedi AK, Dubey P, Cistola DP, Reddy SY. Association between obesity and cardiovascular outcomes: updated evidence from meta-analysis studies. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2020;22(4):25. doi: 10.1007/s11886-020-1273-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Riaz H, Khan MS, Siddiqi TJ, Usman MS, Shah N, Goyal A, et al. Association between obesity and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian Randomization Studies. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(7):e183788. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kim MS, Kim WJ, Khera AV, Kim JY, Yon DK, Lee SW, et al. Association between adiposity and cardiovascular outcomes: an umbrella review and meta-analysis of observational and Mendelian randomization studies. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(34):3388–403. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Abdullah A, Peeters A, de Courten M, Stoelwinder J. The magnitude of association between overweight and obesity and the risk of diabetes: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;89(3):309–19. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.04.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yu H, Ho M, Liu X, Yang J, Chau PH, Fong DYT. Association of weight status and the risks of diabetes in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Int J Obes. 2022;46(6):1101–13. doi: 10.1038/s41366-022-01096-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chen W, Feng J, Jiang S, Guo J, Zhang X, Zhang X, et al. Mendelian randomization analyses identify bidirectional causal relationships of obesity with psychiatric disorders. J Affect Disord. 2023;339:807–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.07.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Scott KM, Bruffaerts R, Simon GE, Alonso J, Angermeyer M, de Girolamo G, et al. Obesity and mental disorders in the general population: results from the world mental health surveys. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32(1):192–200. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803701 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gariepy G, Nitka D, Schmitz N. The association between obesity and anxiety disorders in the population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010;34(3):407–19. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2009.252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Moghaddam AA, Woodward M, Huxley R. Obesity and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 31 studies with 70,000 events. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(12):2533–47. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0708 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Renehan AG, Tyson M, Egger M, Heller RF, Zwahlen M. Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Lancet. 2008;371(9612):569–78. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60269-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tzenios N, Tazanios ME, Chahine M. The impact of BMI on breast cancer – an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2024;103(5):e36831. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000036831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(3):229–63. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chen S, Cao Z, Prettner K, Kuhn M, Yang J, Jiao L, et al. Estimates and projections of the global economic cost of 29 cancers in 204 countries and territories from 2020 to 2050. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9(4):465. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.7826 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Director-General for Statistics, Information System Management and Industrial Relations, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Vital Statistics of Japan 2023. 2025. [cited 2025 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/houkoku23/dl/all.pdf
  • 17.National Federation of Health Insurance Societies. Neoplasms (malignant, benign, and other neoplasms) survey on medical consultations and medical expenses, FY2022. 2024. [cited 2025 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.kenporen.com/toukei_data/pdf/chosa_r06_03_04.pdf
  • 18.National Federation of Health Insurance Societies. Summary of high-cost medical claims under the high-cost medical expense reimbursement program, fiscal year 2023. 2024. [cited 2025 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.kenporen.com/include/press/2024/20241003_01_01.pdf
  • 19.Cancer Information Service, National Cancer Center, Japan (Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ)). Cancer statistics. 2015. Available from: https://ganjoho.jp/reg_stat/statistics/data/dl/excel/cancer_incidence(1975-2015).xls
  • 20.Hori M, Matsuda T, Shibata A, Katanoda K, Sobue T, Nishimoto H, et al. Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in 2009: a study of 32 population-based cancer registries for the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45(9):884–91. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyv088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cancer Information Service, National Cancer Center, Japan (Vital Statistics of Japan, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare). Cancer statistics. 2023. Available from: https://ganjoho.jp/reg_stat/statistics/data/dl/excel/cancer_mortality(1958-2023).xls
  • 22.Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The basic plan to promote cancer control programs. 2007. [cited 2025 Aug 13]. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10900000-Kenkoukyoku/gan_keikaku03.pdf
  • 23.Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The basic plan to promote cancer control programs (Phase 2). 2012. [cited 2025 Aug 13]. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10900000-Kenkoukyoku/gan_keikaku02.pdf
  • 24.Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The basic plan to promote cancer control programs (Phase 3). 2017. [cited 2025 Aug 13]. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10900000-Kenkoukyoku/0000196973.pdf
  • 25.Cancer and Disease Control Division, Health Service Bureau, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. List of evaluation indicators for basic plan to promote cancer control programs (Phase 4). 2025. [cited 2025 Aug 13]. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/10900000/001522770.pdf
  • 26.Expert Panel on the Future Direction of Cancer Research. The future of cancer research: from cure and prevention to coexistence through collaboration with patients and society. 2013. [cited 2025 Aug 13]. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10900000-Kenkoukyoku/0000196973.pdf
  • 27.The U.S. Congress. H.R.733 - Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act of 2012. 2012. [cited 2025 Aug 13]. Available from: https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/733/text
  • 28.National Cancer Center, Center for Cancer Control and Information Services. Monitoring of cancer incidence in Japan - survival 2000-2002. 2011. [cited 2025 Apr 18]. Available from: https://ganjoho.jp/public/qa_links/report/ncr/pdf/mcij2000-2002_report.pdf
  • 29.National Cancer Center, Center for Cancer Control and Information Services. Monitoring of cancer incidence in Japan - survival 2003-2005. 2013. [cited 2025 Apr 18]. Available from: https://ganjoho.jp/public/qa_links/report/ncr/pdf/mcij2003-2005_report.pdf
  • 30.National Cancer Center, Center for Cancer Control and Information Services. Monitoring of cancer incidence in Japan - survival 2006-2008. 2016. [cited 2025 Apr 18]. Available from: https://ganjoho.jp/public/qa_links/report/ncr/pdf/mcij2006-2008_report.pdf
