CEBP CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 09 AM Call for Abstracts w/deadline
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zeegers, M. P.A.
Right arrow Articles by van den Brandt, P. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zeegers, M. P.A.
Right arrow Articles by van den Brandt, P. A.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 14, 1490-1495, June 2005
© 2005 American Association for Cancer Research

Physical Activity and the Risk of Prostate Cancer in The Netherlands Cohort Study, Results after 9.3 Years of Follow-up

Maurice P.A. Zeegers1,2,3, Miranda J.M. Dirx4 and Piet A. van den Brandt1

1 Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University; 2 Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, The University of Birmingham, Public Health Building, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom; 3 Department of General Practice, Comprehensive Cancer Institute Limburg, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer, Leuven, Belgium; and 4 Comprehensive Cancer Centre Limburg, Maastricht, the Netherlands

Requests for reprints: Maurice P.A. Zeegers, Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, The University of Birmingham, Public Health Building, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom. Phone: 44-121-414-6721; Fax: 44-121-414-7878. E-mail: m.p.zeegers{at}bham.ac.uk


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Background: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the relation between physical activity and prostate cancer risk with specific emphasis on interaction with body mass index (BMI) and baseline energy intake.

Methods: The association between prostate cancer and physical activity was evaluated in the Netherlands Cohort Study, conducted among 58,279 men ages 55 to 69 years at entry. Information regarding baseline nonoccupational physical activity, history of sports participation, and occupational physical activity was collected with a questionnaire in 1986. After 9.3 years, 1,386 incident prostate cancer cases were available for case-cohort analyses. Multivariate incidence rate ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using Cox regression analyses.

Results: Neither baseline nonoccupational physical activity (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.81-1.25 for >90 versus <30 minutes per day), history of sports participation (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.22 for ever versus never participated), nor occupational physical activity (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.70-1.18 for >12 versus <8 KJ/min energy expenditure in the longest held job) showed an inverse relation with prostate cancer risk. We found an increased risk of prostate cancer for men who were physically active for >1 hour per day in obese men (BMI > 30) and men with a high baseline energy intake.

Discussion: The results of this current study do not support the hypothesis that physical activity protects against prostate cancer in men.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Although prostate cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men in the European Union (1) and in the Netherlands (2), today, only few etiologic determinants for prostate cancer have been identified, including dietary habits (3, 4), race (5-7), family history (8), and genetic factors (9, 10). Only few of these postulated determinants have been confirmed consistently in epidemiologic studies and many are not suitable for primary prevention because these cannot be modified through, e.g., health education programs. A potential interesting and modifiable determinant for prostate cancer is physical activity (11).

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the influence of physical activity on prostate cancer, including alteration in endogenous hormones, energy balance, immune function, and antioxidant defense mechanisms. Physical activity increases production of sex hormone binding globulin, which results in low free testosterone levels that may alter prostate cancer risk (12, 13). Second, physical activity may enhance the immune system by improving the capacity and numbers of natural killer cells (14-16). Finally, acute exercise may promote free radical production, whereas chronic exercise improves free radical defenses by up-regulating the levels of antioxidants (16-18).

The association between physical activity and prostate cancer risk has been inconsistent across the previously conducted epidemiologic studies and it is not yet known what the magnitude of the effect is. In addition, it is not known what intensity, duration, and frequency of activity are required for a reduction in prostate cancer risk.

Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate the relation between physical activity and prostate cancer risk in an ongoing prospective cohort study in the Netherlands. Furthermore, we were interested in the possible interaction with other aspects of energy balance, such as body mass index (BMI) and baseline energy intake.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Cohort
We will only briefly outline the design of the Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS) because this has been reported in detail elsewhere (19). The NLCS was initiated in September 1986 and includes 58,279 men ages 55 to 69 years at the beginning of the study. The study population originated from 204 municipal registries throughout the country. All cohort members completed a mailed, self-administered questionnaire on risk factors for cancer, including baseline nonoccupational physical activity, history of sports participation, and occupational history.

