Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Jun 30;25(9):1311–1316. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0218

Pet Ownership and Cancer Risk in the Women’s Health Initiative

David O Garcia 1, Eric M Lander 2, Betsy C Wertheim 3, JoAnn E Manson 4, Stella L Volpe 5, Rowan T Chlebowski 6, Marcia L Stefanick 7, Lawrence S Lessin 8, Lewis H Kuller 9, Cynthia A Thomson 1
PMCID: PMC5010503  NIHMSID: NIHMS800326  PMID: 27365150

Abstract

Background

Pet ownership and cancer are both highly prevalent in the U.S. Evidence suggest associations may exist between this potentially modifiable factor and cancer prevention, though studies are sparse. The present report examined whether pet ownership (dog, cat, or bird) is associated with lower risk for total cancer and site-specific obesity-related cancers.

Methods

A prospective analysis of 123,560 participants (20,981 dog owners; 19,288 cat owners; 1,338 bird owners; and 81,953 non-pet owners) enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) observational study and clinical trials. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between pet ownership and cancer, adjusted for potential confounders.

Results

There were no significant relationships between ownership of a dog, cat, or bird and incidence of cancer overall. When site-specific cancers were examined, no associations were observed after adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Conclusion

Pet ownership had no association with overall cancer incidence.

Impact

This is the first large epidemiological study to date to explore relationships between pet ownership and cancer risk, as well as associated risks for individual cancer types. This study requires replication in other sizable, diverse cohorts.

Keywords: pet owner, dog, cat, bird, cancer risk

INTRODUCTION

Cancer is among the leading causes of death in the United States (1). The incidence of cancer is linked to several modifiable behavioral and lifestyle risk factors such as obesity, physical inactivity, and sedentary behavior (2, 3). Furthermore, cancer has been positively associated with numerous environmental risk factors (4) and stress related psychosocial factors (5). Efforts to identify other potentially modifiable factors that may be associated with lower cancer risk are warranted.

According to the 2015–2016 National Pet Owners Survey, 65% of U.S. households (79.7 million) own a pet (6). Given this estimate and the health benefits pets provide, the “One Health” agenda is advocating for an integration of human, animal, environmental, and ecosystem health (7). Several studies have shown that the presence of dogs and cats in households is associated with reductions in the risk of atopic diseases related to increased environmental exposure to endotoxins (8–10). Consequently, it has been suggested that dog and cat ownership may improve immune function and play a protective role in the carcinogenesis of cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (11, 12). Despite this evidence, specific biological mechanisms linking pet ownership to cancer are lacking and efforts to identify an association between pet ownership (dogs, cats, or birds) and cancer risk have been limited to case-control studies with mixed results (12–19). For example, Tranah and colleagues (13) demonstrated dog ownership and cat ownership at any time was associated with a lower risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as compared to never owning a pet. Conversely, Laumbacher et al. (12) found that 69 breast cancer patients in Germany were significantly more likely to own dogs as compared to 1,320 age-matched controls. These findings, and the fact that pet ownership is a potentially modifiable exposure, support the need for further investigation of the relationship between pet ownership and cancer risk. The purpose of the present study was to expand upon existing evidence using findings from the well-characterized, diverse sample of over 160,000 postmenopausal women enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) observational study and clinical trials (20, 21). The relationships between pet ownership and cancer risk were evaluated under the hypothesis that pet ownership compared to not owning a pet would be associated with lower risk for total cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study design and sample

Between 1993 and 1998, the WHI recruited a large and diverse sample of postmenopausal women (50 to 79 years of age) to participate in one or more clinical trials (n = 68,132) or an observational study (n = 93,676) (20). Detailed information regarding the study design has been published elsewhere (20). In brief, the clinical trials included a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of hormone therapy (estrogen alone or estrogen plus progestin), a trial of calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and a low-fat diet modification trial. Women could enroll in one or more clinical trials if they met eligibility criteria. Women found to be ineligible, unwilling, or not interested in participating in a clinical trial were invited to participate in the observational study. All women provided written informed consent prior to enrollment, and study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the 40 U.S. participating clinical centers. Women were excluded from the present analysis if information on pet ownership was missing (n = 1,824), if they owned multiple types of pets (n = 11,540), or had pets other than dogs, cats, or birds (n = 7,048). An additional 14,152 women with a personal history of cancer (or unknown personal history of cancer) were excluded, plus 546 with missing follow-up data regarding health status that would inform on any new cancer diagnosis. A further 2,708 and 430 women who had incident cancer or death, respectively, within the first 2 years of follow-up, were excluded. Thus, the final analytic cohort included 123,560 participants, of which 19,396 (15.7%) developed cancer during follow-up (mean follow-up time 11.0 ± 5.0 years; 1,362,658.1 person-years of follow-up).