  • 31.Teras LR, Kitahara CM, Birmann BM, Hartge PA, Wang SS, Robien K, et al. Body size and multiple myeloma mortality: a pooled analysis of 20 prospective studies. Br J Haematol. 2014;166(5):667–76. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Larsson SC, Wolk A. Body mass index and risk of non-Hodgkin’s and Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(16):2422–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.06.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Castillo JJ, Reagan JL, Ingham RR, Furman M, Dalia S, Merhi B, et al. Obesity but not overweight increases the incidence and mortality of leukemia in adults: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Leuk Res. 2012;36(7):868–75. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2011.12.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Parr CL, Batty GD, Lam TH, Barzi F, Fang X, Ho SC, et al. Body-mass index and cancer mortality in the Asia-Pacific Cohort Studies Collaboration: pooled analyses of 424,519 participants. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(8):741–52. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70141-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ugai T, Ito H, Oze I, Saito E, Rahman MS, Boffetta P, et al. Association of BMI, smoking, and alcohol with multiple myeloma mortality in Asians: a pooled analysis of more than 800,000 participants in the Asia Cohort Consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28(11):1861–7. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-0389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Khan MMH, Mori M, Sakauchi F, Matsuo K, Ozasa K, Tamakoshi A, et al. Risk factors for multiple myeloma: evidence from the Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC) study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006;7(4):575–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tamakoshi A, Ozasa K, Fujino Y, Suzuki K, Sakata K, Mori M, et al. Cohort profile of the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study at final follow-up. J Epidemiol. 2013;23(3):227–32. doi: 10.2188/jea.je20120161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wallin A, Larsson SC. Body mass index and risk of multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(11):1606–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.01.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chu D-M, Wahlqvist ML, Lee M-S, Chang H-Y. Central obesity predicts non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma mortality and overall obesity predicts leukemia mortality in adult Taiwanese. J Am Coll Nutr. 2011;30(5):310–9. doi: 10.1080/07315724.2011.10719974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Haring B, Reiner AP, Liu J, Tobias DK, Whitsel E, Berger JS, et al. Healthy lifestyle and clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential: results from the women’s health initiative. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(5):e018789. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.018789 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Genovese G, Kähler AK, Handsaker RE, Lindberg J, Rose SA, Bakhoum SF, et al. Clonal hematopoiesis and blood-cancer risk inferred from blood DNA sequence. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(26):2477–87. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1409405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kar SP, Quiros PM, Gu M, Jiang T, Mitchell J, Langdon R, et al. Genome-wide analyses of 200,453 individuals yield new insights into the causes and consequences of clonal hematopoiesis. Nat Genet. 2022;54(8):1155–66. doi: 10.1038/s41588-022-01121-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bredella MA, Torriani M, Ghomi RH, Thomas BJ, Brick DJ, Gerweck AV, et al. Vertebral bone marrow fat is positively associated with visceral fat and inversely associated with IGF-1 in obese women. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011;19(1):49–53. doi: 10.1038/oby.2010.106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Naveiras O, Nardi V, Wenzel PL, Hauschka PV, Fahey F, Daley GQ. Bone-marrow adipocytes as negative regulators of the haematopoietic microenvironment. Nature. 2009;460(7252):259–63. doi: 10.1038/nature08099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tratwal J, Rojas-Sutterlin S, Bataclan C, Blum S, Naveiras O. Bone marrow adiposity and the hematopoietic niche: a historical perspective of reciprocity, heterogeneity, and lineage commitment. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021;35(4):101564. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2021.101564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gariballa S, Alkaabi J, Yasin J, Al Essa A. Total adiponectin in overweight and obese subjects and its response to visceral fat loss. BMC Endocr Disord. 2019;19(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s12902-019-0386-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hotta K, Funahashi T, Arita Y, Takahashi M, Matsuda M, Okamoto Y, et al. Plasma concentrations of a novel, adipose-specific protein, adiponectin, in type 2 diabetic patients. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2000;20(6):1595–9. doi: 10.1161/01.atv.20.6.1595 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Meacham CE, Jeffery EC, Burgess RJ, Sivakumar CD, Arora MA, Stanley AM, et al. Adiponectin receptors sustain haematopoietic stem cells throughout adulthood by protecting them from inflammation. Nat Cell Biol. 2022;24(5):697–707. doi: 10.1038/s41556-022-00909-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Medina EA, Oberheu K, Polusani SR, Ortega V, Velagaleti GVN, Oyajobi BO. PKA/AMPK signaling in relation to adiponectin’s antiproliferative effect on multiple myeloma cells. Leukemia. 2014;28(10):2080–9. doi: 10.1038/leu.2014.112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Khanna D, Khanna S, Khanna P, Kahar P, Patel BM. Obesity: a chronic low-grade inflammation and its markers. Cureus. 2022;14(2):e22711. doi: 10.7759/cureus.22711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.de Jong MME, Chen L, Raaijmakers MHGP, Cupedo T. Bone marrow inflammation in haematological malignancies. Nat Rev Immunol. 2024;24(8):543–58. doi: 10.1038/s41577-024-01003-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Dhakal P, Lyden E, Lee A, Michalski J, Al-Kadhimi ZS, Maness LJ, et al. Effects of obesity on overall survival of adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020;20(3):e131–6. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Castillo JJ, Mulkey F, Geyer S, Kolitz JE, Blum W, Powell BL, et al. Relationship between obesity and clinical outcome in adults with acute myeloid leukemia: a pooled analysis from four CALGB (alliance) clinical trials. Am J Hematol. 2016;91(2):199–204. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24230 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Yu J, Lin S, Luo Y, Shi J, Tan Y, Lai X, et al. Obesity is correlated with poor outcome after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with acute leukemia. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2020;50(8):889–96. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Williams A, Baruah D, Patel J, Szabo A, Chhabra S, Dhakal B, et al. Prevalence and significance of sarcopenia in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021;56(1):225–31. doi: 10.1038/s41409-020-01008-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Firsova MV, Mendeleeva LP, Solovev MV, Savchenko VG. Outcomes of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation depending on body-mass index in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2019;134(Supplement_1):5710–5710. doi: 10.1182/blood-2019-125808 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Larsson SC, Wolk A. Obesity and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer. 2007;121(7):1564–70. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Huang J, Pang WS, Lok V, Zhang L, Lucero-Prisno DE 3rd, Xu W, et al. Incidence, mortality, risk factors, and trends for Hodgkin lymphoma: a global data analysis. J Hematol Oncol. 2022;15(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s13045-022-01281-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Walker-Thurmond K, Thun MJ. Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(17):1625–38. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa021423 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Gorber SC, Tremblay M, Moher D, Gorber B. A comparison of direct vs. self‐report measures for assessing height, weight and body mass index: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2007;8(4):307–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789x.2007.00347.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Mieno MN, Tanaka N, Arai T, Kawahara T, Kuchiba A, Ishikawa S, et al. Accuracy of death certificates and assessment of factors for misclassification of underlying cause of death. J Epidemiol. 2016;26(4):191–8. doi: 10.2188/jea.je20150010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Otsuka R, Kato Y, Nishita Y, Tange C, Tomida M, Nakamoto M, et al. Age-related changes in energy intake and weight in community-dwelling middle-aged and elderly Japanese. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20(4):383–90. doi: 10.1007/s12603-016-0715-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Francesco Bertolini

