The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The fraction of cancer attributable to modifiable risk factors in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom in 2015
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Changing population-level exposure to modifiable risk factors is a key driver of changing cancer incidence. Understanding these changes is therefore vital when prioritising risk-reduction policies, in order to have the biggest impact on reducing cancer incidence. UK figures on the number of risk factor-attributable cancers are updated here to reflect changing behaviour as assessed in representative national surveys, and new epidemiological evidence. Figures are also presented by UK constituent country because prevalence of risk factor exposure varies between them. METHODS: Population attributable fractions (PAFs) were calculated for combinations of risk factor and cancer type with sufficient/convincing evidence of a causal association. Relative risks (RRs) were drawn from meta-analyses of cohort studies where possible. Prevalence of exposure to risk factors was obtained from nationally representative population surveys. Cancer incidence data for 2015 were sourced from national data releases and, where needed, personal communications. PAF calculations were stratified by age, sex and risk factor exposure level and then combined to create summary PAFs by cancer type, sex and country. RESULTS: Nearly four in ten (37.7%) cancer cases in 2015 in the UK were attributable to known risk factors. The proportion was around two percentage points higher in UK males (38.6%) than in UK females (36.8%). Comparing UK countries, the attributable proportion was highest in Scotland (41.5% for persons) and lowest in England (37.3% for persons). Tobacco smoking contributed by far the largest proportion of attributable cancer cases, followed by overweight/obesity, accounting for 15.1% and 6.3%, respectively, of all cases in the UK in 2015. For 10 cancer types, including two of the five most common cancer types in the UK (lung cancer and melanoma skin cancer), more than 70% of UK cancer cases were attributable to known risk factors. CONCLUSION: Tobacco and overweight/obesity remain the top contributors of attributable cancer cases. Tobacco smoking has the highest PAF because it greatly increases cancer risk and has a large number of cancer types associated with it. Overweight/obesity has the second-highest PAF because it affects a high proportion of the UK population and is also linked with many cancer types. Public health policy may seek to mitigate the level of harm associated with exposure or reduce exposure levels-both approaches may effectively impact cancer incidence. Differences in PAFs between countries and sexes are primarily due to varying prevalence of exposure to risk factors and varying proportions of specific cancer types. This variation in turn is affected by socio-demographic differences which drive differences in exposure to theoretically avoidable 'lifestyle' factors. PAFs at UK country level have not been available previously and they should be used by policymakers in devolved nations. PAFs are estimates based on the best available data, limitations in those data would generally bias toward underestimation of PAFs. Regular collection of risk factor exposure prevalence data which corresponds with epidemiological evidence is vital for analyses like this and should remain a priority for the UK Government and devolved Administrations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries
de González, A. B., & Darby, S. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15433-0 · Cited by 1,718
Alcohol consumption and site-specific cancer risk: a comprehensive dose–response meta-analysis
Bagnardi, V, Rota, M., Botteri, E., Tramacere, I., Islami, F., Fedirko, V, Scotti, L., Jenab, M., Turati, F., Pasquali, E., et al. (2015) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.579 · Cited by 1,342 · cited 1×
“For example, the alcohol PAFs are likely to be underestimates as ‘unexposed’ reference groups in this literature often include ex- and occasional drinkers, which dilutes the observed effect of alcohol drinking on cancer risk.(46) The relative risk figures used were identified and selected systematically but different…”
BackgroundKyu, H. H., Bachman, V. F., Alexander, L. T., Mumford, J. E., Afshin, A., Estep, K., Veerman, J. L., Delwiche, K., Iannarone, M. L., Moyer, M. L., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i3857 · Cited by 1,272
Cancer incidence and mortality projections in the UK until 2035.
Smittenaar, C. R., Petersen, K. A., Stewart, K., & Moitt, N. (2016) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.2016.304 · Cited by 495 · cited 1×
“Over the next two decades, incidence rates for all cancers combined are projected to rise by 2% in the UK; this slower pace of increase is in part due to falling smoking rates since the 1970s, the impact of which will be seen most clearly in future decades.(4) Changes in exposure to risk factors are key drivers of cha…”
BackgroundMcGill, R., Anwar, E., Orton, L., Bromley, H., Lloyd-Williams, F., O’Flaherty, M., Taylor-Robinson, D., Guzman-Castillo, M., Gillespie, D., Moreira, P., et al. (2015) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1781-7 · Cited by 407 · cited 1×
“Further, many lifestyle ‘choices’ are driven by environmental/societal factors such as food pricing and availability, and susceptibility to these factors varies with socioeconomic position.(33) Differences in risk factor exposure prevalence between countries are generally not large, with the exception of H.”
Background
Cited by
Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R. L., Torre, L. A., & Jemal, A. (2018) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21492 · Cited by 84,109
Mediterranean diet nutrients to turn the tide against insulin resistance and related diseases
Mirabelli, M., Chiefari, E., Arcidiacono, B., Corigliano, D. M., Brunetti, F. S., Maggisano, V., Russo, D., Foti, D. P., & Brunetti, A. (2020) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu12041066 · Cited by 272
Pediatric obesity—Long‐term consequences and effect of weight loss
Marcus, C., Danielsson, P., & Hagman, E. (2022) · Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/joim.13547 · Cited by 267
Exercise training in cancer control and treatment
Christensen, J. F., Simonsen, C., & Hojman, P. (2018) · Comprehensive physiology · doi:10.1002/cphy.c180016 · Cited by 203
Ultra-processed food consumption and cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Isaksen, I. M., & Dankel, S. N. (2023) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2023.03.018 · Cited by 159
Taylor, E., Simonavičius, E., McNeill, A., Brose, L. S., East, K., Marczylo, T., & Robson, D. (2024) · Nicotine and Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntad156 · Cited by 40
Hoad, K. L., Ton, C., Williamson, D., Subar, D. A., Nuttall, H. E., & Gaffney, C. J. (2026) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341996
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, K. F., Rumgay, H., Dunlop, C., Ryan, M., Quartly, F., Cox, A., Deas, A., Elliss-Brookes, L., Gavin, A., Hounsome, L., Huws, D., Ormiston-Smith, N., Shelton, J., White, C., & Parkin, D. M.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 2018-03-23
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1130-1141
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2792039871
- Cited by
- 557
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 20.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.