For reasons of efficiency in data processing and analysis, the case-cohort approach (20, 21) was used. In a case-cohort approach, cases are derived from the entire cohort (providing numerator information for calculation of cancer incidence rates), whereas accumulated person-years at risk in the total cohort are estimated using a random subcohort sample (providing denominator information for the rates). The subcohort (n = 2,411 men) was sampled directly after identification of all cohort members and has been followed up biennially for vital status information.

Follow-up
Follow-up for incidence of prostate cancer was established by computerized record linkage with all nine cancer registries in the Netherlands and with the Dutch national data base of pathology reports (PALGA; ref. 22). Only two subcohort members were lost to follow-up and completeness of follow-up of cancer has been estimated to be at least 96% (23). The present analysis is restricted to cancer incidence in 9.3 years of follow-up, up to December 1995. After excluding prevalent cases (except for epithelial skin tumors), a total of 2,335 subcohort men and 1,386 incident, microscopically or histologically confirmed, primary prostate cancer cases were available for analyses.

Physical Activity
The collected data on physical activity and other risk factors from subcohort and prostate cancer cases were key entered twice by research assistants who were blinded with respect to subcohort/case status to minimize observer bias in coding and interpretation of the data.

Baseline Nonoccupational Physical Activity
Assessment of baseline nonoccupational physical activity was based on two questions. The first question was "How many minutes do you spend on average per day walking or cycling to your work, to go shopping or to take out your dog?" The subjects could fill in the number of minutes per day they spent on these activities. The total time spent per day on these activities were categorized (<30, 30-60, 60-90, or >90 minutes per day). The second question was "How many hours of your leisure time do you spend on average per week on the following activities: gardening/doing odd jobs, cycling/walking (other than in first question), and sports/exercise." Possible answers were never, <1, 1-2, or >2 h/wk. We added up the times spent on these activities to obtain an overall measure (in minutes per day). The subjects who engaged in a sport at baseline could also fill in the type of sport played. Baseline nonoccupational physical activity was calculated by adding up the number of minutes spent per day on biking/walking, shopping, and walking the dog and the number of hours spent per week on gardening/doing odd jobs, cycling/walking, and sports/exercise.

History of Sports Participation
Past sports activity was assessed by asking about the men's history of sports participation. For each type of sport, we recorded the number of hours per week spent on that sport, and the years in which the participant had engaged in the sport. A maximum of three sports could be mentioned. We first dichotomized the respondents as never/ever playing a sport. The total duration of sports activities in years was calculated by adding up the duration of all episodes of participation in a sport (accounting for any overlap between sports). The total numbers of hours per week that they had participated in each sport were also added up.

Occupational Physical Activity
Subjects were asked for the history of their last five occupations, with respect to job title and duration. In total, five jobs could be mentioned. We used information about the longest job ever held as well as information about the last occupation as indicators for the lifetime physical activity at work. Assessment of physical activity at work was based on job title. Two different measures of occupational physical activity have been used: (a) sitting time (hours per day) and (b) energy expenditure (kJ/min). The first measure was divided into three groups: low activity (>6 working hours per day spent sitting), moderate activity (2-6 hours per day sitting), and high activity (<2 working hours per day sitting). The second measure was based on a rating system developed by Hettinger et al. (24). Low activity included work with energy expenditure of <8 kJ/min, moderate activity was defined as energy expenditure between 8 and 12 kJ/min, and high activity corresponded to an activity level of >12 kJ/min.

Data Analysis
Previous analyses on prostate cancer in the NLCS revealed that age (years), alcohol intake from wine (g ethanol/d), BMI (kg/m2), energy intake (kcal/d), family history (no/yes), and level of education (low, medium, and high) were risk factors of prostate cancer within the NLCS (4, 8, 25-27). These covariates were considered potential confounders in the current analysis. Their association with physical activity has been studied in the subcohort. When investigating specific nonoccupational physical activities, one activity has been adjusted by the other (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Age-adjusted and multivariable RRs of prostate cancer according to baseline nonoccupational physical activity: the NLCS, 1986-1995

 
Incidence rate ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for prostate cancer were estimated in age-adjusted and multivariable case-cohort analyses using the Cox proportional hazards model (28) processed with the Stata statistical software package (29). SEs were estimated using the robust Huber-White sandwich estimator to account for additional variance introduced by sampling from the cohort (30). The proportional hazards assumption was tested using the scaled Schoenfeld residuals (31). Tests for dose-response trends in risk of prostate cancer were assessed by fitting ordinal exposure variables as continuous terms. Two-sided Ps are reported throughout the article.

Subgroup analyses conditional on categories of BMI and tertiles of energy intake were done to evaluate interaction with physical activity.

Statistical tests for interaction were based on Wald statistics of the product term of these strata identifiers and baseline nonoccupational physical activity. Advanced prostate cancer cases (T3-4, M0 and T0-4, M1) were evaluated separately from localized cases (T0-2, M0) to test the hypothesis that physical activity is more strongly inversely related to advanced prostate tumors.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Table 1 presents the overall means of the continuous potential confounders and distributions of categorical variables stratified by baseline nonoccupational physical activity, history of sports participation, and occupational physical activity among subcohort men. Neither age, alcohol intake, BMI, nor energy intake was differently distributed across the different categories of physical activity. Men with a positive family history of prostate cancer seemed less active at baseline or during their longest held occupation, although they have engaged in sports more frequently in the past compared with men without a positive family history. In the past, men with a lower level of education seemed to have participated less in sports but were occupationally more active compared with men with higher levels of education, although at baseline, no differences in nonoccupational physical activity could be found (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Means and distributions of potential confounders according to levels of total baseline nonoccupational physical activity, history of sports participation, and occupational physical activity in the NLCS, 1986-1995 (subcohort men, n = 2,335)

 
Baseline Nonoccupational Physical Activity
Baseline nonoccupational physical activity (daily walking, biking combined with gardening/doing odd jobs, and sports) showed no association with prostate cancer risk (Table 2). Age-adjusted and multivariable adjusted analysis showed comparable results. In this and upcoming analyses, the results of multivariable adjusted analyses will be presented. Men who were active for >90 minutes a day had a RR of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.81-1.25; Ptrend = 0.67) compared with men who were active less than half an hour a day. The several aspects of baseline nonoccupational physical activity showed the following relations: men who walked/biked for >1 hour a day had a RR of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.69-1.05; Ptrend = 0.50) compared with men who did these activities in <10 minutes a day. Gardening/doing odd jobs and sports participation were also not related to prostate cancer risk. Men who did these activities for >2 hours a week had a RR of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.84-1.19; Ptrend = 0.90) and RR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.79-1.36; Ptrend = 0.30), respectively, compared with men who did these activities of <1 hour a week (Table 2).

History of Sports Participation
Men who reported to have ever engaged in a sport had no reduction in prostate cancer risk compared with men who never played a sport. The corresponding RR was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.22; Table 3). Sporting frequency (hours sport per week) showed no association with prostate cancer risk. Men who participated <1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-5, and >5 hours per week in sports had RRs of 1.14, 0.95, 1.24, 1.12, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.81-1.19; Ptrend = 0.80), respectively, compared with men not participating in sports. The total duration of sports in years showed no relation with prostate cancer. Men who played a sport longer than 40 years had a RR of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.87-1.84) compared with men who have not played sport (Table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Age-adjusted and multivariable RRs of prostate cancer according to history of sports participation and occupational physical activity: the NLCS, 1986-1995

 
Occupational Physical Activity
Men with a high energy expenditure (>2 kJ/min) in the longest held job showed no altered risk (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.70-1.18) compared with those with low energy expenditure (<8 kJ/min; Table 3). Comparable results were found for energy expenditure in the last held job. Men with a high energy expenditure (>12 kJ/min) in the last held job showed no altered risk of prostate cancer (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.20) compared with men with a last held job with low energy expenditure (<8 kJ/min). No relation was found between total number of sitting hours per day in the longest or last held job and prostate cancer risk (Table 3). Combined analyses of both occupational and nonoccupational physical activity did not reveal substantially altered incidence rates in any of the subgroups (results not shown).

Effect in Subgroups
We stratified the data according to baseline BMI and energy intake (Table 4). Although BMI did not seem a statistical significant effect modifier (P = 0.63), we found an increased risk of prostate cancer for obese (BMI >30) men being physically active for >1 hour per day (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.62-4.26; Table 4). The number of cases was small in this subgroup; however, a similar but less strong pattern was found after stratification for energy intake, which was a marginally statistically nonsignificant effect modifier (P = 0.07). Men in the two highest tertiles of energy intake being active for >1 hour per day also seemed to have increased prostate cancer risk compared with those experiencing lower levels of energy intake. The corresponding RRs were 1.29 (95% CI, 1.00-1.66) and 1.30 (95% CI, 0.89-1.91), respectively, for those in the second and third tertiles of energy intake (Table 4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Multivariable adjusted RRs of prostate cancer according to categories of baseline nonoccupational physical activity (min/d), stratified by baseline BMI, and energy intake: the NLCS, 1986-1995

 
Prostate Cancer Stage
Of all prostate cancer cases, 526 were rated to be localized (T0-2, M0) and 453 were rated to be advanced (T3-4, M0 and T0-4, M1). The association between baseline nonoccupational physical activity and prostate cancer seemed comparable for localized and advanced tumors (Table 5).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Multivariable adjusted RRs of prostate cancer according to categories of baseline nonoccupational physical activity (min/d) in subgroups of localized (T0-2, M0) and advanced (T3-4, M0 and T0-4, M1) prostate tumors: the NLCS, 1986-1995

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
The results of the current study do not support the hypothesis that physical activity protects against prostate cancer in men. Neither baseline nonoccupational physical activity, history of sports participation, nor occupational physical activity showed an inverse relation with prostate cancer risk. We found an increased risk of prostate cancer in the subgroups of obese men (BMI >30) and men with a high baseline energy intake who were physically active for >1 hour a day. The subgroup analyses were, however, based on a small number of cases.

Before discussing the results of the current study in relation with other studies, some remarks concerning the NLCS are relevant. Loss to follow-up is the primary source of potential selection in prospective cohort studies. The prospective nature of a cohort study together with completeness of follow-up, as has been achieved in the current study, reduces the potential for selection bias to a minimum (23). Because we considered the most important potential confounding factors reported in the literature, we believe that only unknown or unmeasured other factors may have caused residual confounding.

Measuring physical activity in epidemiologic studies is difficult, and different methods have been used, which may explain in part the inconsistent results across studies (32). Studies have differed with regard to the period for which physical activity was assessed (e.g., childhood/adolescence and lifetime), the sources of physical activity (e.g., nonoccupational, occupational, or both), various variables of activity (e.g., frequency, intensity, and duration), and the range of physical activity. In this study, the baseline nonoccupational physical activity was measured by several aspects, including gardening/doing odd jobs, biking/walking during leisure time, daily walking and biking (leaving out walking the dog and go shopping), and playing sports/gymnastics (33).

We made use of the history of sports participation as indicator for physical activity in the past. We have no complete overview of all the elements of past physical activity (e.g., gardening and housekeeping activities were not included). Misclassification might play a role in determining the exposure status of the participants early in life. Such misclassification would be nondifferential.

Comparing the results of this large scale prospective cohort study with other cohort studies shows that the results are consistent with some other studies (34-38). These studies also found no inverse relation between physical activity and prostate cancer risk. However, other cohort studies showed inverse associations with prostate cancer in general (39, 40) or between very frequent vigorous activity and progressive prostate cancer (34, 38, 41). In addition, one cohort study reported a positive association between physical activity and prostate cancer (42).

A weak age-adjusted inverse relation between occupational physical activity and prostate cancer was found in our study which is consistent with the studies of Hartman et al. (43) and Lund Nilsen et al. (44). However, the analyses may have been confounded because these could not be confirmed in multivariable analyses. Furthermore, occupational physical activity is based on job title in this study, which may not be an accurate marker for the actual level of physical activity, incurred on the job.

Case-control studies show inconsistent results as well. Five studies found an inverse relation between physical activity and prostate cancer risk (45-49), another five found no relation (47, 50-53), and one study found a positive association (54). Odds ratios in these studies varies from 0.6 to 2.2 and the assessment of physical activity varied from recreational activity during puberty, complete lifetime occupational history, and time spent in moderate and vigorous current recreational activities converted to calories. To compare these studies is very difficult (16).

The main aim of the NLCS was to investigate the relationship between diet and the risk of cancer and not specifically aimed at physical activity. An advantage of this large-scale prospective cohort study was the possibility to study interaction among the different aspects of energy balance (physical activity, energy intake, and BMI) and to study subgroup analysis. As the results showed, no interaction was found between baseline nonoccupational physical activity and BMI or baseline energy intake, although in men with a high BMI (>30 kg/m2), a positive relation was seen between baseline nonoccupational physical activity and prostate cancer risk, independent of baseline energy intake. In addition, men who participated in sports for >40 years showed increased prostate cancer risk. Taking these two observations together (high BMI can also equate to high lean mass, and long-term participation in sports may be the result of or a contributor to greater muscularity), a possible explanation for the positive association that these men were those with greater androgenicity and that this greater androgenicity may have accounted for the modest increase in prostate cancer risk. We also observed a positive association between physical activity and prostate cancer risk among men with a high energy intake. This result was also found in the study of Platz et al. (55). The balance of physical activity and energy intake with body size might play a role in this result (56). Energy intake is determined by basal metabolic rate, activity level, and body size. Highly active men will probably have higher energy intakes compared with inactive people. An imbalance between energy intake and physical activity may yield increased BMI values. In overweight and obese men, multiple physiologic systems are perturbed such as insulin and glucose control and the balance of sex steroids. The specific mechanisms underlying how energy imbalance might affect prostate cancer (reduce or enhance prostate carcinogenesis) are still to be resolved.

Further research should be concentrated on the interrelation of physical activity, energy intake, and body size. Until now, it is unclear in what way and which pattern of energy imbalance will reduce or enhance prostate carcinogenesis (55). Further studies need also to investigate the frequency, intensity, and duration of physical activity as well as the type of activity and period during a man's lifetime when exercise might be beneficial. In addition, the possible biological mechanisms warrant further study.


   Acknowledgments
 
We thank the participants of this study; Dr. R. Goldbohm for her contribution to the study design and management of the Netherlands Cohort Study; the cancer registries (IKA, IKL, IKMN, IKN, IKO, IKR, IKST, IKW, IKZ, and VIKC); the Netherlands nationwide registry of pathology (PALGA); Drs. A. Volovics and A. Kester for statistical advice; Dr. L. Schouten, S. van de Crommert, H. Brants, J. Nelissen, C. de Zwart, M. Moll, W. van Dijk, M. Jansen, and A. Pisters for assistance; and H. van Montfort, T. van Moergastel, L. van den Bosch, and R. Schmeitz for programming assistance.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: Dutch Cancer Society.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received 10/21/04; revised 3/10/05; accepted 4/ 6/05.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Ferlay J, Bray F, Sankila R, Parkin DM. EUCAN: cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence in the European Union 1998. Lyon IARC Press; 1999.
  2. Visser O, Coeberg J, Dijck van J, Siesling S. Incidence of cancer in the Netherlands 1998. Utrecht: Association of Comprehensive Cancer Centres; 2002.
  3. Gallagher RP, Kutynec CL. Diet, micronutrients and prostate cancer: a review of the evidence. Can J Urol 1997;4:22–7.[Medline]
  4. Schuurman AG. Diet and other risk factors for prostate cancer. Epidemiology. Maastricht: Maastricht University; 1999. pp. 165.
  5. Fowler JE Jr, Bigler SA, Bowman G, Kilambi NK. Race and cause specific survival with prostate cancer: influence of clinical stage, Gleason score, age and treatment. J Urol 2000;163:137–42.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Race and prostate cancer. Harv Mens Health Watch 1999;3:7.
  7. Freeman VL, Leszczak J, Cooper RS. Race and the histologic grade of prostate cancer. Prostate 1997;30:79–84.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Schuurman AG, Zeegers MPA, Goldbohm RA, Van den Brandt PA. A case-cohort study on prostate cancer risk in relation to family history of prostate cancer. Epidemiology 1999;10:192–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Nieder AM, Taneja SS, Zeegers MP, Ostrer H. Genetic counseling for prostate cancer risk. Clin Genet 2003;63:169–76.[Medline]
  10. Zeegers MP, Jellema A, Ostrer H. Empiric risk of prostate carcinoma for relatives of patients with prostate carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Cancer 2003;97:1894–903.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Brawley OW, Knopf K, Thompson I. The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Part II. The risk factors. Sem Urol Oncol 1998;16:193–201.[Medline]
  12. Ross RK, Henderson BE. Do diet and androgens alter prostate cancer risk via a common etiologic pathway? J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:252–4 (editorial).[Free Full Text]
  13. Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Ma J, Longcope C, Stampfer MJ. Prospective study of sex hormone levels and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1118–26.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Lee IM. Exercise and physical health: cancer and immune function. Res Q Exerc Sport 1995;66:286–91.[Medline]
  15. Shephard RJ, Shek PN. Heavy exercise, nutrition and immune function: is there a connection? Int J Sports Med 1995;16:491–7.[Medline]
  16. Friedenreich CM, Thune I. A review of physical activity and prostate cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control 2001;12:461–75.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Marnett LJ. Perosyl free radical: potential mediators of tumor initiation and promotion. Carcinogenesis 1987;9:519–26.
  18. Ji LL. Exercise and oxidative stress: role of the cellular antioxidant systems. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1995;23:135–66.[Medline]
  19. Van den Brandt PA, Goldbohm RA, Van 't Veer P, Volovics A, Hermus RJ, Sturmans F. A large-scale prospective cohort study on diet and cancer in The Netherlands. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:285–95.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Prentice RL. A case-cohort design for epidemiologic cohort studies and disease prevention trials. Biometrika 1986;73:1–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Self SG, Prentice RL. Asymptotic distribution theory and efficiency results for case-cohort studies. Ann Statistics 1988;16:64–81.
  22. Van den Brandt PA, Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, Dorant E, Hunen PMH. Development of a record linkage protocol for use in the Dutch cancer registry for epidemiological research. Int J Epidemiol 1990;19:553–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Goldbohm RA, Van den Brandt PA, Dorant E. Estimation of the coverage of Dutch municipalities by cancer registries and PALGA based on hospital discharge data. Tijdschr Soc Gezondheidsz 1994;72:80–4.
  24. Hettinger TH, Mueller BH, Gebhard H. Ermittlung des Arbeitsenergieumsatzes bei Dynamisch Muskulaerer Arbeit. Schriftenreihe der Bundesarbeit fur Arbeitsschutz. Dortmund, 1989.
  25. Schuurman AG, Goldbohm RA, Van den Brandt PA. A prospective cohort study on consumption of alcoholic beverages in relation to prostate cancer incidence. Cancer Causes Control 1999;10:597–605.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Schuurman AG, Goldbohm RA, Dorant E, Van den Brandt PA. Anthropometry in relation to prostate cancer risk in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol 2000;151:541–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Schuurman AG, Van den Brandt PA, Dorant E, Brants HAM, Goldbohm RA. Associations of energy and fat intake with prostate carcinoma risk. Results from the Netherlands Cohort Study. Cancer 1999;86:1019–27.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Cox D. Regression models and life-tables. J R Statist Soc B 1972;34:187–220.
  29. Cleves MA, Gould WW, Gutierrez RG. An introduction to survival analysis using Stata. Texas: Stata Press; 2002.
  30. Lin DY, Wei LJ. The robust inference for the Cox proportional hazards model. J Am Stat Assoc 1989;84:1074–8.[CrossRef]
  31. Schoenfeld D. Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika 1982;69:239–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Ainsworth BE, Sternfeld B, Slattery ML, Daguise V, Zahm SH. Physical activity and breast cancer: evaluation of physical activity assessment methods. Cancer 1998;83:611–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Dirx MJM, Voorrips LE, Goldbohm RA, Van den Brandt PA. Baseline recreational physical activity, history of sports participation and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Cancer 2001;92:1638–49.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Giovannucci E, Leitzmann M, Spiegelman D, et al. A prospective study of physical activity and prostate cancer in male health professionals. Cancer Res 1998;58:5117–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Severson RK, Nomura AM, Grove JS, Stemmermann GN. A prospective analysis of physical activity and cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1989;130:522–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Lee IM, Paffenbarger RS, Hsieh CC. Physical activity and risk of prostatic cancer among college alumni. Am J Epidemiol 1992;135:169–79.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Liu S, Lee IM, Linson P, AAjani U, Buring JE, Hennekens CH. A prospective study of physical activity and risk of prostate cancer in US physicians. Int J Epidem 2000;29:29–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Patel AV, Rodriguez C, Jacobs EJ, Solomon L, Thun MJ, Calle EE. Recreational physical activity and risk of prostate cancer in a large cohort of U S. men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:275–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Vena JE, Graham S, Zielizby M, Brasure J, Swanson MK. Occupational exercise and risk of cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1987;45:318–27.[Free Full Text]
  40. Thune I, Lund E. Physical activity and the risk of prostate and testicular cancer: a cohort study of 53,000 Norwegian men. Cancer Causes Control 1994;5:549–56.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Walker M. Physical activity and risk of cancer in middle-aged men. Br J Cancer 2001;85:1311–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Cerhan JR, Torner JC, Lynch CF, et al. Association of smoking, body mass, and physical activity with risk of prostate cancer in the Iowa 65+ Rural Health Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:229–38.[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Hartman TJ, Albanes D, Rautalahti M, et al. Physical activity and prostate cancer in the {alpha}-Tocopherol, ß-Carotene (ATBC) Cancer Prevention Study (Finland). Cancer Causes Control 1998;9:11–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Lund Nilsen TI, Johnsen R, Vatten LJ. Socio-economic and lifestyle factors associated with the risk of prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2000;82:1358–63.[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Yu H, Harris RE, Wynder EL. Case-control study of prostate cancer and socioeconomic factors. Prostate 1988;13:317–25.[Medline]
  46. Brownson RC, Chang JC, Davis JR, Smith CA. Physical activity on the job and cancer in Missouri. Am J Public Health 1991;81:639–42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Villeneuve PJ, Johnson KC, Kreiger N, Mao Y, group, T. c. C. R. e. r. Risk factors for prostate cancer: results from the Canadian National Enhanced Cancer Surveillance System. Cancer Causes Control 1999;10:355–67.[CrossRef][Medline]
  48. Bairati I, Larouch R, Meyer F, Moore L, Fradet Y. Lifetime occupational physical activity and incidental prostate cancer (Canada). Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:759–64.[CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Friedenreich CM, McGregor SE, Courneya KS, Angyalfi SJ, Elliott FG. Case-control study of lifetime total physical activity and prostate cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:740–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Le Marchand L, Kolonel LN, Yoshizawa CN. Lifetime occupational physical activity and prostate cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:103–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Dosemeci M, Hayes RB, Vetter R, et al. Occupational physical activity, socioeconomic status, and risks of 15 cancer sites in Turkey. Cancer Causes Control 1993;4:313–21.[CrossRef][Medline]
  52. Whittemore AS, Kolonel LN, Wu AH, et al. Prostate cancer in relation to diet, physical activity, and body size in Blacks, Whites, and Asians in the United States and Canada [see comments]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:652–61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Lacey JV Jr, Deng J, Dosemeci M, et al. Prostate cancer, benign prostatic hyperplasia and physical activity in Shanghai, China. Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:341–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Sung J, Sung JFC, Lin RS, et al. Risk factors for prostate carcinoma in Taiwan: a case-control study in a Chinese population. Cancer 1999;86:484–91.[CrossRef][Medline]
  55. Platz EA, Leitzmann MF, Michaud DS, Willett WC, Giovannucci E. Interrelation of energy intake, body size, and physical activity with prostate cancer in a large prospective cohort study. Cancer Res 2003;63:8542–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Platz EA. Energy imbalance and prostate cancer. J Nutr 2002;132:3471–81S.



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
S. C. Moore, T. M. Peters, J. Ahn, Y. Park, A. Schatzkin, D. Albanes, R. Ballard-Barbash, A. Hollenbeck, and M. F. Leitzmann
Physical Activity in Relation to Total, Advanced, and Fatal Prostate Cancer
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., September 1, 2008; 17(9): 2458 - 2466.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zeegers, M. P.A.
Right arrow Articles by van den Brandt, P. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zeegers, M. P.A.
Right arrow Articles by van den Brandt, P. A.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online