7 Aug 2025

Dear Dr. Tamakoshi,

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 in detail all the points raised during the review process by both Reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 21 2025 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.

  • 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,

Francesco Bertolini, MD, PhD

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 stating the following financial disclosure:

 [AT received funding from Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT) (Monbusho); Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas of Cancer; Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas of Cancer Epidemiology from MEXT (MonbuKagaku-sho) (Nos. 61010076, 62010074, 63010074, 1010068, 2151065, 3151064, 4151063, 5151069, 6279102, 11181101, 17015022, 18014011, 20014026, 20390156, and 26293138); Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP 16H06277 (CoBiA) , and 22H04923;  grant–in–aid from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Health and Labor Sciences research grants, Japan (Research on Health Services: H17–Kenkou–007; Comprehensive Research on Cardiovascular Disease and Life–Related Disease: H18–Junkankitou [Seishuu]–Ippan–012; H19–Junkankitou [Seishuu]–Ippan–012; H20–Junkankitou [Seishuu]–Ippan–013; H23–Junkankitou [Seishuu]–Ippan–005; H26-Junkankitou [Seisaku]-Ippan-001; H29–Junkankitou–Ippan–003; 20FA1002; 23FA1006); the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund (27-A-4, 30-A-15, 2021-A-16, 2024-A-14)]. 

