Estimating the effects of lifestyle interventions on mortality among cancer survivors: a methodological framework.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Emma E McGee, Miguel A Hernán, Edward Giovannucci, Lorelei A Mucci, Yu-Han Chiu, A Heather Eliassen, Barbra A Dickerman
{"title":"Estimating the effects of lifestyle interventions on mortality among cancer survivors: a methodological framework.","authors":"Emma E McGee, Miguel A Hernán, Edward Giovannucci, Lorelei A Mucci, Yu-Han Chiu, A Heather Eliassen, Barbra A Dickerman","doi":"10.1097/EDE.0000000000001889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many organizations recommend lifestyle modifications for cancer survivors. Effect estimates for these interventions are often based on observational data and are challenging to interpret due to vaguely defined questions, design-induced biases, and lack of comparability between individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We outlined a three-step procedure to address these challenges: target trial specification, emulation, and modification to explore lack of comparability due to unmeasured confounding or positivity violations. We illustrated this procedure by specifying the protocols of two target trials that estimate the effects of adhering to seven physical activity and dietary recommendations and abstaining from alcohol on 20-year mortality among adults with breast or prostate cancer. We emulated these target trials using data from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), NHS II, and Health Professionals Follow-up Study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the main analysis, we included 9,107 adults (5,840 with breast cancer, 3,267 with prostate cancer); 1,791 deaths occurred. After we modified the target trial, mortality risk differences (95% CI) comparing the physical activity and dietary intervention vs. no intervention ranged from -4.8% (-7.5%, -2.3%) to -13.0% (-15.8%, -9.8%) for breast cancer and from -3.0% (-7.4%, 0.9%) to -12.8% (-17.6%, -7.6%) for prostate cancer. Risk differences comparing no alcohol consumption vs. no intervention ranged from 1.3% (0.1%, 2.4%) to 3.6% (2.5%, 4.9%) for breast cancer and from -1.7% (-4.3%, 1.0%) to 6.4% (4.0%, 9.0%) for prostate cancer.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We described a three-step procedure that improves the interpretability of observational estimates of the effects of lifestyle interventions and showed how estimates varied under different modifications.</p>","PeriodicalId":11779,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001889","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many organizations recommend lifestyle modifications for cancer survivors. Effect estimates for these interventions are often based on observational data and are challenging to interpret due to vaguely defined questions, design-induced biases, and lack of comparability between individuals.

Methods: We outlined a three-step procedure to address these challenges: target trial specification, emulation, and modification to explore lack of comparability due to unmeasured confounding or positivity violations. We illustrated this procedure by specifying the protocols of two target trials that estimate the effects of adhering to seven physical activity and dietary recommendations and abstaining from alcohol on 20-year mortality among adults with breast or prostate cancer. We emulated these target trials using data from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), NHS II, and Health Professionals Follow-up Study.

Results: In the main analysis, we included 9,107 adults (5,840 with breast cancer, 3,267 with prostate cancer); 1,791 deaths occurred. After we modified the target trial, mortality risk differences (95% CI) comparing the physical activity and dietary intervention vs. no intervention ranged from -4.8% (-7.5%, -2.3%) to -13.0% (-15.8%, -9.8%) for breast cancer and from -3.0% (-7.4%, 0.9%) to -12.8% (-17.6%, -7.6%) for prostate cancer. Risk differences comparing no alcohol consumption vs. no intervention ranged from 1.3% (0.1%, 2.4%) to 3.6% (2.5%, 4.9%) for breast cancer and from -1.7% (-4.3%, 1.0%) to 6.4% (4.0%, 9.0%) for prostate cancer.

Conclusions: We described a three-step procedure that improves the interpretability of observational estimates of the effects of lifestyle interventions and showed how estimates varied under different modifications.

估计生活方式干预对癌症幸存者死亡率的影响:一个方法框架。
背景:许多组织建议癌症幸存者改变生活方式。这些干预措施的效果估计通常基于观察数据,由于定义模糊的问题、设计引起的偏差以及个体之间缺乏可比性,很难解释。方法:我们概述了一个三步程序来解决这些挑战:目标试验规范,模拟和修改,以探索由于未测量的混淆或阳性违规而缺乏可比性。我们通过指定两项目标试验的方案来说明这一过程,这两项试验评估了坚持7项体育活动和饮食建议以及戒酒对乳腺癌或前列腺癌成人20年死亡率的影响。我们使用护士健康研究(NHS)、NHS II和卫生专业人员随访研究的数据模拟了这些目标试验。结果:在主要分析中,我们纳入了9107名成年人(5840名乳腺癌患者,3267名前列腺癌患者);1791人死亡。在我们修改了目标试验后,比较体育活动和饮食干预与不干预的死亡率风险差异(95% CI),乳腺癌的死亡率风险差异为-4.8%(-7.5%,-2.3%)至-13.0%(-15.8%,-9.8%),前列腺癌的死亡率风险差异为-3.0%(-7.4%,0.9%)至-12.8%(-17.6%,-7.6%)。与不饮酒和不干预相比,乳腺癌的风险差异从1.3%(0.1%,2.4%)到3.6%(2.5%,4.9%),前列腺癌的风险差异从-1.7%(-4.3%,1.0%)到6.4%(4.0%,9.0%)。结论:我们描述了一个三步程序,提高了对生活方式干预效果的观察性估计的可解释性,并显示了在不同修改下估计的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epidemiology
Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
177
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology publishes original research from all fields of epidemiology. The journal also welcomes review articles and meta-analyses, novel hypotheses, descriptions and applications of new methods, and discussions of research theory or public health policy. We give special consideration to papers from developing countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信