Pet ownership

For the purpose of this analysis, women were identified as a pet owner if they self-reported at baseline that their current pet was a dog (n = 20,981), cat (n = 19,288), or bird (n = 1,338) (22). Non-pet owners (n = 81,953) were participants who did not report owning pets of any type at baseline.

Ascertainment of cancer outcomes

Cancer outcome definitions, documentation, and classifications applied within the WHI have been published in detail (23). Briefly, participants self-reported whether they had been diagnosed with any clinical outcomes on a pre-specified list, including any cancer, twice per year. In addition, enrolled women were expected to undergo cancer screenings including colonoscopies, pap smears, and mammograms. Self-report of cancer was verified by medical record and pathology review by a centrally trained WHI physician adjudicator at each of the participating clinical centers (23). Central adjudication and coding were conducted using the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results coding system (24). The current analysis includes solid tumor obesity-related cancers (invasive breast, colorectal, endometrial, kidney, bladder, stomach, lung, and ovarian) and lymphoma adjudicated through August 2014.

Covariates

Demographic information, personal habits, and psychosocial measures were collected at baseline using study-specific questionnaires (20). Available data included self-reported age, race/ethnicity, education (≤ high school, some college, ≥ college), neighborhood socioeconomic status (NSES) (0–100; higher scores indicating greater affluence), living alone status (no, yes), alcohol use (drinks/week), smoking pack-years (never smoker, < 5, 5 to 19, and ≥ 20), hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use (never, former, current), and history of diabetes (no, yes). Depression was measured by using participant responses to the Burmam 8-item scale (25). Values range from 0–1, with higher scores indicating greater depression symptomatology. A threshold of 0.06 represents women who experienced symptoms consistent with major depressive disorders (25). Social support was measured with 9 items from the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (26). Total scores are the sum of scores for the 9 items and range from 9–45. Additional exposures suggested to alter cancer diagnosis include overweight/obesity (27, 28), diet quality (29), and physical activity (30). Height, weight, and waist circumference (WC) were measured at baseline by certified staff using standardized procedures and instruments. Body Mass Index (BMI) (kg/m2) and WC were categorized according to standard cutoffs (31). Estimates of overall diet quality were calculated according the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2005 (32, 33). Physical activity was measured using a validated self-reported questionnaire (34, 35) and categorized a priori as ≥ 7.5 MET-hr/wk (consistent with current federal guidelines of 150 min/wk) (36, 37).

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics were compared between pet owners (dog, cat, or bird) and non-pet owners using chi-squared tests for categorical variables or ANOVA for continuous variables. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between pet ownership and cancer, adjusted for potential confounders, identified as variables associated with both pet ownership and any cancer (p < 0.10). Thus, multivariate models were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, NSES, education, BMI, waist circumference, smoking, alcohol, HEI-2005, physical activity, HRT use, history of diabetes, living alone, and social support. Participants were censored at the time of last known contact or death; in the analysis of specific cancers, women were not censored at the occurrence of another cancer. Multiple comparisons were corrected using Bonferroni adjustment. Since there were nine cancer types tested, a p-value had to be lower than 0.006 to be statistically significant for multiple comparisons adjustment. Specific to breast cancer models, women without a mammogram within 2 years before baseline were excluded. All analyses were conducted using Stata 14.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of study participants

The final analytical sample comprised 123,560 participants (20,981 dog owners; 19,288 cat owners; 1,338 bird owners; and 81,953 non-pet owners) with the majority reported to be non-Hispanic white and well educated (Table 1). Pet owners were generally younger, less likely to live alone, and reported higher HEI-2005 scores, less time engaging in physical activity, and more pack-years of smoking compared to non-pet owners. In addition, dog and bird owners had higher mean BMI than non-pet owners.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of women according to pet ownership status: % or mean ± SD (Women’s Health Initiative, United States, 1993–1998)