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This study makes a potentially important contribution to understanding obesity-related cancer mortality in Japanese adults. Overall, the manuscript is well written. However, there are several methodological and interpretational issues that should be addressed to strengthen the validity and clarity of the findings.

1. As the authors used mortality rather than incidence as the primary outcome, it is important to acknowledge that the observed associations may reflect not only disease risk but also differences in survival. For hematologic malignancies with relatively favorable prognosis, such as certain subtypes of lymphoma, associations with BMI may be attenuated or obscured when mortality is used as the endpoint. Although the discussion briefly touches upon this point, the authors should more clearly elaborate on the implications of using mortality as the outcome.

A more explicit consideration of this limitation would help contextualize the null findings for lymphoma and strengthen the overall interpretation. Furthermore, given that the JACC Study likely possesses incidence data based on previous publications, a discussion of whether the association between BMI and hematologic malignancies would differ if incidence (rather than mortality) were used as the outcome would greatly enhance the depth and value of the manuscript.

2. BMI was measured only at baseline. Please clarify whether any sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for potential weight changes over time or reverse causation, particularly given the long duration of follow-up.

3. The cause of death was determined from death certificates, which may lack diagnostic specificity, especially for subtypes of hematological malignancies. Please consider adding a discussion on the potential for misclassification of cancer subtypes.

4. Smoking is an important risk factor for hematological malignancies and is also closely associated with BMI. Therefore, conducting analyses stratified by smoking status or evaluating potential interactions between smoking and BMI would be informative.

5. Were there any differences by sex? Given possible sex differences in BMI distribution and hematologic cancer risk, stratified analyses by sex would also be valuable.

Reviewer #2: Review to the Authors in Plos one 2025 Aug

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the article on "Association between obesity and mortality from hematological malignancies among Japanese adults: The Japan Collaborative Cohort study. The cohort study length is astonishing and has produced many academic findings; however, there are several concerns for publication.

Major comments

1 Is this study assessing association between obesity in 1990 and mortality in later period among patients suffering from hematological malignancies? Mortality can be affected by many other factors such as renal dysfunction, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, arteriosclerosis, etc. Without assessing these factors, the true association between obesity in about 20 years ago and mortality in later life is impossible to clarify. As the authors wrote in line 203, renal dysfunction, diabetes, and arteriosclerosis, etc, negatively affect treatment outcomes. Therefore, just assessing obesity in the past and mortality is meaningless.

Instead, the author should explore an association between obesity and incidence of hematological malignancy in later period. CHIP theory may demonstrate that obese people may have an increased incidence of hematological malignancy.

2 In Figure 1, overweight group shows a lowered risk though they are not statistically significant. CHIP and BMAT theory cannot explain the opposite trend. How do you explain?

3 In Figure 1, if the authors included covariates such as age, sex, drinking status etc in model 3, all HRs and 95% CIs should be shown. Is there any other variable associated with the mortality of hematological malignancies?

4 The average age (SD) or age group must be shown. Age has the strongest impact on mortality in general. By the way, I cannot find Table 1.

**********

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

**********

[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. 2025 Oct 30;20(10):e0335750. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335750.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Sep 2025

We are most grateful to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript. These have greatly helped us to improve our manuscript. We have revised our manuscript based on the constructive suggestions of the reviewers. The follows are our responses. Please see the attached file "response to reviewers" for more information.

----

Revision Note

We are most grateful to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript. These have greatly helped us to improve our manuscript. We have revised our manuscript based on the constructive suggestions of the reviewers.

Please note, in the responses below, we have included extra citations that are used only for explaining our rationale to the reviewers and are not included in the main manuscript. Such response-only references are indicated in the format “(R1, R2……)”.

The following are our responses to the reviewer 1 and 2. Our responses are in blue, and the changes are in italics. Also, the changes are shown in red in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1

1. As the authors used mortality rather than incidence as the primary outcome, it is important to acknowledge that the observed associations may reflect not only disease risk but also differences in survival. For hematologic malignancies with relatively favorable prognosis, such as certain subtypes of lymphoma, associations with BMI may be attenuated or obscured when mortality is used as the endpoint. Although the discussion briefly touches upon this point, the authors should more clearly elaborate on the implications of using mortality as the outcome.

