Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Height and lung cancer risk: A meta-analysis of observational studies

  • Fang Wang,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Respiration, Clinical Medical School of Yangzhou University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, Yangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Xingxiang Xu ,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    xuxx63@sina.com

    Affiliation Department of Respiration, Clinical Medical School of Yangzhou University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, Yangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Junjun Yang,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Resources, Software

    Affiliation Department of Respiration, Clinical Medical School of Yangzhou University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, Yangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Lingfeng Min,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Resources, Software, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Respiration, Clinical Medical School of Yangzhou University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, Yangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Sudong Liang,

    Roles Methodology

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Taizhou People's Hospital of Jiangsu Province, Taizhou, Jiangsu, China

    ⨯
  • Yong Chen

    Roles Methodology

    Affiliation Department of Medical Oncology, Clinical Medical School of Yangzhou University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, Yangzhou, China

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

The association between height and lung cancer risk has been investigated by epidemiological studies but the results are inconsistent. This meta-analysis was to evaluate whether the height is associated with lung cancer.

Methods

We identified relevant articles by searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, and reviewed the reference lists of selected papers. A random effect model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (OR) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Publication bias was estimated using Egger’s regression asymmetry test.

Results

We included a total 16 studies (15 prospective studies and one case–control study) on adult height and lung cancer risk in the meta-analysis. Overall, per 10-cm height increases were associated with increased risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.03–1.09, I2 = 43.6%).

Conclusions

In this meta-analysis, high adult height is related to increased lung cancer risk. Well-designed, large prospective studies are required to obtain a better indication of the relationship.

Citation: Wang F, Xu X, Yang J, Min L, Liang S, Chen Y (2017) Height and lung cancer risk: A meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS ONE 12(9): e0185316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185316

Editor: Olga Y. Gorlova, Dartmouth College Geisel School of Medicine, UNITED STATES

Received: March 3, 2017; Accepted: September 11, 2017; Published: September 26, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper. We used the following combinations of search terms: (“anthropometry” or “body size” or “height”) and (“lung” or “pulmonary”) and (“cancer” or “neoplasm” or “carcinoma”) to search in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases.

Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, China [grant numbers BK20160451 and BK20130456], and the Clinical Medicine Science and Technology Projects of Jiangsu Province, China [BL2012054].

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Lung cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide in terms of both incidence and mortality [1]. Although cigarette smoking and specific occupational exposure (e.g., indoor radon, household coal smoke) are major known risk factors for lung cancer, the etiology of lung cancer remains largely elusive [2].

Adult height, which is determined by both genetic and environmental factors [3], is considered a biomarker that reflects the interplay of genetic endowment and various early-life experiences and exposures (e.g., fetal, dietary, social, and psychological circumstances) [4–8]. As the study of height can provide insights into patterns of shared and differing early determinants of major diseases of later life, it would be informative to compare the associations of adult height with subsequent risk of a wide range of diseases. Previous epidemiologic studies and meta-analyses have reported positive associations between height and risk of all cancers combined and several specific cancers, including cancer of the breast[9], prostate [10], colorectal [11], kidney [12], ovary [13], pancreas [14], testis [15], and the endometrium [16], and malignant melanoma [9, 17, 18] and lymphohematopoietic malignancies [19], and have reported negative associations between height and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory disease [20–25]. Numerous studies have examined the relation between height and lung cancer [9, 26]; however, the results have been inconsistent. Many factors, including selection bias and confounding, can lead to inconsistencies in such studies. However, consensus has not been reached on whether height is a risk factor for lung cancer in both women and men. To evaluate the association between height and risk of lung cancer comprehensively, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Methods

Search strategy

A systematic literature search with no language restrictions was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies on the association between height and lung cancer incidence in humans. We searched all studies published before November 20, 2016. We used the following combinations of search terms: (“anthropometry” or “body size” or “height”) and (“lung” or “pulmonary”) and (“cancer” or “neoplasm” or “carcinoma”). In addition, we searched the reference lists of the retrieved papers for relevant articles.

Study selection criteria

We included studies that met the following criteria: (1) case–control or cohort study investigating the association between height and lung cancer; (2) the outcome was lung cancer incidence or mortality; (3) the exposure of interest was height; and (4) reported relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR) estimates with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (or sufficient data to calculate of these effect measures). We included studies in which height had been self-reported and in which it had been directly measured. When several articles reported results from the same study population, only the most recent or comprehensive study was included.

Data extraction

The following information was extracted from the included articles: first author’s last name, publication year, study name or source, country where the study was conducted, study period, study duration; follow-up period (cohort studies) or data collection (case–control studies), sample size(study participants, number of cases), sex, age, height assessment method (self-reported or measured), comparison of exposure level, and RRs or ORs and 95% CIs for the highest versus lowest height or per unit increase in height. If a study reported several adjustment models for potential confounding variables, we extracted the risk estimate of the most fully adjusted model. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the 9-star Newcastle Ottawa scale [27].

Statistical analysis

We used random effect models to calculate summary RRs and 95% CIs for the highest versus lowest height and for the quantitative analyses [28]. The average natural logarithm of the RRs was estimated, and the RR from each study was weighted by the inverse of its variance. Two-tailed P ≤ 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant. In studies using height as a categorical variable, we standardized all reported RRs into comparison of the risk of the higher group with that in the lower group. Therefore, when the lowest group was not referent, we used the method proposed by Hamling et al [29] to recalculate the RRs using the lowest one as reference.

In the quantitative analyses, twelve studies [9, 23, 30–39] had directly provided RRs for per unit increase in height. For four studies [40–43] that did not provide estimate for per unit, we compute study-specific slopes (linear trends) and 95% CIs from the natural logs of the RRs and CIs across categories of height using the method by Greenland and Longnecker [44]. The method requires that the number of cases and person–years or non-cases and the relative risks with the variance estimates are known for at least three quantitative categories of use. We estimated the distribution of cases or person-years in studies that did not report these but reported the total number of cases/person-years. For example, if the total number of person-years was provided and the exposure variable was categorized by quintiles, we divided the number of person-years by five. The median or mean level of height in each category was assigned to the corresponding relative risk for each study. If a study reported height expressed as a range, we estimated the mid-point in each category by calculating the average lower and upper bound. When the highest or lowest category was open-ended, we assumed that they were of the same length as the adjacent interval.

We estimated heterogeneity among studies using the Q test and the I2 statistic [45]. I2 takes values between 0% and 100%, and I2> 50% is considered a measure of high heterogeneity [46]. To examine whether the results could have been influenced by a single study or a study with an extreme result, we performed sensitivity analysis by removing one study at a time. Sources of heterogeneity were explored using subgroup analyses and random-effects meta-regression analysis, according to sex, outcome (incidence and mortality), height assessment (measured and self-measured), geographic location, and adjustment for confounding factors such as smoking, alcohol, and body mass index.

We evaluated potential publication bias using funnel plots, Egger’s regression test [47], and Begg’s rank correlation test [48]. P < 0.1 was considered to indicate statistically significant publication bias. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata 12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Literature search

The search retrieved 1504 publications: 598 and 906 studies from MEDLINE and EMBASE, respectively. A total 523 duplicate articles and another 955 articles were removed following the initial screening of titles and abstracts. Full-text copies of the remaining 26 potentially eligible studies were obtained. Of these, 10 were excluded because they had no data on the association of height with lung cancer risk (n = 8), did not involve adult height (n = 1), or had overlapping study populations (n = 1). Eventually, 16 studies [9, 23, 30–43] were included in the quantitative analysis, and seven [31, 32, 34, 40–43] were eligible or high versus low analysis (Fig 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flow diagram of the literature search.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185316.g001

Study characteristics

We identified 16 studies (15 cohort studies and one case–control study) that were included in the meta-analysis of height and lung cancer risk (Table 1). The studies included a total 4,709,101 individuals, with 33,824 cases of lung cancer risk, and were published from 1981 to 2014. Five of the studies were from Europe, seven from North America, and four from Asia/Australasia. Height was measured in eleven studies and was self-reported in 5 studies. Most studies additionally adjusted for a wide range of potential risk factors: 11 for smoking [9, 30–32, 34–38, 42, 43], six for alcohol [9, 32, 34, 36, 42, 43], and seven for body mass index [9, 30–32, 37, 38, 42].

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185316.t001

Analysis of high versus low height

Risk of lung cancer was increased (RR = 1.15; 95% CI 1.04–1.26) in individuals with a high height compared with those with a low height (Fig 2).Heterogeneity was not statistically significant (I2 = 20.6%, P = 0.260) among seven studies[32–34, 40–43].

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Analysis of high versus low height and lung cancer risk.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185316.g002

Quantitative analysis

We included 16 studies [9, 23, 30–43], which included 33,824 cases among 4,709,101 participants, in the quantitative analysis. The summary RR per 10-cm height increase was 1.06 (95% CI: 1.03–1.09), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 43.6%, P = 0.013) (Fig 3).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Per 10-cm height increase and lung cancer risk.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185316.g003

We conducted subgroup analysis according to study design, sex, geographical area, and adjustment for confounding factors (Table 2). The results were unchanged after we had performed the meta-analysis of the cohort studies (RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.03–1.09), but not in case-control study (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.80–1.28). A 10-cm increase in height was associated with a 9% increase in lung cancer risk in men (RR 1.09; 95% CI 1.04–1.15) and a 4% increase in women (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.99–1.09).Excluding four studies [21, 31, 33, 35]of mortality did not affect the results(RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02–1.09).A subgroup analysis of the assessment method of height was also performed. A significant association was observed among studies using the methods of measured (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.05–1.12), but not among studies using the methods of self-reported (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.99–1.06). When stratified by study location, only studies conducted in Europe (RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00–1.10) or Asia/Australasia (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.08–1.17) demonstrated a significant association between height and lung cancer risk, but not those conducted in North America (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.99–1.07). The subgroup analysis results were consistent when stratified by the outcome of lung cancer and adjustment for confounding factors. Most subgroups had statistically significant heterogeneity.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Quantitative subgroup analyses of height and lung cancer risk.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185316.t002

In the sensitivity analysis, the influence of each study on the pooled RR was examined by repeating the meta-analysis while omitting one study at a time. The 16 study-specific RRs ranged from1.07 (95%CI1.04–1.10) when the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study was excluded to1.05 (95% CI 1.02–1.08) when the Korean Adult Population Study was excluded, but were in general similar. This procedure proved that our results are reliable and robust.

No indication of publication bias was observed form either with the Egger’s test (P = 0.358) or Begg’s test (P = 0.673) (Fig 4).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Begg’s funnel plot with pseudo-95% CI for identifying publication bias in all studies for per 10-cm height increase and lung cancer.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185316.g004

Discussion

We found a similar, weakly positive association between height and lung cancer risk among men and women, although it was statistically significant only among men. Lung cancer risk increased6% for a 10-cm increase in height and a 15% increased risk for high versus low height. These associations were evident even after adjustment for smoking, alcohol, and body mass index, suggesting that height represents a robust and independent factor of increased lung cancer risk.

It has been confirmed that taller people are at higher risk for breast and colorectal cancer [9], and taller height is a possible risk factor for several other cancers; however, the potential biological mechanisms that underlie the association between greater height and lung cancer risk are unclear. It is believed that a combination of genetics, childhood and adolescent dietary factors, and infections determine adult height [8]. Previous epidemiological studies have indicated that insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) might play an important role in the development of breast [49], colorectal [50], and lung cancer [51]. IGF-1 can stimulate cell proliferation, adhesion, and migration and inhibit apoptosis, which could ultimately result in cancer. However, it is unlikely that the IGF1 gene alone would explain the observed increased lung cancer risk associated with adult height. Other genes also revealed recently to influence adult height, such as the genes for p53, c-Myc, and estrogen receptor α (ERα), are thought to be crucial for tumorigenesis [52].

The overall analysis revealed that there was moderate heterogeneity. To investigate the potential source of heterogeneity, we carried out subgroup analysis according to study design, sex, geographical area, height assessment method, and adjustment for confounding. However, we did not find an explanation for the heterogeneity, as it persisted in most subgroup analyses. Such heterogeneity may be due other reasons not included in our subgroups, such as different adjustments for confounding factors.

Our meta-analysis has several strengths. First, it included a larger sample size (33,824 cases among 4,907,101participants) and summarized statistics which provided sufficient power to detect the association between height and lung cancer risk. Second, we used two methods to investigate the association between height and lung cancer risk, the meta-analysis by categories of height and quantitative analysis. Third, we conducted several subgroup analyses according to study characteristics, study quality scores, and adjustment for a wide range of potential confounding variables, and our findings were generally robust. Moreover, we used the Newcastle–Ottawa scale to evaluate the quality of the eligible studies, and studies included in our meta-analysis were deemed high quality because their total scores ranged 7–9.

Nevertheless, our study also has several limitations. First, although the included studies controlled for various known risk factors for lung cancer, we cannot rule out the possibility of unknown or residual confounding by dietary, behavioral, or physical activity factors. Second, the results may have been influenced by smoking, as cigarette smoke exposure has been established as an independent risk factor for developing lung cancer, but when we adjusted for smoking and age, the results did not change. Third, various height assessments were used in our analysis. Some studies used self-reporting to assess height, which may have led to overestimation of the participants’ true heights. However, the subgroup analysis revealed no substantial change in the analysis that included only the studies that relied on measured height. Finally, we cannot preclude the possibility that we might have overlooked other unpublished studies, despite our extensive literature search. The potential publication bias may have been because studies with null effects are less easily published than those reporting positive effects, therefore it was difficult for us to obtain such studies, although Egger’s test or Begg’s test did not reveal the presence of publication bias.

In conclusion, the present data suggest a positive association between height and lung cancer risk. The mechanisms involved are likely to be complex. Additional studies are warranted to extend our findings and to clarify the unknown mechanisms. In addition, given the unexplained heterogeneity, further studies are needed before a conclusion can be drawn.

Supporting information

S1 File. PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185316.s001

(DOC)

S2 File. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185316.s002

(DOC)

References

  1. 1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2011;61(2):69–90. Epub 2011/02/08. pmid:21296855.
  2. 2. Mao Y, Yang D, He J, Krasna MJ. Epidemiology of Lung Cancer. Surgical oncology clinics of North America. 2016;25(3):439–45. Epub 2016/06/05. pmid:27261907.
  3. 3. Gunnell D, Okasha M, Smith GD, Oliver SE, Sandhu J, Holly JM. Height, leg length, and cancer risk: a systematic review. Epidemiologic reviews. 2001;23(2):313–42. Epub 2002/08/24. pmid:12192740.
  4. 4. Batty GD, Shipley MJ, Gunnell D, Huxley R, Kivimaki M, Woodward M, et al. Height, wealth, and health: an overview with new data from three longitudinal studies. Economics and human biology. 2009;7(2):137–52. Epub 2009/07/25. pmid:19628438.
  5. 5. Lango Allen H, Estrada K, Lettre G, Berndt SI, Weedon MN, Rivadeneira F, et al. Hundreds of variants clustered in genomic loci and biological pathways affect human height. Nature. 2010;467(7317):832–8. Epub 2010/10/01. pmid:20881960; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc2955183.
  6. 6. Lynch J, Smith GD. A life course approach to chronic disease epidemiology. Annual review of public health. 2005;26:1–35. Epub 2005/03/12. pmid:15760279.
  7. 7. Perola M, Sammalisto S, Hiekkalinna T, Martin NG, Visscher PM, Montgomery GW, et al. Combined genome scans for body stature in 6,602 European twins: evidence for common Caucasian loci. PLoS genetics. 2007;3(6):e97. Epub 2007/06/15. pmid:17559308; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc1892350.
  8. 8. Silventoinen K. Determinants of variation in adult body height. Journal of biosocial science. 2003;35(2):263–85. Epub 2003/04/01. pmid:12664962.
  9. 9. Green J, Cairns BJ, Casabonne D, Wright FL, Reeves G, Beral V. Height and cancer incidence in the Million Women Study: prospective cohort, and meta-analysis of prospective studies of height and total cancer risk. The Lancet Oncology. 2011;12(8):785–94. Epub 2011/07/26. pmid:21782509; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3148429.
  10. 10. Zuccolo L, Harris R, Gunnell D, Oliver S, Lane JA, Davis M, et al. Height and prostate cancer risk: a large nested case-control study (ProtecT) and meta-analysis. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2008;17(9):2325–36. Epub 2008/09/05. pmid:18768501; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc2566735.
  11. 11. Engeland A, Tretli S, Austad G, Bjorge T. Height and body mass index in relation to colorectal and gallbladder cancer in two million Norwegian men and women. Cancer causes & control: CCC. 2005;16(8):987–96. Epub 2005/09/01. pmid:16132807.
  12. 12. Liang S, Lv G, Chen W, Jiang J, Wang J. Height and kidney cancer risk: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology. 2015;141(10):1799–807. Epub 2014/11/13. pmid:25388591.
  13. 13. Engeland A, Tretli S, Bjorge T. Height, body mass index, and ovarian cancer: a follow-up of 1.1 million Norwegian women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2003;95(16):1244–8. Epub 2003/08/21. pmid:12928351.
  14. 14. Aune D, Vieira AR, Chan DS, Navarro Rosenblatt DA, Vieira R, Greenwood DC, et al. Height and pancreatic cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Cancer causes & control: CCC. 2012;23(8):1213–22. Epub 2012/06/13. pmid:22689322.
  15. 15. Lerro CC, McGlynn KA, Cook MB. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between body size and testicular cancer. British journal of cancer. 2010;103(9):1467–74. Epub 2010/10/28. pmid:20978513; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc2990613.
  16. 16. Bjorge T, Engeland A, Tretli S, Weiderpass E. Body size in relation to cancer of the uterine corpus in 1 million Norwegian women. International journal of cancer. 2007;120(2):378–83. Epub 2006/10/27. pmid:17066451.
  17. 17. Olsen CM, Green AC, Zens MS, Stukel TA, Bataille V, Berwick M, et al. Anthropometric factors and risk of melanoma in women: a pooled analysis. International journal of cancer. 2008;122(5):1100–8. Epub 2007/11/09. pmid:17990316.
  18. 18. Thune I, Olsen A, Albrektsen G, Tretli S. Cutaneous malignant melanoma: association with height, weight and body-surface area. a prospective study in Norway. International journal of cancer. 1993;55(4):555–61. Epub 1993/10/21. pmid:8406981.
  19. 19. Engeland A, Tretli S, Hansen S, Bjorge T. Height and body mass index and risk of lymphohematopoietic malignancies in two million Norwegian men and women. American journal of epidemiology. 2007;165(1):44–52. Epub 2006/10/17. pmid:17041129.
  20. 20. Marmot MG, Shipley MJ, Rose G. Inequalities in death—specific explanations of a general pattern? Lancet (London, England). 1984;1(8384):1003–6. Epub 1984/05/05. pmid:6143919.
  21. 21. Peck AM, Vagero DH. Adult body height, self perceived health and mortality in the Swedish population. Journal of epidemiology and community health. 1989;43(4):380–4. Epub 1989/12/01. pmid:2614330; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc1052878.
  22. 22. Cook NR, Hebert PR, Satterfield S, Taylor JO, Buring JE, Hennekens CH. Height, lung function, and mortality from cardiovascular disease among the elderly. American journal of epidemiology. 1994;139(11):1066–76. Epub 1994/06/01. pmid:8192139.
  23. 23. Leon DA, Smith GD, Shipley M, Strachan D. Adult height and mortality in London: early life, socioeconomic confounding, or shrinkage? Journal of epidemiology and community health. 1995;49(1):5–9. Epub 1995/02/01. pmid:7707006; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc1060066.
  24. 24. Davey Smith G, Hart C, Upton M, Hole D, Gillis C, Watt G, et al. Height and risk of death among men and women: aetiological implications of associations with cardiorespiratory disease and cancer mortality. Journal of epidemiology and community health. 2000;54(2):97–103. Epub 2000/03/15. pmid:10715741; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc1731616.
  25. 25. Jousilahti P, Tuomilehto J, Vartiainen E, Eriksson J, Puska P. Relation of adult height to cause-specific and total mortality: a prospective follow-up study of 31,199 middle-aged men and women in Finland. American journal of epidemiology. 2000;151(11):1112–20. Epub 2000/06/29. pmid:10873136.
  26. 26. Khankari NK, Shu XO, Wen W, Kraft P, Lindstrom S, Peters U, et al. Association between Adult Height and Risk of Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer: Results from Meta-analyses of Prospective Studies and Mendelian Randomization Analyses. 2016;13(9):e1002118. pmid:27598322.
  27. 27. Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle—Scale for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2000.
  28. 28. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled clinical trials. 1986;7(3):177–88. Epub 1986/09/01. pmid:3802833.
  29. 29. Hamling J, Lee P, Weitkunat R, Ambuhl M. Facilitating meta-analyses by deriving relative effect and precision estimates for alternative comparisons from a set of estimates presented by exposure level or disease category. Statistics in medicine. 2008;27(7):954–70. pmid:17676579.
  30. 30. Gunnell D, May M, Ben-Shlomo Y, Yarnell J, Smith GD. Height, leg length, and cancer: the Caerphilly Study. Nutr Cancer. 2003;47(1):34–9. Epub 2004/02/11. pmid:14769535.
  31. 31. Batty GD, Shipley MJ, Langenberg C, Marmot MG, Davey Smith G. Adult height in relation to mortality from 14 cancer sites in men in London (UK): evidence from the original Whitehall study. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2006;17(1):157–66. Epub 2005/10/27. pmid:16249213.
  32. 32. Sung J, Song YM, Lawlor DA, Smith GD, Ebrahim S. Height and site-specific cancer risk: A cohort study of a korean adult population. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(1):53–64. pmid:19403842.
  33. 33. Batty GD, Barzi F, Woodward M, Jamrozik K, Woo J, Kim HC, et al. Adult height and cancer mortality in Asia: the Asia Pacific Cohort Studies Collaboration. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2010;21(3):646–54. Epub 2009/11/06. pmid:19889610; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc4170779.
  34. 34. Tang R-Q, Zheng W, Li H-L, Gao Y-T, Shu X-O, Xiang Y-B. Prospective cohort study of body height and cancer incidence among adult men and women in Shanghai. Tumor 2012;32(12):27–41.
  35. 35. Wormser D, Angelantonio ED, Kaptoge S, Wood AR, Gao P. Adult height and the risk of cause-specific death and vascular morbidity in 1 million people: individual participant meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(5):1419–33. Epub 2012/07/25. pmid:22825588; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3465767.
  36. 36. Kabat GC, Anderson ML, Heo M, Hosgood HD 3rd, Kamensky V, Bea JW, et al. Adult stature and risk of cancer at different anatomic sites in a cohort of postmenopausal women. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2013;22(8):1353–63. pmid:23887996.
  37. 37. Kabat GC, Heo M, Kamensky V, Miller AB, Rohan TE. Adult height in relation to risk of cancer in a cohort of Canadian women. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(5):1125–32. pmid:22753236.
  38. 38. Kabat GC, Kim MY, Hollenbeck AR, Rohan TE. Attained height, sex, and risk of cancer at different anatomic sites in the NIH-AARP diet and health study. Cancer Causes Control. 2014;25(12):1697–706. pmid:25307804.
  39. 39. Walter RB, Brasky TM, Buckley SA, Potter JD, White E. Height as an explanatory factor for sex differences in human cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2013;105(12):860–8. Epub 2013/05/28. pmid:23708052; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3687370.
  40. 40. Albanes D, Jones DY, Schatzkin A, Micozzi MS, Taylor PR. Adult stature and risk of cancer. Cancer research. 1988;48(6):1658–62. Epub 1988/03/15. pmid:3345534.
  41. 41. Drinkard CR, Sellers TA, Potter JD, Zheng W, Bostick RM, Nelson CL, et al. Association of body mass index and body fat distribution with risk of lung cancer in older women. American journal of epidemiology. 1995;142(6):600–7. Epub 1995/09/15. pmid:7653468.
  42. 42. Hebert PR, Ajani U, Cook NR, Lee IM, Chan KS, Hennekens CH. Adult height and incidence of cancer in male physicians (United States). Cancer causes & control: CCC. 1997;8(4):591–7. Epub 1997/07/01. pmid:9242474.
  43. 43. Minami Y, Tochigi T, Kawamura S, Tateno H, Hoshi S, Nishino Y, et al. Height, urban-born and prostate cancer risk in Japanese men. Japanese journal of clinical oncology. 2008;38(3):205–13. Epub 2008/02/15. pmid:18272473.
  44. 44. Greenland S, Longnecker MP. Methods for trend estimation from summarized dose-response data, with applications to meta-analysis. American journal of epidemiology. 1992;135(11):1301–9. Epub 1992/06/01. pmid:1626547.
  45. 45. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine. 2002;21(11):1539–58. Epub 2002/07/12. pmid:12111919.
  46. 46. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2003;327(7414):557–60. Epub 2003/09/06. pmid:12958120; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc192859.
  47. 47. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1997;315(7109):629–34. Epub 1997/10/06. pmid:9310563; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc2127453.
  48. 48. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–101. Epub 1994/12/01. pmid:7786990.
  49. 49. Key TJ, Appleby PN, Reeves GK, Roddam AW. Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), IGF binding protein 3 (IGFBP3), and breast cancer risk: pooled individual data analysis of 17 prospective studies. The Lancet Oncology. 2010;11(6):530–42. Epub 2010/05/18. pmid:20472501; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3113287.
  50. 50. Rinaldi S, Cleveland R, Norat T, Biessy C, Rohrmann S, Linseisen J, et al. Serum levels of IGF-I, IGFBP-3 and colorectal cancer risk: results from the EPIC cohort, plus a meta-analysis of prospective studies. International journal of cancer. 2010;126(7):1702–15. Epub 2009/10/08. pmid:19810099.
  51. 51. Mao Y, Pan S, Wen SW, Johnson KC. Physical activity and the risk of lung cancer in Canada. American journal of epidemiology. 2003;158(6):564–75. Epub 2003/09/11. pmid:12965882.
  52. 52. Tripaldi R, Stuppia L, Alberti S. Human height genes and cancer. Biochimica et biophysica acta. 2013;1836(1):27–41. Epub 2013/02/23. pmid:23428607.