Characteristicsa No pets n = 81,953 Dog(s) only n = 20,981 Cat(s) only n = 19,288 Bird(s) only n = 1,338
Age (y)
 mean ± SD 64.1 ± 7.1 61.7 ± 7.0 61.8 ± 7.1 62.3 ± 7.4
Race/ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic white 80.4 80.6 91.1 75.0
 Black 11.4 8.69 3.66 6.28
 Hispanic 3.72 5.35 2.29 11.7
 Other/unknown 4.55 5.35 2.96 7.03
NSES 75.7 ± 8.8 75.4 ± 8.8 76.6 ± 7.8 73.8 ± 9.5
Education
 ≤ High school 23.6 23.2 17.7 32.8
 Some college 36.9 40.4 36.8 37.4
 ≥ College 39.5 36.5 45.6 29.7
BMI (kg/m2)
 < 25 36.0 32.6 37.2 32.0
 25–29.9 35.1 34.9 33.9 34.1
 ≥ 30 28.9 32.6 28.9 33.8
 mean ± SD 27.8 ± 5.8 28.3 ± 6.0 27.8 ± 6.0 28.5 ± 6.1
Waist circumference (cm)
 ≤ 88 61.8 58.7 61.5 56.9
 > 88 38.2 41.3 38.5 43.1
 mean ± SD 85.9 ± 13.6 87.1 ± 13.9 86.2 ± 14.1 87.6 ± 14.3
Smoking pack-years
 Never smoker 54.2 51.1 49.5 54.2
 < 5 14.3 14.6 15.0 14.6
 5 to < 20 14.1 15.0 14.9 12.8
 ≥ 20 17.4 19.4 20.6 18.4
Alcohol use (drink/wk)
 < 1 62.7 64.1 58.1 68.2
 1–7 25.9 24.6 28.5 22.6
 ≥ 7 11.3 11.2 13.4 9.28
HEI-2005 67.9 ± 10.6 66.2 ± 10.8 67.2 ± 10.7 66.9 ± 10.7
Physical activity (MET-hr/wk)
 < 7.5 44.5 48.4 46.6 49.0
 ≥ 7.5 55.5 51.6 53.4 51.0
 mean ± SD 12.7 ± 13.8 11.8 ± 13.4 12.2 ± 13.5 12.0 ± 13.3
HRT use
 Never 45.1 40.6 41.2 46.3
 Former 15.6 15.2 14.7 16.5
 Current 39.3 44.3 44.1 37.3
History of diabetes
 No 95.7 95.4 96.3 94.0
 Yes 4.26 4.59 3.69 5.98
Live alone
 No 67.6 78.3 69.2 71.0
 Yes 32.4 21.7 30.8 29.0
Depression score
 < 0.009 76.8 73.4 74.3 72.7
 0.009–0.06 13.3 14.5 14.8 15.7
 > 0.06 9.93 12.1 11.0 11.6
Social support construct 36.1 ± 7.7 36.0 ± 7.7 35.8 ± 7.7 35.1 ± 8.2
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: NSES, neighborhood socioeconomic status; HEI-2005, healthy eating index-2005; HRT, hormone replacement therapy

a

Missing data: NSES (n=12,058; 9.8%), education (n=907; 0.7%), BMI (n=1059; 0.9%), waist circumference (n=444; 0.4%), smoking pack-years (n=4050; 3.3%), alcohol (n=750; 0.6%), HEI-2005 (n=3719; 3.0%), physical activity (n=5599; 4.5%), HRT use (n=112; 0.1%), history of diabetes (n=99; 0.1%), live alone (n=13,521; 11.0%), depression (n=2999; 2.4%), social support (n=2805; 2.3%).

Pet ownership and cancer risk

In age-adjusted and multivariate models, there were no significant relationships between pet ownership (dog, cat, or bird) and incidence of cancer overall (Table 2). Cat ownership was associated with a 15% higher incidence of lung cancer in age-adjusted models (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02–1.29); this relationship was not statistically significant in the multivariate model after adjustment for multiple comparisons. However, in a sensitivity analysis restricted to never-smokers (Table 3), the association between cat ownership and lung cancer was still in the positive direction (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.80–1.59). In addition, cat ownership was associated with a 29% lower incidence of endometrial cancer (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52–0.95) compared to non-pet owners; however, this relationship was not statistically significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons. There were no significant associations between pet ownership (dog, cat, or bird) and overall cancer incidence or any other specific cancer types when stratifying by BMI, physical activity, or living alone (data not shown).

Table 2.

Associations between pet ownership and incident cancer (Women’s Health Initiative, United States, 1993–1998)

Cancer type No pets
Dog(s) only
Cat(s) only
Bird(s) only
Events n of 81,953 (%) HR Events n of 20,981 (%) HR (95% CI) Events n of 19,288 (%) HR (95% CI) Events n of 1,338 (%) HR (95% CI)
Any 12,827 (15.7) 3,241 (15.5) 3,139 (16.3) 189 (14.1)
 Age-adjusted 1.00 1.03 (0.99–1.07) 1.04 (1.00–1.09) 0.96 (0.83–1.11)
 Multivariatea 1.00 1.01 (0.96–1.06) 0.98 (0.93–1.03) 0.97 (0.81–1.15)
Breastb 3,525 (5.25) 905 (5.40) 890 (5.71) 46 (4.47)
 Age-adjusted 1.00 1.03 (0.96–1.11) 1.05 (0.98–1.13) 0.87 (0.65–1.16)
 Multivariatea 1.00 1.00 (0.91–1.09) 0.98 (0.90–1.07) 0.98 (0.70–1.37)
Colorectal 1,256 (1.53) 308 (1.47) 278 (1.44) 21 (1.57)
 Age-adjusted 1.00 1.08 (0.95–1.22) 1.01 (0.89–1.15) 1.15 (0.75–1.77)
 Multivariatea 1.00 1.03 (0.89–1.20) 0.88 (0.75–1.04) 0.84 (0.46–1.53)
Endometrial 734 (0.90) 167 (0.80) 190 (0.99) 12 (0.90)
 Age-adjusted 1.00 0.89 (0.75–1.05) 1.05 (0.90–1.24) 1.04 (0.59–1.84)
 Multivariatea 1.00 0.97 (0.80–1.17) 0.88 (0.72–1.08) 1.14 (0.59–2.21)
Kidney 288 (0.35) 56 (0.27) 59 (0.31) 7 (0.52)
 Age-adjusted 1.00 0.79 (0.60–1.06) 0.87 (0.66–1.15) 1.60 (0.75–3.38)
 Multivariatea 1.00 0.83 (0.59–1.16) 0.84 (0.60–1.17) 1.53 (0.63–3.73)
Bladder 356 (0.43) 84 (0.40) 93 (0.48) 3 (0.22)
 Age-adjusted 1.00 1.03 (0.81–1.31) 1.18 (0.94–1.48) 0.58 (0.19–1.81)
 Multivariatea 1.00 0.88 (0.65–1.19) 1.18 (0.90–1.54) 0.86 (0.27–2.68)
Stomach 115 (0.14) 25 (0.12) 32 (0.17) 1 (0.07)
 Age-adjusted 1.00 0.98 (0.64–1.52) 1.31 (0.88–1.94) n/a
 Multivariatea 1.00 0.97 (0.58–1.63) 1.27 (0.79–2.05) n/a
Lung 1,400 (1.71) 361 (1.72) 360 (1.87) 20 (1.49)
 Age-adjusted 1.00 1.11 (0.99–1.25) 1.15 (1.02–1.29) 0.98 (0.63–1.52)
 Multivariatea 1.00 1.01 (0.87–1.16) 1.04 (0.91–1.20) 0.79 (0.44–1.44)
Ovary 474 (0.58) 116 (0.55) 116 (0.60) 8 (0.60)
 Age-adjusted 1.00 0.98 (0.80–1.20) 1.02 (0.83–1.25) 1.09 (0.54–2.19)
 Multivariatea 1.00 1.08 (0.85–1.36) 1.02 (0.80–1.29) 1.20 (0.54–2.70)
Lymphoma 695 (0.85) 158 (0.75) 155 (0.80) 7 (0.52)
 Age-adjusted 1.00 0.96 (0.81–1.15) 0.98 (0.82–1.17) 0.68 (0.32–1.43)
 Multivariatea 1.00 1.04 (0.85–1.28) 0.95 (0.78–1.17) 0.42 (0.14–1.31)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval

a

Multivariate models adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, NSES, education, BMI, waist circumference, smoking pack-years, alcohol drinks/wk, HEI-2005, physical activity, HRT use, history of diabetes, living alone, and social support

b

Invasive breast cancer, restricted to women who reported having a mammogram within 2 years before baseline; total sample sizes reduced as follows: no pets (n = 67,113), dog(s) only (n = 16,751), cat(s) only (n = 15,597), bird only (n = 1,028)

Table 3.