A more explicit consideration of this limitation would help contextualize the null findings for lymphoma and strengthen the overall interpretation. Furthermore, given that the JACC Study likely possesses incidence data based on previous publications, a discussion of whether the association between BMI and hematologic malignancies would differ if incidence (rather than mortality) were used as the outcome would greatly enhance the depth and value of the manuscript.

Author response

We thank the reviewer for this important and insightful comment. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the rationale behind our choice of mortality as the primary outcome in this study.

The primary objective of our research was to investigate the association between BMI and mortality from hematological malignancies. Mortality is a critical endpoint because it reflects not only the risk of developing the disease but also the integrated biological and clinical consequences after diagnosis, including treatment response, toxicity, recurrence, and survival. From a public health perspective, reducing cancer mortality is a major goal, as emphasized in Japan’s national cancer control policy [R1]. Thus, studying mortality provides essential evidence to guide strategies aimed at improving long-term outcomes for patients and society.

We agree that, for hematologic malignancies with relatively favorable prognoses such as lymphoma, the use of mortality as an outcome may attenuate or obscure associations with BMI. In our study, the lack of a statistically significant association between BMI and lymphoma mortality may indeed be partly attributable to the higher survival rate of lymphoma compared with other hematologic malignancies. To address this point, we have now added a sentence in the Discussion noting that differences in survival rates among hematologic malignancies could have influenced the observed associations.

We acknowledge your suggestion regarding the potential value of analyzing the association between BMI and the incidence of hematological malignancies. We are aware that the JACC Study includes incidence data; however, these data are limited to certain geographic areas and thus pertain to a subset of participants different from those included in the present analysis. Due to these differences in the study population and data availability, incorporating incidence analyses within this manuscript was not feasible.

Nonetheless, we recognize the importance of this research question and plan to address it in future studies using the incidence data. We have added the statement in the Conclusion section to highlight future research directions.

In summary, we have revised the Discussion and the Conclusion section to more explicitly address the limitations and implications of using mortality as the primary outcome, particularly in relation to hematological malignancies with favorable prognosis such as certain lymphoma subtypes. We appreciate your valuable input, which has helped us to strengthen the contextual interpretation of our findings and to outline clear avenues for future investigation.

Change

(page 4)

Especially, cancer mortality is one of the most robust and key indices, as it reflects not only the incidence of cancer but also biological and clinical outcomes, as well as social factors such as access to medical and health care. Because mortality can be influenced by such social factors, it is important to focus on this outcome. Furthermore, according to the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, cancer mortality has been set as a key indicator ever since the establishment of the Basic Plan to Promote Cancer Control Programs [22–25]. Moreover, in the Basic Plan to Promote Cancer Control Programs (Phase 4), poor-prognosis cancer mortality is included as one of the indicators, although no explicit definition is provided in the plan. In practice, however, a 5-year survival rate of less than 50% [25–27] is sometimes used as a criterion for defining poor-prognosis cancers, which include leukemia and multiple myeloma [28–30]. Given these considerations, focusing on cancer mortality remains essential for understanding and addressing the overall cancer burden.

(page 18)

While the present study focused on mortality as the outcome, future studies should investigate the association between BMI and cancer incidence in the Japanese population to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their relationship.

(page 16)

Furthermore, analysis of data from 2000–2008 revealed notable differences in the 5-year survival rates, with lymphoma showing 54.6–65.5%, compared with 29.0–36.4% for multiple myeloma and 32.1–39.2% for leukemia [28-30].

2. BMI was measured only at baseline. Please clarify whether any sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for potential weight changes over time or reverse causation, particularly given the long duration of follow-up.

Author response

Thank you for your important comment.

Body weight and height were measured only at baseline, and no follow-up data on these variables were available, making sensitivity analyses accounting for weight changes over time unfeasible.

However, a study conducted among Japanese showed that the weight tends to be relatively stable in the middle to older adult population. Thus, the effect of changing weight might not be crucial on our results.

In addition, to address potential reverse causation, we have already excluded participants with less than five years of follow-up from the analysis. This approach reduces the likelihood of bias caused by weight loss or gain due to preclinical disease.

We have added a statement to the Discussion section to acknowledge the absence of longitudinal weight data as a limitation of the study.

Change

(page 17)

Additionally, body weight and height were measured only at baseline, and no information on weight changes during follow-up was available. Therefore, we could not assess the potential impact of weight change over time on the association between BMI and mortality. Nevertheless, this may not critically affect our results, as previous Japanese epidemiological study have shown that the body weight of middle-aged and older adults tends to be relatively stable [53]. Moreover, participants with less than five years of follow-up were excluded to minimize reverse causation due to preclinical disease, residual bias from unmeasured weight changes cannot be completely ruled out.

3. The cause of death was determined from death certificates, which may lack diagnostic specificity, especially for subtypes of hematological malignancies. Please consider adding a discussion on the potential for misclassification of cancer subtypes.

Author response

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We appreciate your point regarding the potential for misclassification of hematological malignancies due to the use of death certificates.

We have added a discussion to address this potential limitation. We acknowledge that the lack of diagnostic specificity in death certificates could theoretically lead to misclassification of cancer subtypes. However, we also cite a previous study that reported a high concordance rate (81%) between autopsy results and death certificates for cancer deaths. Based on this evidence, we believe that any misclassification would not significantly impact our study's main conclusions. This new addition clarifies the potential limitation while providing evidence to support the validity of our findings.

Change

(page 16)

Fourth, due to using data from the death certificates, misclassification might occur for the death causes. However, a previous study found that the concordance between autopsy results and the cause of death on the death certificates was relatively high for cancer (81%). Therefore, it will not significantly affect our results [52].

4. Smoking is an important risk factor for hematological malignancies and is also closely associated with BMI. Therefore, conducting analyses stratified by smoking status or evaluating potential interactions between smoking and BMI would be informative.

Author response

Thank you for the valuable suggestion regarding stratification by smoking status and evaluation of potential interactions between smoking and BMI.

We conducted stratified analyses by smoking status to explore this; the results showed a similar trend of increased hazard ratios for obesity. However, due to the relatively small number of deaths in some strata, the confidence intervals became wide, and in certain models, convergence issues arose. These factors made interpretation difficult. The attached figure is provided for your reference, showing the results up to Model 2. As you can see, the trend remains consistent even with the stratification.

Therefore, we decided to present the overall results while acknowledging this limitation in the Discussion section.

Change

(page 17)

Finally, the stratified analysis, which would have allowed us to evaluate the influence of important covariates such as sex and smoking, was not feasible due to the insufficient number of mortalities.

5. Were there any differences by sex? Given possible sex differences in BMI distribution and hematologic cancer risk, stratified analyses by sex would also be valuable.

Author response

Thank you for the valuable suggestion regarding stratification by sex.

As with the smoking-stratified analyses, we made a concerted effort to conduct stratified analyses by sex to explore this. The results consistently showed a similar trend of increased hazard ratios for obesity in both men and women. However, as in the smoking-stratified analyses, the relatively small number of deaths in some strata led to wide confidence intervals, and in certain models, convergence issues arose. These factors made reliable interpretation challenging. The attached figure is provided for your reference, showing the results up to Model 2. As you can see, the trend remains consistent even with the stratification.

Therefore, we decided to present the overall results while clearly acknowledging this limitation in the Discussion section.

Change

(page 17)

Finally, the stratified analysis, which would have allowed us to evaluate the influence of important covariates such as sex and smoking, was not feasible due to the insufficient number of mortalities.

Reviewer 2

1 Is this study assessing association between obesity in 1990 and mortality in later period among patients suffering from hematological malignancies? Mortality can be affected by many other factors such as renal dysfunction, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, arteriosclerosis, etc. Without assessing these factors, the true association between obesity in about 20 years ago and mortality in later life is impossible to clarify. As the authors wrote in line 203, renal dysfunction, diabetes, and arteriosclerosis, etc, negatively affect treatment outcomes. Therefore, just assessing obesity in the past and mortality is meaningless.

Instead, the author should explore an association between obesity and incidence of hematological malignancy in later period. CHIP theory may demonstrate that obese people may have an increased incidence of hematological malignancy.

Author response

Thank you for your careful review and insightful comments. We appreciate you raising these important points, particularly the role of potential confounders and the study's scope.

Regarding your first point, we agree that various clinical factors such as renal dysfunction, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and arteriosclerosis can significantly influence mortality in patients with hematological malignancies. However, in our conceptual framework, these conditions can be considered as the key mediators in the causal pathway between obesity and mortality. Obesity is a well-established risk factor for these comorbidities, and these conditions, in turn, can compromise treatment tolerance and long-term survival. Adjusting for these factors would, therefore, lead to an underestimation of the total effect of obesity on mortality [R2].

Regarding the concern about using past BMI data, we have referenced previous Japanese epidemiological studies that show body weight and BMI tend to be relatively stable in the adult population. This suggests that BMI from the early 1990s is a reasonable proxy for long-term obesity exposure in our study cohort. We have added about this limitation in the discussion section.

We also respectfully disagree with the suggestion to focus solely on the incidence of hematological malignancies. Mortality is a critical endpoint because obesity’s impact extends beyond cancer incidence to treatment response, toxicity, recurrence, and overall survival. Mortality reflects the integrated biological and clinical consequences of obesity—including effects on immune function, pharmacokinetics, and comorbidities—which are highly relevant after diagnosis. Moreover, in Japan’s national cancer control policy, reduction of cancer mortality is explicitly identified as a major public health goal [R1]. Providing robust evidence on modifiable risk factors for cancer mortality is therefore essential for developing effective prevention and intervention strategies that can guide policy and practice. We have added a statement in the Conclusion section to highlight future research directions

We acknowledge that investigating the incidence of hematological malignancies is also important. However, such analyses require a more restricted subset of participants and are beyond the scope of the present study. We plan to address this topic in future research. We have added the statement in the Conclusion section to highlight future research directions.

We hope these clarifications address your concerns and underscore the importance of our focus on mortality as the primary outcome.

Change

(page 4)

Especially, cancer mortality is one of the most robust and key indices, as it reflects not only the incidence of cancer but also biological and clinical outcomes, as well as social factors such as access to medical and health care. Because mortality can be influenced by such social factors, it is important to focus on this outcome. Furthermore, according to the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, cancer mortality has been set as a key indicator ever since the establishment of the Basic Plan to Promote Cancer Control Programs [22–25]. Moreover, in the Basic Plan to Promote Cancer Control Programs (Phase 4), poor-prognosis cancer mortality is included as one of the indicators, although no explicit definition is provided in the plan. In practice, howeve

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewers_20250826.docx

pone.0335750.s003.docx (550.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Francesco Bertolini

17 Sep 2025

Dear Dr. Tamakoshi,

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 by Reviewer #2.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 01 2025 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.

  • 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,

Francesco Bertolini, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have appropriately addressed all of my comments, and I sincerely thank them for their careful and thoughtful revisions.

Reviewer #2: Review to the Authors in Plos one 2025 Sep

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the revised article on "Association between obesity and mortality from hematological malignancies among Japanese adults: The Japan Collaborative Cohort study.

Major comments

1 I understand that clinical diseases such as DM and renal dysfunction may be the key mediators in the causal pathway. Although the authors are applying the full model in model 3 in Figure 3 (traditional methods), not causal regression analysis for each dependent variable, I think that is OK. I think full adjusted model (traditional) is better than the causal regression analysis to interpret the results. Because causal analysis framework can vary largely depending on researchers, it causes large difference in OR and RR etc. So, I understand your explanation, not adjusting clinical diseases.

2 In figure 2, the authors must show all HRs with age, sex, and other variables. Although the authors explained that “presenting all HRs for all covariates could dilute the emphasis on BMI,” the journal readers do not focus on the only BMI. We want to see the strength of all risk factors the authors included. Therefore, we can interpret the results of BMI on mortality.

Besides, concealing the other HRs in manuscript can lead to salami publication. To avoid it, the authors must present all HRs in any cases. If there is a problem in volume, how about creating supplementary tables.

3 in Figure 2, as for time at risk (person-years), the numbers in 4 body weight group are all the same in all analyses (malignancies, lymphoma, MM, leukemia, and Myeloid leukemia. i.e: 84382, 1211682, 327241, 28133). Generally, mortality rate should be exclusive by diseases. For instance, what happens to an obese person who died from multiple myeloma? How was the patient handled in leukemia analysis? Was the patient obese and he/she survived in leukemia analysis?

In leukemia analysis, patients who died from lymphoma, MM, myeloid leukemia should be excluded from the beginning.

**********

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

**********

[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. 2025 Oct 30;20(10):e0335750. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335750.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


26 Sep 2025

We are most grateful to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript. These have greatly helped us to improve our manuscript. We have revised our manuscript based on the constructive suggestions of the reviewers. The follows are our responses. Please see the attached file "response to reviewers" for more

information.

----

Reviewer 1

1. The authors have appropriately addressed all of my comments, and I sincerely thank them for their careful and thoughtful revisions.

Author response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thoughtful and constructive feedback throughout the review process. Your kind words and valuable suggestions have been instrumental in improving the quality of our work.

Reviewer 2

1. I understand that clinical diseases such as DM and renal dysfunction may be the key mediators in the causal pathway. Although the authors are applying the full model in model 3 in Figure 3 (traditional methods), not causal regression analysis for each dependent variable, I think that is OK. I think full adjusted model (traditional) is better than the causal regression analysis to interpret the results. Because causal analysis framework can vary largely depending on researchers, it causes large difference in OR and RR etc. So, I understand your explanation, not adjusting clinical diseases.

Author response

We sincerely appreciate your generous understanding and for your thoughtful evaluation of our approach. Your supportive comments are greatly appreciated.

2. In figure 2, the authors must show all HRs with age, sex, and other variables. Although the authors explained that “presenting all HRs for all covariates could dilute the emphasis on BMI,” the journal readers do not focus on the only BMI. We want to see the strength of all risk factors the authors included. Therefore, we can interpret the results of BMI on mortality.

Besides, concealing the other HRs in manuscript can lead to salami publication. To avoid it, the authors must present all HRs in any cases. If there is a problem in volume, how about creating supplementary tables.

Author response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important and constructive comment. In response, we have now included all HRs for age, sex, and other covariates in the Supplementary Table, as suggested.

During this process, we also carefully reconsidered the categorization of several covariates (childhood living area, educational attainment, and employment status) and made minor adjustments to improve clarity and consistency. Importantly, these modifications did not have any meaningful impact on the results or on the interpretation of BMI’s association with mortality.

Change

(Page 8)

childhood living area (large cities, other cities, rural areas/islands or remote areas, and others), educational attainment (<10 years, <13 years, <16 years, and ≥16 years), employment status at baseline (employed/part-time, self-employed, homemaker, unemployed, and others),

(Page 10)

Table 1 has been revised accordingly to correspond to the changes in covariate categorization.

(Page 2)

Compared with normal-weight individuals, those classified as obese exhibited a significantly higher risk of mortality from all hematological malignancies (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.02–3.11), multiple myeloma (HR: 2.75; 95% CI: 1.09–6.94), leukemia (HR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.07–5.69), and particularly myeloid leukemia (HR: 3.89; 95% CI: 1.66–9.11).

(Page 12)

In disease-specific subgroup analyses, obesity was significantly associated with higher mortality from multiple myeloma (HR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.09–6.94), leukemia (HR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.07–5.69), and particularly myeloid leukemia (HR: 3.89, 95% CI: 1.66–9.11) in Model 3.

(Fig. 2)

Fig. 2 has been revised accordingly to correspond to the changes in covariate categorization.

(S1 Table)

HRs for all variables included for each model are shown in the supporting information, S1 Table. For convenience, we have included the S1 Table below.

3. in Figure 2, as for time at risk (person-years), the numbers in 4 body weight group are all the same in all analyses (malignancies, lymphoma, MM, leukemia, and Myeloid leukemia. i.e: 84382, 1211682, 327241, 28133). Generally, mortality rate should be exclusive by diseases. For instance, what happens to an obese person who died from multiple myeloma? How was the patient handled in leukemia analysis? Was the patient obese and he/she survived in leukemia analysis?

In leukemia analysis, patients who died from lymphoma, MM, myeloid leukemia should be excluded from the beginning.

Author response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this important point. Generally, in disease-specific survival analyses, deaths from other causes are treated as censored observations. Accordingly, in our analyses, we applied the same approach. For example, in the multiple myeloma analysis, deaths from other hematologic malignancies such as lymphoma and leukemia, as well as deaths from non-hematologic causes, were censored, and thus, person-years were the same in all analyses.

To clarify this procedure, we have added a description to the Methods section to explicitly state how other causes of death were handled in each disease-specific analysis.

Change

(Page 9)

For cause-specific analyses, deaths from causes other than the outcome of interest were treated as censored at the time of death.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewers_20250926.docx

pone.0335750.s004.docx (55.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Francesco Bertolini

15 Oct 2025

Association between obesity and mortality from hematological malignancies among Japanese adults: The Japan Collaborative Cohort study

PONE-D-25-35537R2

Dear Dr. Tamakoshi,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Francesco Bertolini, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all of my concerns, and I appreciate their careful and thoughtful revisions.

**********

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 #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Francesco Bertolini

PONE-D-25-35537R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tamakoshi,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@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. Francesco Bertolini

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 Table. HRs and 95% CIs for all covariates for model 2 and model 3.

    (PDF)

    pone.0335750.s001.pdf (100.6KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers_20250826.docx

    pone.0335750.s003.docx (550.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers_20250926.docx

    pone.0335750.s004.docx (55.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of the data used in this study contain potentially sensitive information. The data provider, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, has imposed restrictions that prevent the data from being made publicly available. Requests for access to the data may be directed to the JACC Study Group, which serves as the non-author contact point for data access inquiries. Contact information: JACC Study Group JACC_study@med.hokudai.ac.jp.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES