Abstract
Background
It is unknown whether the risk for obesity-related cancers between metabolically unhealthy and healthy overweight/obese adults.
Methods
Data on body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), and random blood glucose in Framingham Heart Study adults (n=3763) ages 55-69 were used to estimate risks of obesity-related cancers (n=385) including post-menopausal breast, female reproductive, colon, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, and kidney cancers, as well as esophageal adenocarcinomas. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate risk for obesity-related cancers associated with body fat and metabolic health (as defined by glucose levels) among subjects in three risk groups (vs. referent group with normal-weight/normal glucose): normal-weight/elevated glucose; overweight/normal glucose; and overweight/elevated glucose.
Results
Overweight adults (BMI≥25 or WHtR≥0.51 (men) and ≥0.57 (women)) with elevated glucose (≥125 mg/dL) had a statistically significant two-fold increased risk of developing obesity-related cancer while overweight adults with normal glucose had a 50% increased risk. Normal-weight adults with elevated glucose had no excess cancer risk. The effects of BMI and WHtR were independent of one another. Finally, overweight women with elevated blood glucose had a 2.6-fold increased risk (95% CI: 1.4-4.9) of female reproductive (cervical, endometrial, uterine cancers) and post-menopausal breast cancers while overweight women with normal glucose levels had only a 70% increased risk (95% CI: 1.1-2.5).
Conclusion
These results suggest that cancer risk may be lower among metabolically-healthy overweight/obese older adults than among overweight/obese adults with metabolic dysfunction.
Impact
Metabolic dysfunction and obesity act synergistically to increase cancer risk.
Keywords: obesity, cancer, metabolic health, glucose metabolism, risk factors
Introduction
Rates of obesity and its attendant metabolic disturbances have been rising for decades (1). Growing numbers of studies suggest that obesity may be an important preventable cause of certain cancers (2, 3), such as colorectal, post-menopausal breast, those of the female reproductive, system, biliary tree (3, 4), and others (5). In an earlier report from the Framingham Study, we have shown both body mass index (BMI and waist circumference (WC) to be independent predictors of incident colon cancer (6).
In a recently-published report from Framingham, obesity-related cancers were found to be associated with prolonged exposure to impaired fasting glucose (IFG) (7). Whether the excess risk of cancer found among obese individuals is a consequence of its association with metabolic dysfunction is not clear. An estimated 25% of obese adults Americans (8) are protected from metabolic dysfunction. These so-called ‘metabolically healthy overweight/obese’ (MHO) persons have normal glucose tolerance, lipid levels and blood pressure as well as less ectopic fat (9) than the more typical metabolically unhealthy overweight/obese (MUO) individuals. Whether they are protected from obesity-related cancers is unknown.
In inflamed adipose tissue, macrophages encircle stressed and apoptotic adipocytes in CD68-staining ‘crown-like structures’ (CLS) (10). Fewer CLS in adipose tissues of MHO subjects has been associated with lower CVD risk (10, 11). The shared inflammatory basis for CVD, Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and insulin resistant obesity (12) has led to the hypothesis that the mechanisms that confer cardiometabolic protection to MHO persons might also provide protection against obesity-related cancers. We used data for adults ages 55–69 years in the original Framingham Study to estimate the risk of obesity-related cancers among overweight/obese (vs. normal weight subjects), according to their metabolic health.
Materials and Methods
Framingham Study
The prospective Framingham Heart Study was designed to evaluate determinants of CVD risk among residents of Framingham, Massachusetts; 5209 adult men and women were enrolled beginning in 1948 and have been examined biennially ever since. Data collected include demographic information, anthropometric measurements, blood pressure, lifestyle factors, health and family history, and laboratory measures.
Height and weight were measured at each visit with a standard balance beam scale. To reduce error associated with height measurement and loss of height with age, we used the mean of all available adult height measurements through age 60 years in combination with exam-specific weights to determine BMI at each visit. WC was measured following a standardized protocol at examinations 4, 5, and 19-21. We used BMI as a standard measure of obesity and WC and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) as anthropometric measures of central adiposity (13) since hip circumference was not available in Framingham. Glucose was measured in non-fasting blood specimens drawn at each biennial exam. We used a cut-off value of ≥125 mg/dL to reflect some degree of metabolic dysfunction. While there is no perfect means for identifying glucose intolerance using a casual blood sample, it is has been shown that non-fasting glucose of 125 mg/dL has a sensitivity of about 70% to detect T2DM (14). Because we used a mean of two random glucose measures, taken two years apart, it is likely that this value has an even higher sensitivity for detecting metabolic dysfunction. Further, analyses from FHS demonstrated that non-fasting samples could be used to identify cases of T2DM with sensitivity equal to that of fasting samples (15).
Data for the following potential confounders were included: age (years), sex, education (>high school vs. high school or less), height (centimeters, cm) and mean number of cigarettes per day, ounces of alcohol consumed per week, and a mean physical activity index (with the latter three variables averaged during the exposure period). The physical activity index was created by multiplying self-reported hours of moderate and vigorous physical activity by an appropriate weight derived from oxygen consumption required for that level of activity and taking a sum of the two products (for moderate and vigorous activity) (16).
Cancer Ascertainment
Detailed assessment of cancer outcomes in Framingham began about 1970 with complete medical record review of all enrolled subjects (17). All diagnoses and outcomes were confirmed from laboratory and pathology reports, and clinical notes. Cancer outcomes have been verified for all subjects in the original cohort through 2006. We included the following cancers as potentially obesity-related (18, 19): post-menopausal breast cancer, female reproductive (i.e., cervical, endometrial, and uterine), colon, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, kidney, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer topography and histology for each case were coded using the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) (20).
Statistical Analysis
Men and post-menopausal women (ages 55-69 years) were selected for the current analyses beginning at the first exam visit at which they were in the age range and had available data for BMI and WC, all potential confounders of interest, and were free of cancer (except non-melanoma skin cancers). A total of 1,649 men and 2,114 women met the criteria and were included.
Separate Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the adjusted effects of BMI, WC, and WHtR on risk of obesity-related cancer. After excluding 35 subjects with BMI <18.5 kg/m2 to eliminate the possibility of subclinical disease, subjects were classified into three BMI exposure categories (<25, 25-<30 and ≥30 kg/m2) using the mean BMI value from two consecutive exams. For WC and WHtR categories, sensitivity analyses were used to determine the most appropriate cut-off values for defining excess body fat. For men, the resulting WC exposure categories were <84, 84-<94, and ≥94 cm. For women, the WC exposure categories were <81, 81-<91, and ≥91 cm. The WHtR exposure categories were <0.51 and ≥0.51 for men and <0.57 and ≥0.57 for women. Follow-up began four years after the exposure measure to eliminate the possibility of including subjects with pre-clinical cancers whose disease might impact levels of body fat. Follow-up ended with the first of four censoring events: incidence of a primary obesity-related cancer, loss to follow-up when alive and cancer-free, end of study, or death. Incidence of obesity-associated cancer for each category was calculated as: number of cases occurring during follow-up time divided by total person-years in a given category. Multivariate analyses estimating effects of BMI or WC on risk of obesity-related cancer were conducted with and without WC or BMI adjustment, respectively.
Cox proportional hazard models were also used to estimate the combined effects of BMI or WHtR and categories of random blood glucose on risk of obesity-associated cancers. Subjects considered to have abnormal glucose control were those with diabetes (non-fasting glucose ≥200 mg/dL or being treated for diabetes) and those with a non-fasting blood glucose ≥125 mg/dL. Subjects were cross-classified into one of four categories based on BMI (<25 versus ≥25 kg/m2) and glucose level (abnormal or not). Subjects were similarly cross-classified using WHtR categories and random glucose levels.
Lastly, to explore the possibility that development of obesity or glucose dysregulation during the follow-up period (among those without such conditions at baseline) might affect the risk of obesity-related cancers, we carried out separate analyses using time-dependent exposure variables. Up to 18 biennial BMI/glucose measures (median=7) were included in these models, from the beginning of the follow-up period up to four years prior to the end of follow-up (or development of cancer). The time-dependent analyses were restricted to models with BMI exposure since waist circumference was not measured repeatedly. All proportional hazards models were checked for violations of the proportional hazards assumptions and none were found.
Results
The descriptive characteristics of the subjects are shown in Table 1 according to category of BMI. The proportion of subjects with more than a high school education declined across BMI category. As expected, WC and WHtR increased with BMI as did mean blood glucose level. Obese individuals (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) smoked fewer cigarettes per day.
Table 1.
Baseline subject characteristics according to category of BMI
| BMI Category (kg/m2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | <25 (n=1,528) | 25-<30 (n=1,647) | ≥30 (n=588) | P Value |
| Male, No. (%) | 557 (36.5) | 870 (52.8) | 222 (37.8) | 0.0004 |
| Education (>high school), No. (%) | 518 (33.9) | 445 (27.0) | 109 (18.5) | < 0.0001 |
| Age, mean (SD), yrs | 56.1 (1.5) | 56.0 (1.4) | 56.2 (1.6) | 0.0096 |
| Height, mean (SD), cm | 164.1 (8.6) | 165.4 (9.3) | 161.7 (9.0) | < 0.0001 |
| Weight, mean (SD), kg | 61.6 (7.9) | 74.5 (9.2) | 87.3 (11.9) | < 0.0001 |
| BMI, mean (SD), kg/m2 | 22.8 (1.6) | 27.1 (1.4) | 33.3 (3.5) | < 0.0001 |
| WC, mean (SD), cm | 85.8 (6.2) | 93.9 (6.6) | 104.1 (9.2) | < 0.0001 |
| Waist-to-height ratio, mean (SD) | 0.52 (0.04) | 0.57 (0.05) | 0.65 (0.07) | < 0.0001 |
| Blood glucose, mean (SD), mg/dL1 | 84.5 (21.7) | 86.1 (23.5) | 93.1 (37.2) | < 0.0001 |
| Alcohol intake, mean (SD), oz/week pure alcohol | 3.7 (5.3) | 3.9 (5.8) | 3.2 (6.4) | 0.0510 |
| Cigarettes, mean (SD), per day | 8.5 (11.5) | 6.6 (11.0) | 4.8 (10.1) | < 0.0001 |
| Physical activity, index (SD) | 7.4 (7.9) | 7.5 (8.1) | 6.6 (7.4) | 0.0444 |
BMI=body mass index; WC=waist circumference
Non-fasting
Of the 3,763 men and women aged 55-69 years at the time of BMI and glucose measurements, 385 developed an obesity-associated cancer (Table 2). Overall, lean subjects (BMI <25) had a cancer incidence rate of 4.87 per 1000 person-years of follow up compared with 6.50 and 7.66 cancer cases per 1000 person-years among overweight and obese, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, height, education level, alcohol intake, cigarette smoking, and physical activity, overweight men and women had about a 50% increased risk of obesity-associated cancer, and obese men and women a 73% increased risk. Analyses stratifying by sex showed that the effects of obesity were stronger in men than in women. For men in particular, a higher WC (≥94 cm) was associated with almost a 4-fold increased risk of developing an obesity-associated cancer than those in the lowest WC category (<84 cm).
Table 2.
Effect of BMI and waist size on risk of obesity-related cancers in men and women
| BMI (kg/m2) | Lean (<25) | Overweight (25-<30) | Obese (≥ 30) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Subjects | |||
| No. | 1,528 | 1,647 | 588 |
| Cancer cases/Person-Yearsa | 130/26,699 | 185/28,463 | 70/9,140 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 48.7 | 65.0 | 76.6 |
| HR (95% CI) | |||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.3 (1.1-1.7) | 1.7 (1.2-2.2) |
| Adjustedb | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.5 (1.2-1.9) | 1.7 (1.3-2.3) |
| Males | |||
| Cancer cases/Person-Yearsa | 22/8,748 | 67/13,961 | 16/3,060 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 25.1 | 48.0 | 52.3 |
| HR (95% CI) | |||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.9 (1.2-3.1) | 2.3 (1.2-4.4) |
| Adjustedb | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.9 (1.2-3.1) | 2.3 (1.2-4.4) |
| Females | |||
| Cancer cases/Person-Yearsa | 108/17,951 | 118/14,502 | 54/6,081 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 60.2 | 81.4 | 88.8 |
| HR (95% CI) | |||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.4 (1.0-1.8) | 1.5 (1.1-2.1) |
| Adjustedb | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.4 (1.1-1.8) | 1.6 (1.2-2.3) |
| WAIST (cm) | <84 (m), <81 (f) | 84-<94 (m), 81-<91 (f) | ≥94 (m), ≥91 (f) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Subjects | |||
| No. | 517 | 1,567 | 1,679 |
| Cancer cases/Person-Yearsa | 31/8,166 | 135/27,520 | 219/28,616 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 38.0 | 49.1 | 76.5 |
| HR (95% CI) | |||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.2 (0.84-1.8) | 1.9 (1.3-2.8) |
| Adjustedb | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.2 (0.79-1.7) | 1.8 (1.2-2.6) |
| Males | <84 | 84-<94 | ≥94 |
| Cancer cases /Person-Yearsa | 6/4,352 | 41/11,786 | 58/9,630 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 13.8 | 34.8 | 60.2 |
| HR (95% CI) | |||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 2.4 (1.0-5.7) | 4.4 (1.9-10.1) |
| Adjustedb | 1.0 (Reference) | 2.2 (0.93-5.2) | 3.9 (1.7-9.1) |
| Females | <81 | 81-<91 | ≥91 |
| Cancer cases/Person-Yearsa | 25/3,815 | 94/15,733 | 161/18,986 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 65.5 | 59.7 | 84.8 |
| HR (95% CI) | |||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.88 (0.57-1.4) | 1.3 (0.82-1.9) |
| Adjustedb | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.89 (0.57-1.4) | 1.3 (0.86-2.0) |
BMI=body mass index; CI=confidence interval; HR=hazard ratio; IR=incidence rate
Follow-up time begins 4 years after end of exposure period.
Adjusted for age, sex (in all-subjects models), height, education, alcohol, cigarettes/day, and physical activity
To account for central adiposity, we also used WHtR (Table 3) as an exposure variable. These results were consistent with results that used a standard BMI measure as the primary exposure variable. For both tables 2 and 3, we carried out a separate analysis restricting the sample to non-smokers. While the results for men were very slightly weaker (approximately 10% reduction in the HRs in the highest category of body fat), those for women were slightly stronger (about 10%), with correspondingly wider confidence limits for both due to the smaller sample sizes.
Table 3.
Effect of waist-to-height ratio on risk of obesity-related cancers in men and women
| Waist-Height Ratio | <0.51 (m), <0.57 (f) | ≥0.51 (m), ≥0.57 (f) |
|---|---|---|
| All Subjects | ||
| No. | 1,492 | 2,271 |
| Cancer cases/Person-Yearsa | 124/25,523 | 261/38,779 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 48.6 | 67.3 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.4 (1.1-1.7) |
| Adjustedb | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.6 (1.3-2.0) |
| Males | <0.51 | ≥0.51 |
| Cancer cases/Person-Yearsa | 20/8,017 | 85/17,751 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 24.9 | 47.9 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.9 (1.2-3.1) |
| Adjustedb | 1.0 (Reference) | 2.0 (1.2-3.3) |
| Females | <0.57 | ≥0.57 |
| Cancer cases/Person-Yearsa | 104/17,506 | 176/21,027 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 59.4 | 83.7 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.4 (1.1-1.8) |
| Adjustedb | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.5 (1.2-2.0) |
CI=confidence interval; HR=hazard ratio; IR=incidence rate
Follow-up time begins 4 years after end of exposure period.
Adjusted for age, sex (in all-subjects models), height, education level, alcohol, cigarettes/day, and physical activity.
Table 4 explores the combined effects of overweight (dichotomized BMI ≥25 vs. <25 kg/m2) and non-fasting blood glucose (dichotomized as ≥125 vs. <125 mg/dL). There was no excess cancer risk amongst the relatively few normal-weight subjects with a high non-fasting glucose. By contrast, subjects who were overweight had a higher cancer risk whether or not they had elevated blood glucose. However, subjects who were overweight and had elevated glucose (MUO subjects) were twice as likely to develop cancer (HR=2.1; 95% CI: 1.4, 3.0) as were normal weight subjects with normal glucose levels, while overweight individuals with normal glucose levels (MHO) had only a 47% increased risk of cancer. To determine whether difference in BMI within categories might confound these results, Model 2 includes BMI as a continuous covariate. There was no meaningful change in the effect estimates, so this variable was dropped from future models. Models 3 and 4 address the important question of whether controlling for WC explains the effects of a high BMI. Model 4 additionally includes BMI and glucose levels during the follow-up period as time-dependent covariates. The addition of WC to the model attenuated cancer risks among overweight men (both with and without abnormal glucose levels) but not women. The addition of the time-dependent BMI and glucose variables strengthened the results, even when controlling for waist size. In this final model (model 4), the development of overweight (BMI>28 kg/m2) during the follow-up period led to a 30% increased risk of cancer (HR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0-1.7) and the development of an elevated glucose led to a 26% increased cancer risk (95% CI: 1.0-1.6) (data not shows).
Table 4.
Combined effects of BMI and glucose levels on risk of obesity-related cancers
| BMI/Blood Glucosea | <25/Nl glucose | <25/Abnl glucose | ≥25/Nl glucose | ≥25/Abnl glucose |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Subjects | ||||
| No. | 1,356 | 172 | 1,911 | 324 |
| Cancer cases/Person-Years | 121/24,122 | 10/2,576 | 221/33,193 | 34/4,410 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 50.2 | 38.8 | 66.6 | 77.1 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.74 (0.38-1.5) | 1.3 (1.1-1.7) | 1.7 (1.2-2.5) |
| Adjusted model 1b | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.77 (0.39-1.5) | 1.5 (1.2-1.8) | 2.1 (1.4-3.0) |
| Adjusted model 2c | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.77 (0.39-1.5) | 1.5 (1.1-2.0) | 2.1 (1.4-3.3) |
| Adjusted model 3d | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.78 (0.40 -1.5) | 1.4 (1.1-1.8) | 2.0 (1.3 -3.0) |
| Adjusted model 4e | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.80 (0.40 -1.6) | 1.6 (1.2-2.1) | 2.2 (1.4 -3.4) |
| Male Subjects | ||||
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 25.9 | 19.3 | 48.8 | 48.4 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.81 (0.19-3.5) | 1.9 (1.2-3.1) | 2.1 (1.0-4.4) |
| Adjusted model 1b | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.82 (0.19-3.5) | 1.9 (1.2-3.1) | 2.2 (1.1-4.5) |
| Adjusted model 2c | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.83 (0.19-3.5) | 1.9 (0.95-3.8) | 2.0 (0.85-4.8) |
| Adjusted model 3d | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.86 (0.20-3.7) | 1.4 (0.81-2.5) | 1.6 (0.71-3.5) |
| Adjusted model 4e | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.90 (0.21-3.8) | 1.6 (0.90-2.9) | 1.9 (0.83-4.1) |
| Female Subjects | ||||
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 61.5 | 45.4 | 80.4 | 113.8 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.78 (0.36-1.7) | 1.3 (1.0-1.7) | 2.0 (1.3-3.2) |
| Adjusted model 1b | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.75 (0.35-1.6) | 1.4 (1.1-1.8) | 2.2 (1.4-3.5) |
| Adjusted model 2c | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.75 (0.35-1.6) | 1.4 (1.0-2.0) | 2.3 (1.3-3.9) |
| Adjusted model 3d | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.75 (0.35-1.6) | 1.4 (1.0-1.9) | 2.2 (1.3-3.7) |
| Adjusted model 4e | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.76 (0.35-1.6) | 1.5 (1.1-2.1) | 2.5 (1.5-4.2) |
BMI=body mass index; Nl=normal; Abnl=abnormal; IR=incidence rate; HR=hazard ratio; CI=confidence interval
Nl vs. Abnl glucose: <125 (not on insulin or oral hypoglycemics) vs. ≥125 mg/dL or treated
Model 1: Adjusted for age, sex (in all-subjects models), height, education level, alcohol, cigarettes/day, and physical activity.
Model 2: Model 1 variables plus adjustment for BMI (kg/m2) within categories.
Model 3: Model 1 variables plus waist circumference.
Model 4: Model 1 variables plus waist circumference and occurrence of elevated glucose and obesity (BMI > 28) during follow up (up to four years before cancer occurrence) modeled as time-varying covariates.
Table 5 shows the combined effects of WHtR and non-fasting glucose adjusting for age, sex, height, education level, alcohol intake, cigarette smoking, and physical activity. A higher WHtR combined with elevated glucose (MUO category) was associated with a two-fold increased risk of cancer while the MHO had only a 50% increased risk, adjusting for BMI. These results suggest that there is a positive interaction between increased waist size and non-fasting glucose in terms of obesity-associated cancer risk; 55% of obesity-related cancers in this analysis were attributable to the interaction of WHtR and elevated glucose.
Table 5.
Combined effects of waist-to-height ratio and blood glucose level on risk of obesity-related cancers
| Waist-Height Ratio / Blood Glucosea | Low WHtRb / Nl glucose | Low WHtRb / Abnl glucose | High WHtRb / Nl glucose | High WHtRb / Abnl glucose |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Subjects | <0.51 (m), <0.57 (f) | <0.51 (m), <0.57 (f) | ≥0.51 (m), ≥0.57 (f) | ≥0.51 (m), ≥0.57 (f) |
| No. | 1,312 | 180 | 1,955 | 316 |
| Person-Years | 112/22,767 | 12/2,755 | 230/34,548 | 31/4,231 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 49.2 | 43.5 | 66.6 | 73.3 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.94 (0.52-1.7) | 1.3 (1.1-1.7) | 1.6 (1.1-2.4) |
| Adjusted model 1c | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.97 (0.53-1.8) | 1.5 (1.2-2.0) | 2.1 (1.4-3.2) |
| Adjusted model 2d | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.97 (0.53-1.8) | 1.5 (1.1-2.0) | 2.0 (1.3-3.2) |
| Males | <0.51 / Nl | <0.51 / Abnl | ≥0.51 / Nl | ≥0.51 / Abnl |
| Cancers/Person-Years | 18/6,974 | 2/1,043 | 73/15,281 | 12/2,470 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 25.8 | 19.2 | 47.8 | 48.6 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.79 (0.18-3.4) | 1.8 (1.1-3.0) | 2.1 (1.0-4.4) |
| Adjusted model 1c | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.76 (0.18-3.3) | 1.9 (1.1-3.2) | 2.3 (1.1-4.8) |
| Adjusted model 2d | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.76 (0.18-3.3) | 1.7 (0.92-3.0) | 1.9 (0.85-4.4) |
| Females | <0.57 / Nl | <0.57 / Abnl | ≥0.57 / Nl | ≥0.57 / Abnl |
| Cancers/Person-Years | 94/15,793 | 10/1,713 | 157/19,267 | 19/1,760 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 59.5 | 58.4 | 81.5 | 107.9 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.0 (0.53-2.0) | 1.3 (1.0-1.7) | 1.9 (1.2-3.2) |
| Adjusted model 1c | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.0 (0.52-1.9) | 1.5 (1.1-1.9) | 2.3 (1.4-3.8) |
| Adjusted model 2d | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.0 (0.52-1.9) | 1.5 (1.1-2.0) | 2.2 (1.3-3.9) |
Notes: WHtR=waist-to-height ratio; Nl=normal; Abnl=abnormal; IR=incidence rate; HR=hazard ratio
Nl vs. Abnl glucose: <125 (not on insulin or oral hypoglycemics) vs. ≥125 mg/dL or treated
Low vs. high WHtR: <0.51 vs. ≥0.51 for men; <0.57 vs. ≥0.57 for women
Model 1: adjusted for age, sex (in all-subjects models), height, education level, alcohol intake, cigarettes/day and physical activity.
Model 2: model 1 plus BMI.
To explore whether the results described above are restricted to those with selected cancer sites, we looked at the rates of individual cancers in Supplementary Table 1. That table shows that while numbers are very small for many individual cancers, there is a tendency for most cancer types (i.e., colon, liver, gallbladder, breast, uterus, cervix, endometrium) to be found amongst the overweight/obese subjects. The association between obesity and esophageal and kidney cancers is less clear in these data. In Table 6, we explore the risk of three of the selected types of obesity-associated cancers: colon, female reproductive cancers (excluding ovarian) and female reproductive cancers plus post-menopausal breast cancer. In each category, the risks were highest for MUO subjects (overweight plus elevated random glucose). MHO (overweight with normal glucose) subjects had an intermediate risk. Finally, there was no evidence that metabolic dysfunction in the absence of overweight/obesity led to any increased risk of these cancers.
Table 6.
Combined effects of BMI and blood glucose on risk of selected obesity-related cancers
| BMI/Blood Glucosea | <25/Nl glucose | <25/Abnl glucose | ≥25/Nl glucose | ≥25/Abnl glucose |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colon Cancers | ||||
| No. | 1,356 | 172 | 1,911 | 324 |
| Cancers/Person-Years | 36/24,569 | 3/2,614 | 94/34,016 | 14/4,555 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 14.7 | 11.5 | 27.6 | 30.7 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.83 (0.26-2.7) | 1.9 (1.3-2.8) | 2.3 (1.3-4.3) |
| Adjusted model 1b | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.83 (0.25-2.7) | 1.8 (1.2-2.7) | 2.2 (1.2-4.1) |
| Adjusted model 2c | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.84 (0.26-2.7) | 1.6 (1.0-2.5) | 1.8 (0.93-3.6) |
| Female Reproductive Cancersd | ||||
| No. | 876 | 94 | 1,006 | 137 |
| Cancers/Person-Years | 59/16,588 | 5/1,546 | 94/18,959 | 13/1,960 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 35.6 | 32.3 | 49.6 | 66.3 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.95 (0.38-2.4) | 1.4 (1.0-1.9) | 2.0 (1.1-3.7) |
| Adjusted model 1b | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.92 (0.37-2.3) | 1.5 (1.1-2.1) | 2.2 (1.2-4.1) |
| Adjusted model 2c | 1.0 (Reference) | 0.91 (0.36-2.3) | 1.7 (1.1-2.5) | 2.6 (1.4-4.9) |
| Female Reproductive Cancers, excluding Breast Cancer | ||||
| No. | 876 | 94 | 1,006 | 137 |
| Cancers/Person-Years | 9/16,896 | 1/1,583 | 19/19,558 | 3/2,040 |
| IR/10,000 Person-Years | 5.3 | 6.3 | 9.7 | 14.7 |
| HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Unadjusted | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.2 (0.15-9.5) | 1.8 (0.83-4.1) | 2.8 (0.74-10.2) |
| Adjusted model 1b | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.3 (0.17-10.5) | 2.1 (0.91-4.7) | 3.4 (0.90-13.1) |
| Adjusted model 2c | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.3 (0.17-10.7) | 1.9 (0.76-4.9) | 3.2 (0.75-13.3) |
BMI=body mass index; Nl=normal; Abnl=abnormal; IR=incidence rate; HR=hazard ratio; CI=confidence interval
Nl vs. Abnl glucose: <125 (not on insulin or oral hypoglycemics) vs. ≥125 mg/dL or treated
Model 1: Adjusted for age, sex (for colon cancer model), height, education level, alcohol, cigarettes/day, and physical activity.
Model 2: Model 1 plus waist circumference
Female reproductive cancers include postmenopausal breast, cervical, endometrial and uterine cancers
Discussion
This is the first long-term population-based study to examine the combined effects of obesity and metabolic dysfunction on cancer risk. This study found that overweight and obese 55-69 year-old adults had higher risks for several cancers, particularly female reproductive cancers (including post-menopausal breast cancer) and colon cancer. This confirms earlier results from the large prospective Cancer Prevention Study II reporting 52% and 62% higher cancer mortality rates among obese men and women (3). In addition, cancer risks were even higher in the subset of overweight subjects with elevated blood glucose levels (i.e., MUO subjects), while MHO subjects had a risk for obesity-related cancer that was intermediate to that of MUO and healthy lean adults. These findings share similarities with studies showing MHO women to have a CVD risk that is intermediate to that of MUO and healthy lean women (21).
The roles of molecular, cellular and inflammatory pathways as predictors of cancer risk (22) are not well understood. Several lines of evidence implicate metabolic dysfunction and inflammation in the pathogenesis of cancer (5). Insulin-resistant obesity is a chronic, inflammatory disorder with both local (23) and systemic manifestations (24). Visceral or ‘central’ adipose tissue, often estimated using WC, waist-to-hip ratio, or WHtR in epidemiologic studies, is the adipose tissue depot most strongly associated with insulin resistance, systemic inflammation (25) and cardiometabolic sequelae (26). Lower body obesity typified by ‘pear-shaped’ distributions of body fat has been linked with metabolic protection (27).
Obese, insulin resistant adults exhibit abnormal serum levels of adipokines, characterized by reduced adiponectin and elevated leptin (28), which have also been associated with higher risk for obesity-associated cancers (29, 30). Better insulin sensitivity in MHO individuals may also contribute to lower levels of fasting insulin and IGF-1, which have also been linked with cancer (31). However, results from the Women's Health Initiative linked colon cancer risk with elevated glucose, but not insulin or insulin resistance (32). The state of insulin resistant obesity is thought to promote signal transduction cross-talk between adipokines and elevated fasting glucose, insulin, IGF-1, and leptin. Whether this interplay influences risk for obesity-associated cancers is unknown. It is likely that the metabolic risk profile for each obesity-related cancer will exhibit both common and unique features, but studying these separate cancers will require larger cohorts to provide sufficient power.
The hazard ratios for obesity and cancer risk in this study (data not shown) closely reflect previously published values for colon, post-menopausal breast and female reproductive cancers (4). We found an approximately two-fold increased risk of all obesity-related cancers among MUO subjects but more than a three-fold increased risk of female reproductive cancers. After controlling for WC in models estimating the independent effects of BMI, we found that cancer risk among MUO men (but not women) was attenuated. In contrast, the direct effects of WC on cancer remained after controlling for BMI suggesting that WC may be a stronger predictor of cancer risk than BMI in men, a finding also evident in earlier results from this same cohort (6). Given the close connection between central adiposity and metabolic health, studies with more precise measures of total body fat and fat distribution are needed to evaluate these risks.
This study has a number of important strengths, starting with essentially complete lifetime follow up for cancer occurrence beginning in the middle adult years. All cancer outcomes were validated through a careful review of medical records using standardized procedures (17). In addition, BMI was measured repeatedly at each biennial examination visit and detailed data on potential confounders of interest were also available.
There are a number of limitations of this study as well. We used simple anthropometric measures of body fat (BMI, WC, WHtR) and a simple measure of metabolic dysfunction (random blood glucose). In this historical cohort, no measures of hip circumference were available, nor were measures of fasting glucose (until very late in the study). The composite measure of WHtR that we used has been shown in other studies to be predictive of metabolic dysfunction (33). While more sophisticated and precise measures of body fat/composition and metabolic health would be useful, the error introduced by the use of these simple measures is most likely non-differential, thereby resulting in effect estimates that are biased toward the null. Thus, the estimates in this study are likely underestimates of the true effects in these obesity/metabolic phenotypes. Another important limitation of the study is the limited power associated with small numbers of subjects in some categories (e.g., those with normal weight and abnormal glucose levels) as well as the small numbers of subjects with some of the individual cancer types.
The Framingham Study began in 1948 and the subjects were leaner and more metabolically healthy than in more recent generations. Thus we were not able to evaluate effects of higher levels of obesity/morbid obesity. There were also insufficient numbers of some obesity-related cancers (e.g., liver, pancreas, gallbladder) to allow for the estimation of effects on these individual cancer types. Furthermore, Framingham Study subjects were exclusively Caucasian so these results may not be representative of risks in a multiethnic population.
We did not have sufficient power in this study to separate subjects with T2DM from those with earlier stages of glucose dysregulation and it is possible that the immunometabolic mechanisms that affect cancer risk may differ in these two types of individuals (12). Finally, although obesity is associated with increased estrogen levels and breast cancer risk in post-menopausal women, we are unable to comment on the role of estrogen in cancer risk among the obese female subjects because such data were not available in this data set.
Conclusion
This is the first large prospective cohort study to show that metabolic health modifies risks of obesity-related cancers among overweight and obese individuals. Similar findings have been shown previously for CVD outcomes. In this study, we found that overweight/obese individuals with a healthier metabolism have lower risks of obesity-related cancers. Given rising rates of insulin-resistant obesity worldwide, rates of obesity-related cancers are likely to rise as well. Treatment strategies targeting metabolic health among overweight individuals may lead to reductions in risks for cancer as well as cardiometabolic disorders.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
We thank M. Loring Bradlee, Jennifer St. Sauver and Marianne N. Prout for helpful comments and all the members of the Framingham Heart Study and their families for their dedication and many sacrifices over decades in the study.
Grant Support:
Funding for the Framingham Heart Study is provided by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and Boston University School of Medicine (Contract No. N01-HC-25195). This analytic work was partially supported by grants from the Evans Center at Boston University (GVD), the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK090455 – GVD), and the National Cancer Institute (CA182898 – GVD).
Footnotes
None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
- 1.Finucane MM, Stevens GA, Cowan MJ, Danaei G, Lin JK, Paciorek CJ, et al. National, regional, and global trends in body-mass index since 1980: systematic analysis of health examination surveys and epidemiological studies with 960 country-years and 9.1 million participants. Lancet. 2011;377:557–67. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62037-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.American Cancer Society . Cancer Prevention & Early Detection Facts & Figures 2012. American Cancer Society; 2012. pp. 1–60. [Google Scholar]
- 3.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;348:1625–38. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa021423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Calle EE, Kaaks R. Overweight, obesity and cancer: epidemiological evidence and proposed mechanisms. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:579–91. doi: 10.1038/nrc1408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Vucenik I, Stains JP. Obesity and cancer risk: evidence, mechanisms, and recommendations. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;1271:37–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06750.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Moore LL, Bradlee ML, Singer MR, Splansky GL, Proctor MH, Ellison RC, et al. BMI and waist circumference as predictors of lifetime colon cancer risk in Framingham Study adults. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004;28:559–67. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Parekh N, Lin Y, Vadiveloo M, Hayes RB, Lu-Yao GL. Metabolic dysregulation of the insulin-glucose axis and risk of obesity-related cancers in the Framingham heart study-offspring cohort (1971-2008). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22:1825–36. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Shea JL, Randell EW, Sun G. The prevalence of metabolically healthy obese subjects defined by BMI and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2011;19:624–30. doi: 10.1038/oby.2010.174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Stefan N, Haring H-U. Metabolically healthy obesity: epidemiology, mechanisms,and clinical implications. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2013;1:152–62. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(13)70062-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kloting N, Fasshauer M, Dietrich A, Kovacs P, Schon MR, Kern M, et al. Insulin-sensitive obesity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2010;299:E506–E515. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.00586.2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Bluher M. The distinction of metabolically ‘healthy’ from ‘unhealthy’ obese individuals. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2010;21:38–43. doi: 10.1097/MOL.0b013e3283346ccc. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Nikolajczyk BS, Jagannathan-Bogdan M, Denis GV. The outliers become a stampede as immunometabolism reaches a tipping point. Immunol Rev. 2012;249:253–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2012.01142.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Browning LM, Hsieh SD, Ashwell M. A systematic review of waist-to-height ratio as a screening tool for the prediction of cardiovascular disease and diabetes: 0.5 could be a suitable global boundary value. Nutr Res Rev. 2010;23:247–69. doi: 10.1017/S0954422410000144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ziemer DC, Kolm P, Foster JK, Weintraub WS, Vaccarino V, Rhee MK, et al. Random plasma glucose in serendipitous screening for glucose intolerance: screening for impaired glucose tolerance study 2. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:528–35. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0524-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Fox CS, Coady S, Sorlie PD, D'Agostino RB, Sr., Pencina MJ, Vasan RS, et al. Increasing cardiovascular disease burden due to diabetes mellitus: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2007;115:1544–50. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.658948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kannel WB, Sorlie P. Some health benefits of physical activity. The Framingham Study. Arch Intern Med. 1979;139:857–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kreger BE, Splansky GL, Schatzkin A. The cancer experience in the Framingham Heart Study cohort. Cancer. 1991;67:1–6. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19910101)67:1<1::aid-cncr2820670102>3.0.co;2-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.McMillan DC, Sattar N, McArdle CS. ABC of obesity. Obesity and cancer. BMJ. 2006;333:1109–11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39042.565035.BE1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.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;371:569–78. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60269-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.World Health Organization (Geneva) International classification of disease for oncology: Morphology of Neoplasms. 1990 [Google Scholar]
- 21.Marini MA, Succurro E, Frontoni S, Hribal ML, Andreozzi F, Lauro R, et al. Metabolically healthy but obese women have an intermediate cardiovascular risk profile between healthy nonobese women and obese insulin-resistant women. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:2145–7. doi: 10.2337/dc07-0419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Denis GV, Obin MS. ‘Metabolically healthy obesity’: Origins and implications. Mol Aspects Med. 2012 doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2012.10.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Iyer A, Fairlie DP, Prins JB, Hammock BD, Brown L. Inflammatory lipid mediators in adipocyte function and obesity. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2010;6:71–82. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2009.264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kim CS, Park HS, Kawada T, Kim JH, Lim D, Hubbard NE, et al. Circulating levels of MCP-1 and IL-8 are elevated in human obese subjects and associated with obesity-related parameters. Int J Obes (Lond) 2006;30:1347–55. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lemieux I, Pascot A, Prud'homme D, Almeras N, Bogaty P, Nadeau A, et al. Elevated C-reactive protein: another component of the atherothrombotic profile of abdominal obesity. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2001;21:961–7. doi: 10.1161/01.atv.21.6.961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Pi-Sunyer FX. The epidemiology of central fat distribution in relation to disease. Nutr Rev. 2004;62:S120–S126. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2004.tb00081.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Lee MJ, Wu Y, Fried SK. Adipose tissue heterogeneity: implication of depot differences in adipose tissue for obesity complications. Mol Aspects Med. 2013;34:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2012.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Farooqi IS, O'Rahilly S. Leptin: a pivotal regulator of human energy homeostasis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:980S–4S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.26788C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Housa D, Housova J, Vernerova Z, Haluzik M. Adipocytokines and cancer. Physiol Res. 2006;55:233–44. doi: 10.33549/physiolres.930848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Sharma D, Saxena NK, Vertino PM, Anania FA. Leptin promotes the proliferative response and invasiveness in human endometrial cancer cells by activating multiple signal-transduction pathways. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2006;13:629–40. doi: 10.1677/erc.1.01169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Cohen DH, LeRoith D. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cancer: the insulin and IGF connection. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2012;19:F27–F45. doi: 10.1530/ERC-11-0374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Kabat GC, Kim MY, Strickler HD, Shikany JM, Lane D, Luo J, et al. A longitudinal study of serum insulin and glucose levels in relation to colorectal cancer risk among postmenopausal women. Br J Cancer. 2012;106:227–32. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Ashwell M, Gunn P, Gibson S. Waist-to-height ratio is a better screening tool than waist circumference and BMI for adult cardiometabolic risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2012;13:275–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00952.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.