Search

Objectives: Physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are associated with higher breast cancer risk in observational studies, but ascribing causality is difficult. Mendelian randomisation (MR) assesses causality by simulating randomised trial groups using genotype. We assessed whether lifelong physical activity or sedentary time, assessed using genotype, may be causally associated with breast cancer risk overall, pre/post-menopause, and by case-groups defined by tumour characteristics., Methods: We performed two-sample inverse-variance-weighted MR using individual-level Breast Cancer Association Consortium case-control data from 130 957 European-ancestry women (69 838 invasive cases), and published UK Biobank data (n=91 105-377 234). Genetic instruments were single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank with wrist-worn accelerometer-measured overall physical activity (n snps =5) or sedentary time (n snps =6), or accelerometer-measured (n snps =1) or self-reported (n snps =5) vigorous physical activity., Results: Greater genetically-predicted overall activity was associated with lower breast cancer overall risk (OR=0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.83 per-standard deviation (SD;~8 milligravities acceleration)) and for most case-groups. Genetically-predicted vigorous activity was associated with lower risk of pre/perimenopausal breast cancer (OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87,≥3 vs. 0 self-reported days/week), with consistent estimates for most case-groups. Greater genetically-predicted sedentary time was associated with higher hormone-receptor-negative tumour risk (OR=1.77; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.92 per-SD (~7% time spent sedentary)), with elevated estimates for most case-groups. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses examining pleiotropy (including weighted-median-MR, MR-Egger)., Conclusion: Our study provides strong evidence that greater overall physical activity, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk. More widespread adoption of active lifestyles may reduce the burden from the most common cancer in women., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MWB conducts research funded by Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer. PAF conducts research funded by Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer. He received honoraria from Roche, Novartis and Pfizer. AWK declares research funding to her institution from Myriad Genetics for an unrelated project (funding dates 2017-2019). SL declares grants and honoraria paid to her institution from Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and, outside the submitted work, grants and/or honoraria paid to her institution from AbbVie, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, PrIME/Medscape, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lilly, Samsung, BMS, Puma, Immunomedics, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Merck, GlaxoSmithKlein, EirGenix, and Bayer, and personal fees from Chugai; SL also has a patent EP14153692.0 pending. UM declares stock ownership in Abcodia Ltd. RAM has been a consultant for Pharmavite. No other authors have conflicts to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The effect of physical activity on breast cancer risk may be partly mediated by sex steroid hormones. This review synthesized and appraised the evidence for an effect of physical activity on sex steroid hormones. Systematic searches were performed using MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and SPORTDiscus to identify experimental studies and prospective cohort studies that examined physical activity and estrogens, progestins, and/or androgens, as well as sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) and glucocorticoids in pre- and postmenopausal women. Meta-analyses were performed to generate effect estimates. Risk of bias was assessed, and the GRADE system was used to appraise quality of the evidence. Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCT), 81 nonrandomized interventions, and six observational studies were included. Estrogens, progesterone, and androgens mostly decreased, and SHBG increased, in response to physical activity. Effect sizes were small, and evidence quality was graded moderate or high for each outcome. Reductions in select sex steroid hormones following exercise supports the biological plausibility of the first part of the physical activity-sex hormone-breast cancer pathway. The confirmed effect of physical activity on decreasing circulating sex steroid hormones supports its causal role in preventing breast cancer. See related reviews by Lynch et al., p. 11 and Drummond et al., p. 28 ., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: It is not always clear whether physical activity is causally related to health outcomes, or whether the associations are induced through confounding or other biases. Randomized controlled trials of physical activity are not feasible when outcomes of interest are rare or develop over many years. Thus, we need methods to improve causal inference in observational physical activity studies., Methods: We outline a range of approaches that can improve causal inference in observational physical activity research, and also discuss the impact of measurement error on results and methods to minimize this., Results: Key concepts and methods described include directed acyclic graphs, quantitative bias analysis, Mendelian randomization, and potential outcomes approaches which include propensity scores, g methods, and causal mediation., Conclusions: We provide a brief overview of some contemporary epidemiological methods that are beginning to be used in physical activity research. Adoption of these methods will help build a stronger body of evidence for the health benefits of physical activity.

Background: Questions remain about the effect on mortality of physical activity and sedentary behaviour over time. We summarized the evidence from studies that assessed exposure from multiple time points and critiqued the analytic approaches used.Methods: A search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Scopus and Web of Science up to January 2021 for studies of repeatedly assessed physical activity or sedentary behaviour in relation to all-cause or cause-specific mortality. Relative risks from individual studies were extracted. Each study was assessed for risk of bias from multiple domains.Results: We identified 64 eligible studies (57 on physical activity, 6 on sedentary behaviour, 1 on both). Cox regression with a time-fixed exposure history (n = 45) or time-varying covariates (n = 13) were the most frequently used methods. Only four studies used g-methods, which are designed to adjust for time-varying confounding. Risk of bias arose primarily from inadequate adjustment for time-varying confounders, participant selection, exposure classification and changes from measured exposure. Despite heterogeneity in methods, most studies found that being consistently or increasingly active over adulthood was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular-disease mortality compared with being always inactive. Few studies examined physical-activity changes and cancer mortality or effects of sedentary-behaviour changes on mortality outcomes.Conclusions: Accumulating more evidence using longitudinal data while addressing the methodological challenges would provide greater insight into the health effects of initiating or maintaining a more active and less sedentary lifestyle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]