Associations between pet ownership and incident cancer, restricted to never smokers (Women’s Health Initiative, United States, 1993–1998)

Cancer type No pets
Dog(s) only
Cat(s) only
Bird(s) only
Events n of 30,833 (%) HR Events n 7,456 (%) HR (95% CI)a Events n of 6,697 (%) HR (95% CI)a Events n of 488 (%) HR (95% CI)a
Any 4,405 (14.3) 1.00 1,050 (14.1) 1.02 (0.95–1.09) 939 (14.0) 0.96 (0.89–1.03) 70 (14.3) 1.06 (0.84–1.34)
Breastb 1,305 (5.12) 1.00 317 (5.30) 1.02 (0.90–1.15) 273 (4.97) 0.91 (0.80–1.04) 17 (4.49) 0.89 (0.55–1.43)
Colorectal 451 (1.46) 1.00 109 (1.46) 1.10 (0.89–1.36) 80 (1.19) 0.87 (0.69–1.11) 8 (1.64) 1.18 (0.58–2.37)
Endometrial 311 (1.01) 1.00 62 (0.83) 0.81 (0.61–1.06) 52 (0.78) 0.71 (0.52–0.95) 8 (1.64) 1.67 (0.83–3.37)
Kidney 114 (0.37) 1.00 19 (0.25) 0.74 (0.45–1.20) 17 (0.25) 0.70 (0.42–1.17) 4 (0.82) 2.22 (0.81–6.03)
Bladder 88 (0.29) 1.00 18 (0.24) 0.90 (0.54–1.51) 28 (0.42) 1.49 (0.97–2.30) 1 (0.20) 0.75 (0.10–5.36)
Stomach 48 (0.16) 1.00 7 (0.09) 0.69 (0.31–1.54) 9 (0.13) 1.01 (0.49–2.07) 0 (0.00) n/a
Lung 175 (0.57) 1.00 42 (0.56) 1.17 (0.83–1.65) 40 (0.60) 1.13 (0.80–1.59) 2 (0.41) 0.83 (0.21–3.36)
Ovary 174 (0.56) 1.00 41 (0.55) 1.01 (0.72–1.43) 45 (0.67) 1.16 (0.83–1.61) 3 (0.61) 1.17 (0.37–3.66)
Lymphoma 268 (0.87) 1.00 55 (0.74) 0.94 (0.70–1.26) 54 (0.81) 0.96 (0.72–1.29) 1 (0.20) 0.26 (0.04–1.85)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval

a

Multivariate models adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, NSES, education, BMI, waist circumference, smoking pack-years, alcohol drinks/wk, HEI-2005, physical activity, HRT use, history of diabetes, living alone, and social support

b

Invasive breast cancer, restricted to women who reported having a mammogram within 2 years before baseline; total sample sizes reduced as follows: no pets (n = 25,486), dog(s) only (n = 5,984), cat(s) only (n = 5,491), bird only (n = 379)

DISCUSSION

The present study is the largest prospective study, to our knowledge, that explores pet ownership and cancer risk. Of the 123,560 postmenopausal women included in the analysis, 19,396 incident cancers were reported. Pet ownership (dog, cat, or bird) was not found to be associated with overall cancer risk and no associations with specific cancers existed after adjustment for multiple comparisons. Notably, pet owners were more sedentary, had a higher pack year smoking history and a higher BMI compared to non-pet owners.

Our exploratory findings contribute to the limited literature on pet ownership and cancer risk. Tranah and colleagues (13) examined the relationship between dog and cat exposures and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in a case-control study (1,591 cases, mean age 57 years; and 2,515 controls, mean age 54 years) of men and women in the U.S. Dog and cat ownership at any time as compared to those who never owned a pet was associated with a 21% lower risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.54–0.94). Longer duration of cat and dog ownership was inversely associated with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma risk (p-trend=0.008 and 0.04, respectively). Although we did not have specific information on non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, we found no evidence to support an association between pet ownership and lymphoma. Laumbacher et al. (12) compared the frequency of pet ownership in 69 breast cancer patients and 1,320 age-matched controls in women ages ≥ 30 y or more living in Germany. Breast cancer patients were interviewed about keeping household pets at the moment of seeking consultation for immunotherapy. Approximately 37.7% of breast cancer patients owned a dog at the time of consultation and throughout the previous ten years compared to 14.8% in the age-matched control population (RR, 3.5; p < 0.001). There was no difference in cat ownership between the groups. Our data showed no evidence on an association between pet ownership and breast cancer risk regardless of the type of pet. Swensen et al. (14) demonstrated no association between exposure to pets (either any pet, dog, or cat) and the development of childhood leukemia (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89–1.20) in a case-control analysis (1,248 cases and 1,358 controls) of children in the U.S. and Canada. To our knowledge, the risk of developing other specific cancer types in dog and cat owners versus non-pet owners has not been examined previously.

While the present study did not demonstrate a significant association between cat ownership and incident lung cancer after adjustment for multiple comparisons, associations between pet ownership and altered immune function and desensitization to allergens are well accepted (7). Specifically, exposure to allergens from dander within the household (e.g., bedding, furniture, carpets) could be inhaled into the lungs, inciting a subtle, chronic immune response that leads to chronic inflammation and eventual cell cycle dysregulation (38). It is also possible second hand smoke exposure may be embedded in the fur and inhaled by its owner, promoting cell inflammation and lung tumorigenesis (39, 40). An exploratory analysis of current smokers in our study who owned either a dog or cat (or both) at baseline supports this hypothesis. Among current smokers, dog/cat ownership was associated with a 24% higher incidence of lung cancer in a multivariate model (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04–1.48). The most plausible explanation for this finding is that analytical adjustment may not be adequate given the strong association between smoking and lung cancer (41). These findings should be further evaluated to determine if they can be replicated in other cohorts.

Strengths and limitations

Our study’s strengths lie in our study sample, which has well characterized demographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables, and detailed long term exposure data for a diverse, large sample of older women including information regarding pet ownership. However, even though follow-up time was long on average, it may not have been long enough to observe an association between pet ownership and overall cancer risk. Further, the duration of pet ownership was not collected in our study, including the history of pet ownership or the number of pets present in the household. Common behavioral patterns of pet owners, such as dog walking time and physical exertion, were not discretely measured; although, we previously demonstrated that dog owners were more likely to walk ≥ 150 min/wk and be less sedentary than non-dog owners in the WHI (22). Moreover, there were only 20 cases of lung-cancer among bird owners in the present study. Thus, there is limited power to evaluate associations between bird ownership and lung-cancer risk. Finally, data for potential environmental mechanisms of carcinogenesis (e.g., occupational or home/outdoor endotoxin and pollutant exposure), immune status, or allergies of women that could have influenced our findings were not collected at baseline and therefore were not included in our investigation. Cat owners in particular may have an added environmental exposure related to the litter box particulates that could be explored in future investigations.

CONCLUSION

Pet ownership was not associated with overall cancer risk among postmenopausal women. To our knowledge, the current investigation, derived from the well-characterized WHI prospective study, is the first large epidemiological study that has explored pet ownership and overall cancer risk, as well as associated risks for individual cancer types. This study contributes to the sparse existing literature on pet ownership and cancer risk and raises the need for future analysis of other sizable, diverse cohorts. Future research should consider collection of environmental exposures that may differ for individuals with or without various pets.

Acknowledgments

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

Dr. Garcia was funded by the Arizona Cancer Center Support Grant P30CA23074 from the National Cancer Institute to complete this work. All study investigators received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through contracts HHSN268201100046C, HHSN268201100001C, HHSN268201100002C, HHSN268201100003C, HHSN268201100004C, and HHSN271201100004C.

Program Office: (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland) Jacques Rossouw, Shari Ludlam, Dale Burwen, Joan McGowan, Leslie Ford, and Nancy Geller Clinical Coordinating Center: Clinical Coordinating Center: (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA) Garnet Anderson, Ross Prentice, Andrea LaCroix, and Charles Kooperberg Investigators and Academic Centers: (Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) JoAnn E. Manson; (MedStar Health Research Institute/Howard University, Washington, DC) Barbara V. Howard; (Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford, CA) Marcia L. Stefanick; (The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH) Rebecca Jackson; (University of Arizona, Tucson/Phoenix, AZ) Cynthia A. Thomson; (University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY) Jean Wactawski-Wende; (University of Florida, Gainesville/Jacksonville, FL) Marian Limacher; (University of Iowa, Iowa City/Davenport, IA) Robert Wallace; (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA) Lewis Kuller; (Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC) Sally Shumaker Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study: (Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC) Sally Shumaker

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest Statement: Dr. Chlebowski reports grants from Genomic Health, Pfizer, Novartis, and Genentech during the conduct of the study; outside the submitted work. No other author disclosures to report.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00000611

References

  • 1.Minino AM. Death in the United States, 2011. NCHS Data Brief. 2013:1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Schottenfeld D, Beebe-Dimmer JL, Buffler PA, Omenn GS. Current perspective on the global and United States cancer burden attributable to lifestyle and environmental risk factors. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:97–117. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Spring B, Ockene JK, Gidding SS, Mozaffarian D, Moore S, Rosal MC, et al. Better population health through behavior change in adults: a call to action. Circulation. 2013;128:2169–76. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000435173.25936.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Danaei G, Vander Hoorn S, Lopez AD, Murray CJ, Ezzati M. Causes of cancer in the world: comparative risk assessment of nine behavioural and environmental risk factors. Lancet (London, England) 2005;366:1784–93. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67725-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mehnert A, Koch U. Psychological comorbidity and health-related quality of life and its association with awareness, utilization, and need for psychosocial support in a cancer register-based sample of long-term breast cancer survivors. Journal of psychosomatic research. 2008;64:383–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.American Pet Products Manufacturers Association I. 2015–2016 APPA National Pet Owners Survey. Greenwich, CT: 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Takashima GK, Day MJ. Setting the One Health agenda and the human-companion animal bond. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2014;11:11110–20. doi: 10.3390/ijerph111111110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ownby DR, Peterson EL, Wegienka G, Woodcroft KJ, Nicholas C, Zoratti E, et al. Are cats and dogs the major source of endotoxin in homes? Indoor Air. 2013;23:219–26. doi: 10.1111/ina.12016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ownby DR, Johnson CC, Peterson EL. Exposure to dogs and cats in the first year of life and risk of allergic sensitization at 6 to 7 years of age. Jama. 2002;288:963–72. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.8.963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Konradsen JR, Fujisawa T, van Hage M, Hedlin G, Hilger C, Kleine-Tebbe J, et al. Allergy to furry animals: New insights, diagnostic approaches, and challenges. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2015;135:616–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.08.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gern JE, Reardon CL, Hoffjan S, Nicolae D, Li Z, Roberg KA, et al. Effects of dog ownership and genotype on immune development and atopy in infancy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113:307–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2003.11.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Laumbacher B, Fellerhoff B, Herzberger B, Wank R. Do dogs harbour risk factors for human breast cancer? Med Hypotheses. 2006;67:21–6. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2006.01.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tranah GJ, Bracci PM, Holly EA. Domestic and farm-animal exposures and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in a population-based study in the San Francisco Bay Area. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2008;17:2382–7. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Swensen AR, Ross JA, Shu XO, Reaman GH, Steinbuch M, Robison LL. Pet ownership and childhood acute leukemia (USA and Canada) Cancer causes & control : CCC. 2001;12:301–3. doi: 10.1023/a:1011276417369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Holst PA, Kromhout D, Brand R. For debate: pet birds as an independent risk factor for lung cancer. Bmj. 1988;297:1319–21. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6659.1319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gardiner AJ, Forey BA, Lee PN. Avian exposure and bronchogenic carcinoma. Bmj. 1992;305:989–92. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6860.989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kohlmeier L, Arminger G, Bartolomeycik S, Bellach B, Rehm J, Thamm M. Pet birds as an independent risk factor for lung cancer: case-control study. Bmj. 1992;305:986–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6860.986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Freeman LEB, DeRoos AJ, Koutros S, Blair A, Ward MH, Alavanja M, et al. Poultry and livestock exposure and cancer risk among farmers in the agricultural health study. Cancer Causes & Control. 2012;23:663–70. doi: 10.1007/s10552-012-9921-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Alavanja MC, Brownson RC, Berger E, Lubin J, Modigh C. Avian exposure and risk of lung cancer in women in Missouri: population based case-control study. Bmj. 1996;313:1233–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7067.1233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Design of the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study. The Women’s Health Initiative Study Group. Controlled clinical trials. 1998;19:61–109. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00078-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hays J, Hunt JR, Hubbell FA, Anderson GL, Limacher M, Allen C, et al. The Women’s Health Initiative recruitment methods and results. Annals of epidemiology. 2003;13:S18–77. doi: 10.1016/s1047-2797(03)00042-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Garcia DO, Wertheim BC, Manson JE, Chlebowski RT, Volpe SL, Howard BV, et al. Relationships between dog ownership and physical activity in postmenopausal women. Preventive medicine. 2015;70:33–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Curb JD, McTiernan A, Heckbert SR, Kooperberg C, Stanford J, Nevitt M, et al. Outcomes ascertainment and adjudication methods in the Women’s Health Initiative. Annals of epidemiology. 2003;13:S122–8. doi: 10.1016/s1047-2797(03)00048-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Beresford SA, Johnson KC, Ritenbaugh C, Lasser NL, Snetselaar LG, Black HR, et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of colorectal cancer: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial. Jama. 2006;295:643–54. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.6.643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Burnam MA, Wells KB, Leake B, Landsverk J. Development of a brief screening instrument for detecting depressive disorders. Medical care. 1988;26:775–89. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198808000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey. Social science & medicine. 1991;32:705–14. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Vucenik I, Stains JP. Obesity and cancer risk: evidence, mechanisms, and recommendations. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2012;1271:37–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06750.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Neuhouser ML, Aragaki AK, Prentice RL, Manson JE, Chlebowski R, Carty CL, et al. Overweight, Obesity, and Postmenopausal Invasive Breast Cancer Risk: A Secondary Analysis of the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA oncology. 2015;1:611–21. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Arem H, Reedy J, Sampson J, Jiao L, Hollenbeck AR, Risch H, et al. The Healthy Eating Index 2005 and risk for pancreatic cancer in the NIH-AARP study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2013;105:1298–305. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.McTiernan A, Kooperberg C, White E, Wilcox S, Coates R, Adams-Campbell LL, et al. Recreational physical activity and the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: the Women’s Health Initiative Cohort Study. Jama. 2003;290:1331–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.10.1331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults--The Evidence Report. National Institutes of Health. Obesity research. 1998;6(Suppl 2):51S–209S. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Guenther PM, Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM. Development of the Healthy Eating Index-2005. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2008;108:1896–901. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Guenther PM, Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM, Reeve BB. Evaluation of the Healthy Eating Index-2005. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2008;108:1854–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pettee Gabriel K, McClain JJ, Lee CD, Swan PD, Alvar BA, Mitros MR, et al. Evaluation of physical activity measures used in middle-aged women. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2009;41:1403–12. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31819b2482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Meyer AM, Evenson KR, Morimoto L, Siscovick D, White E. Test-retest reliability of the Women’s Health Initiative physical activity questionnaire. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2009;41:530–8. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818ace55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Centers for Disease C and Prevention. Adult participation in aerobic and muscle-strengthening physical activities--United States, 2011. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2013;62:326–30. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nelson ME, Rejeski WJ, Blair SN, Duncan PW, Judge JO, King AC, et al. Physical activity and public health in older adults: recommendation from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2007;39:1435–45. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e3180616aa2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ihre E, Zetterstrom O. Increase in non-specific bronchial responsiveness after repeated inhalation of low doses of allergen. Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 1993;23:298–305. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.1993.tb00326.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.D’Anna C, Cigna D, Costanzo G, Ferraro M, Siena L, Vitulo P, et al. Cigarette smoke alters cell cycle and induces inflammation in lung fibroblasts. Life sciences. 2015;126:10–8. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2015.01.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Takahashi H, Ogata H, Nishigaki R, Broide DH, Karin M. Tobacco Smoke Promotes Lung Tumorigenesis by Triggering IKKβ- and JNK1-Dependent Inflammation. Cancer Cell. 17:89–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.12.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Cornfield J, Haenszel W, Hammond EC, Lilienfeld AM, Shimkin MB, Wynder EL. Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. International journal of epidemiology. 2009;38:1175–91. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyp289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES