Background:

The influence of anthropometric characteristics on colorectal neoplasia biology is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if adult-attained height is independently associated with the risk of colorectal cancer or adenoma.

Methods:

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to August 2020 for studies on the association between adult-attained height and colorectal cancer or adenoma. The original data from the Johns Hopkins (Baltimore, MD) Colon Biofilm study was also included. The overall HR/OR of colorectal cancer/adenoma with increased height was estimated using random-effects meta-analysis.

Results:

We included 47 observational studies involving 280,644 colorectal cancer and 14,139 colorectal adenoma cases. Thirty-three studies reported data for colorectal cancer incidence per 10-cm increase in height; 19 yielded an HR of 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11–1.17; P < 0.001), and 14 engendered an OR of 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05–1.13; P < 0.001). Twenty-six studies compared colorectal cancer incidence between individuals within the highest versus the lowest height percentile; 19 indicated an HR of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.19–1.30; P < 0.001), and seven resulting in an OR of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.92–1.25; P = 0.39). Four studies reported data for assessing colorectal adenoma incidence per 10-cm increase in height, showing an overall OR of 1.06 (95% CI, 1.00–1.12; P = 0.03).

Conclusions:

Greater adult attained height is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer and adenoma.

Impact:

Height should be considered as a risk factor for colorectal cancer screening.

Globally, colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in men and the second most in women (1). Although most colorectal cancers occur in adults ages 50 and older, 12% are diagnosed in people younger than age 50 (2). The overall death rate from colorectal cancers has been declining over several decades. However, deaths from colorectal cancer among individuals younger than age 50 have increased 2% per year from 2007 to 2016 (3), emphasizing the importance of identifying and considering additional risk factors for colorectal cancer when evaluating patients for colorectal cancer screening.

There are several well-known risk factors for colorectal cancer. Nonmodifiable factors that increase colorectal cancer risk include a personal or family history of colorectal cancer or adenomas and a personal history of chronic inflammatory bowel disease (2). In the United States, more than half of all colorectal cancers are attributable to modifiable lifestyle factors, including unhealthy diet, insufficient physical activity, smoking, and high alcohol consumption (4). A recent review and meta-analyses of prospective observational studies highlighted the role of diet in colorectal cancer incidence, finding an association between lower colorectal cancer risk and high intakes of dietary fiber, dietary calcium, and yogurt and lower intakes of alcohol and red meat (5). Anthropometric characteristics such as body weight, fat mass, and body mass index are additional important modifiable lifestyle-related risk factors for colorectal cancer (6).

Stature (height) is another attribute that has been actively investigated as a potential nonmodifiable risk factor for colorectal cancer. A number of studies have been conducted to determine whether greater attained height is a risk factor for colorectal cancer; some study findings show a positive association between attained height and colorectal cancer while others failed to establish significant results, and still others show a negative association (7–56).

Clinical gastroenterologists presently focus on genetic and age-related risks for colorectal cancer screening, such as a positive family history, high-risk syndromes (Lynch syndrome and polyposis syndromes), age more than 45 years old (57). National Comprehensive Cancer Center guidelines also draw attention to increased awareness of modifiable risk factors such as alcohol, smoking, red and processed meat consumption, obesity, and physical activity (58). However, despite evidence that colorectal cancer risk is increased with increased tallness, height is a nonmodifiable risk factor which is currently clinically neglected in the context of screening (58).

Moreover, only a few studies explored the association between height and risk for colorectal adenoma; two showing no clear association (59, 60), while another found that tallness is associated with an increased risk of colorectal adenoma (61). While three meta-analyses published before 2018 investigated the association between attained height and colorectal cancer (62–64), the height metrics were different, and none have investigated attained height with its neoplastic precursor, colorectal adenoma.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies from the peer-reviewed literature to determine if adult-attained height is an independent risk factor for colorectal neoplasia. As a sub-study, we curated, analyzed, and included original data sets collected from the Johns Hopkins (Baltimore, MD) Biofilm Colonoscopy Study in the data synthesis to determine if adult-attained height is associated with colonic adenomatosis.

This review is reported in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (65) and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines (66). The review protocol was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020147732).

Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched Medline (PubMed), Embase (Embase.com), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 1, 2020, for literature on adult attained height and digestive tract malignancy risk. There was no restriction on publication language or geography. Search strategies were developed in collaboration with an informationist (J. Nanavati) and are outlined in Supplementary Table S1. We reviewed the reference lists of eligible studies and related reviews for additional eligible studies. Pairs of reviewers (E. Zhou, L. Wang, G.E. Mullin) independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified citations using Covidence systematic review software and assessed the full texts of potentially eligible studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Studies were included if they were cohort (both prospective and retrospective) or case-control studies that examined the association between the attained height of adults (18 years and above) and risks of colorectal cancer or colorectal adenoma. Studies were required to report the association either as a HR or OR of disease risk per unit change in height or a specific percentile change in height. Review papers or study abstracts were excluded.

In addition to studies identified from the literature search, we curated and analyzed original datasets from the Johns Hopkins Biofilm Colonoscopy Study. The study design was described in two previous publications (67, 68). Briefly, the study recruited adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy between August 2016 and February 2020. The inclusion criteria were individuals aged 40 to 85 years undergoing outpatient colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, had an intact unresected colon, had a complete colonoscopy, and were without a history of known organic colorectal disease. Organic disease in this study population means previously diagnosed colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, collagenous or autoimmune colitis, ischemic bowel, etc. Since organic diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease are a known risk factor for colorectal neoplasia, and these patients were excluded, this bolsters study validity. Patients who were pregnant, prisoners, on blood thinning medications, or unable to provide informed consent were excluded. Participants were queried during an interviewed by a research assistant prior to the procedure regarding their pertinent diet (i.e., consumption of red meat, dairy, eggs, yogurt, fish), lifestyle patterns (i.e., tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, etc.), and other relevant comorbidities (i.e., diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension). The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board and was conducted in accordance with recognized ethical guidelines (i.e., Belmont Report, U.S. Common Rule). The precise location, size, diagnosis, and other characteristics of the colorectal polyps were collected from colonoscopy and pathology reports. To standardize polyp diagnosis, histopathology reports of all extracted or biopsied polyps were systematically reviewed by one expert member of the study team (S. Rifkin). Polyp diagnosis was confirmed by a Johns Hopkins pathologist. Colonoscopy was performed by expert gastroenterologists with high adenoma detection rates (>25%), and the cecum was required to be visualized in order to qualify for the study. The association between height and colorectal adenoma was assessed using multivariate logistic regression adjusting for age, race, weight, smoking, diabetes, red meat consumption, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension.

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment

Pairs of reviewers (E. Zhou, L. Wang, G.E. Mullin) independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data items. These included: (i) general study information (author, year, country), (ii) study design (case-control, cohort) and population (sample size, age, gender), (iii) height measurement, and (iv) confounding factors—patient characteristics that the authors adjusted for when they estimated the association between height and cancer risk. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for assessing the quality of included studies (69). A study was judged on three perspectives with a maximum rating of nine stars: the selection of the study groups, the comparability of the groups, and the ascertainment of the exposure for case-control studies or outcome for cohort studies.

Data synthesis and statistical methods

We estimated the overall HR or OR and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of colorectal cancer and colorectal adenoma, comparing the highest with the lowest height percentile or with a per 10-cm increase in height. For studies that reported HR or OR of colorectal cancer or colorectal adenoma with per unit change in height other than 10 cm, we derived the HR or OR per 10-cm increase in height based on the log-linear relationship between height and disease risk. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis using DerSimonian and Laird method (70). We assessed heterogeneity across studies by examining the overlap of CIs for the results of individual studies by forest plots and quantified heterogeneity by the I2 statistic (71). Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing outlier studies where the point estimate was outside of the 95% CIs of other studies. We used Cochrane Review Manager, version 5.4, for meta-analyses. We investigated the small study effect by visual inspection of funnel plots and the Egger test for comparisons with at least 10 studies (72). We used STATA, version 16, for the Egger test.

Assessing the certainty of evidence

We rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The certainty of the body of evidence started with a low level (due to the observational nature of included studies). It was rated down based on limitations due to risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias. It was rated up based on the large magnitude of effects (i.e., strong associations), dose-response, and conservative confounding factors (i.e., confounding factors that bias the association toward null; ref. 73).

Characteristics of included studies

Our search identified 3,943 unique citation records that were examined by title and abstract screening. A total of 158 potential eligible records were determined to be eligible for inclusion and underwent full-text screening (Supplementary Fig. S1). Forty-six eligible studies (cohort and case-controlled) were included in the quantitative analysis. Of the 46 studies, 36 were cohort studies, whereby participants were followed for incident colorectal cancer or colorectal adenoma after the baseline height measures. Ten were case-control studies, whereby participants with and without colorectal cancer or colorectal adenoma were identified, and height measures were retrospectively collected. Studies were published between 1991 and 2020, having 280,644 colorectal cancer and 12,680 colorectal adenoma cases from North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Aside from data extracted from included studies, we included relevant original data from the Johns Hopkins Biofilm Colonoscopy Study (N = 1,459) in the meta-analysis for attained height and colorectal adenoma risk (67, 68). The characteristics of included studies are described in Supplementary Table S2.

Based on the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for study quality (maximum score of 9 stars), the 36 cohort studies were allocated an average of seven stars (range: 5–9 stars), and the ten case-control studies were allocated an average of six stars (range: 5–8 stars). Of the 36 cohort studies, stars were deducted from 16 studies because height was self-reported. Ten of the cohort studies lacked evidence that colorectal cancer or colorectal adenoma was absent at the start of the study. In eight cohort studies, risk factors were not adequately controlled based on study design or analysis. In six studies, the follow-up was insufficient (we required a follow-up duration of 6 years or more to allow cancer development). Of the 10 case-control studies, three did not validate cases independently, three recruited controls from settings other than community, four had self-reported height, and nine did not report the completeness of height measurement (i.e., whether there were any missing values in the height measurement). The risk of bias assessment for individual studies is described in Supplementary Table S3.

The association between attained height and colorectal cancer

Risk of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height

The estimated overall HR of colorectal cancer with every 10-cm increase in height (N = 19 studies) was 1.14 (95% CI, 1.11–1.17; P < 0.001; I2 = 79%; Fig. 1). A small study effect was observed in the funnel plot (Supplementary Fig. S2) and detected by the Egger test (P = 0.008). The estimated overall HR of colon cancer with every 10-cm increase in height (N = 7 studies) was 1.15 (95% CI, 1.10–1.21; P < 0.001; I2 = 70%; Supplementary Fig. S3). The estimated overall HR of rectum cancer with every 10-cm increase in height (N = 9 studies) was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.03–1.17; P = 0.005; I2 = 66%; Supplementary Fig. S4).

Figure 1.

HR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height. The forest plot shows the HR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height for each study and for all studies combined. An HR larger than 1 indicates increased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. An HR lower than 1 indicates decreased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. All studies showed increased HR of colorectal cancer with height increase, and most studies reported significant results. The overall HR is therefore highly significant (P < 0.00001) and reflects an increased risk. IV, inverse variance.

Figure 1.

HR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height. The forest plot shows the HR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height for each study and for all studies combined. An HR larger than 1 indicates increased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. An HR lower than 1 indicates decreased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. All studies showed increased HR of colorectal cancer with height increase, and most studies reported significant results. The overall HR is therefore highly significant (P < 0.00001) and reflects an increased risk. IV, inverse variance.

Close modal

The estimated overall OR of colorectal cancer with every 10-cm increase in height (N = 14 studies) was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05–1.13; P < 0.001; I2 = 21%; Fig. 2). The funnel plot did not detect the small study effect (Supplementary Fig. S5) nor by using the Egger test (P = 0.65). HR and OR were aligned in directionality; HR reflects instantaneous risk while OR reflects cumulative risk.

Figure 2.

OR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height. The forest plot shows the OR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height for each study and for all studies combined. An OR larger than 1 indicates increased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. An OR lower than 1 indicates decreased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. Most studies showed increased OR of colorectal cancer with height increase. The two studies with the largest sample sizes (tightest confidence intervals), Boursi and colleagues 2014, and Demb and colleagues 2019, showed highly significant results, while studies with smaller sample sizes (wider CIs) reported nonsignificant results. Combining all studies, the overall HR is highly significant (P < 0.00001) and reflects an increased risk. IV, inverse variance.

Figure 2.

OR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height. The forest plot shows the OR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height for each study and for all studies combined. An OR larger than 1 indicates increased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. An OR lower than 1 indicates decreased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. Most studies showed increased OR of colorectal cancer with height increase. The two studies with the largest sample sizes (tightest confidence intervals), Boursi and colleagues 2014, and Demb and colleagues 2019, showed highly significant results, while studies with smaller sample sizes (wider CIs) reported nonsignificant results. Combining all studies, the overall HR is highly significant (P < 0.00001) and reflects an increased risk. IV, inverse variance.

Close modal

Risk of colorectal cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile

The estimated overall HR of colorectal cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile (N = 19 studies) was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.19–1.30; P < 0.001; I2 = 67%; Fig. 3). The small study effect was not detected by the funnel plot (Supplementary Fig. S6) or the Egger test (P = 0.20). The estimated overall HR of colon cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile (N = 9 studies) was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.03–1.52; P = 0.02; I2 = 91%; Supplementary Fig. S7). The estimated overall HR of rectal cancer (N = 5 studies) comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.98–1.17; P = 0.11; I2 = 0%; Supplementary Fig. S8).

Figure 3.

HR of colorectal cancer comparing the highest versus lowest height percentile. The forest plot shows the HR of colorectal cancer, comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile for each study and for all studies combined. An HR larger than 1 indicates increased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. An HR lower than 1 indicates decreased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. Most studies showed increased HR of colorectal cancer with height increase, many of which with highly significant results. Combining all studies, the overall HR is highly significant (P < 0.00001) and reflects an increased risk. IV, inverse variance.

Figure 3.

HR of colorectal cancer comparing the highest versus lowest height percentile. The forest plot shows the HR of colorectal cancer, comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile for each study and for all studies combined. An HR larger than 1 indicates increased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. An HR lower than 1 indicates decreased colorectal cancer risk with height increase. Most studies showed increased HR of colorectal cancer with height increase, many of which with highly significant results. Combining all studies, the overall HR is highly significant (P < 0.00001) and reflects an increased risk. IV, inverse variance.

Close modal

The estimated overall OR of colorectal cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile (N = 7 studies) was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.92–1.25; P = 0.39; I2 = 66%; Fig. 4). A sensitivity analysis excluding the outlier study (9) pulled the result away from null but did not qualitatively change the conclusion, OR 1.10 (95% CI, 0.96–1.26; P = 0.15; I2 = 59%).

Figure 4.

OR of colorectal cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile. The forest plots show the OR of colorectal cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile for each study and for all studies combined. An OR larger than 1 indicates increased colorectal cancer risk with increased height. An OR lower than 1 indicates decreased colorectal cancer risk with increased height. A, Four out of the seven studies showed increased OR of colorectal cancer with an increased height. Combining all studies, the estimated overall OR of colorectal cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile (N = 7 studies) was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.92–1.25; P = 0.39; I2 = 66%). B, Results of a sensitivity analysis excluding the outlier study by Suadicani and colleagues pulled the overall results away from null but did not qualitatively change the conclusion (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96–1.26; P = 0.15; I2 = 59%). IV, inverse variance.

Figure 4.

OR of colorectal cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile. The forest plots show the OR of colorectal cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile for each study and for all studies combined. An OR larger than 1 indicates increased colorectal cancer risk with increased height. An OR lower than 1 indicates decreased colorectal cancer risk with increased height. A, Four out of the seven studies showed increased OR of colorectal cancer with an increased height. Combining all studies, the estimated overall OR of colorectal cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile (N = 7 studies) was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.92–1.25; P = 0.39; I2 = 66%). B, Results of a sensitivity analysis excluding the outlier study by Suadicani and colleagues pulled the overall results away from null but did not qualitatively change the conclusion (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96–1.26; P = 0.15; I2 = 59%). IV, inverse variance.

Close modal

The estimated overall OR of colon cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile (N = 4 studies) was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.99–1.30; P = 0.07; I2 = 0%; Supplementary Fig. S9). The estimated overall OR of rectal cancer comparing the highest versus the lowest height percentile (N = 4 studies) was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.61–1.37; P = 0.66; I2 = 43%; Supplementary Fig. S10). HR and OR were aligned in directionality.

The association between attained height and colorectal adenoma

Risk of colorectal adenoma per 10-cm increase in height

The estimated overall OR of colorectal adenoma with every 10-cm increase in height (N = 4 studies) was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.00–1.12; P = 0.03; I2 = 92%; Supplementary Table S4; Fig. 5).

Figure 5.

OR of colorectal adenoma per 10-cm increase in height. The forest plot shows the OR of colorectal adenoma per 10-cm increase in height. An OR larger than 1 indicates an increased colorectal cancer risk with increased height. An OR lower than 1 indicates a decreased colorectal cancer risk with increased height. Three out of the four studies showed increased OR of colorectal cancer with increased height. Combining all studies, the overall OR is significant (P = 0.03) and reflects increased risk. IV, inverse variance.

Figure 5.

OR of colorectal adenoma per 10-cm increase in height. The forest plot shows the OR of colorectal adenoma per 10-cm increase in height. An OR larger than 1 indicates an increased colorectal cancer risk with increased height. An OR lower than 1 indicates a decreased colorectal cancer risk with increased height. Three out of the four studies showed increased OR of colorectal cancer with increased height. Combining all studies, the overall OR is significant (P = 0.03) and reflects increased risk. IV, inverse variance.

Close modal

The certainty of evidence

We graded the overall certainty of the evidence as low to moderate, as shown in the summary of findings table (Table 1). Low grades were initially assigned to the included studies due to their observational nature. These initial grades were further downgraded for risk of bias due to inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies, and potential publication bias raised by detected small study effects. We upgraded the study when the observed effects were of large magnitude and showed a dose-response gradient.

Table 1.

Summary of findings. Low grades were initially assigned to the included studies due to their observational nature. These initial grades were further downgraded for risk of bias due to inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies, and potential publication bias raised by detected small study effects. We upgraded the study when the observed effects were of considerable magnitude and showed a dose-response gradient.

The association between attained height and colorectal cancer or adenoma risk.
Patient population: Colorectal cancer or adenoma.
Settings: Community and hospital.
Risk factor: Attained height
OutcomesRelative effect (95% CI)Studies (N)Quality of the evidence (GRADE)Comments
HR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height HR 1.14 (1.11–1.17) 19 ⊕⊕⊖⊖ low Downgraded for:
  • 1. Inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies

  • 2. Small study effect

Upgraded for:
  • 1. Large magnitude of an effect

  • 2. Dose-response gradient

 
OR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height RR 1.09 (1.05–1.13) 14 ⊕⊕⊕⊖ moderate Downgraded for:
  • 1. Inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies

Upgraded for:
  • 1. Large magnitude of an effect

  • 2. Dose-response gradient

 
HR of colorectal cancer comparing highest vs. lowest height percentile HR 1.24 (1.19–1.30) 19 ⊕⊕⊕⊖ moderate Downgraded for:
  • 1. Inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies

Upgraded for:
  • 1. Large magnitude of an effect

  • 2. Dose-response gradient

 
OR of colorectal cancer comparing highest vs. lowest height percentile OR 1.07 (0.92–1.25) ⊕⊖⊖⊖ very low Downgraded for:
  • 1. Inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies;

  • 2. Inconsistency of results across studies

  • 3. Imprecision of overall estimate

Upgraded for:
  • 1. Dose-response gradient

 
OR of colorectal adenoma per 10-cm increase in height OR 1.06 (1.00–1.12) ⊕⊕⊖⊖ low Downgraded for:
  • 1. Inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies

Upgraded for:
  • 1. Dose-response gradient

 
The association between attained height and colorectal cancer or adenoma risk.
Patient population: Colorectal cancer or adenoma.
Settings: Community and hospital.
Risk factor: Attained height
OutcomesRelative effect (95% CI)Studies (N)Quality of the evidence (GRADE)Comments
HR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height HR 1.14 (1.11–1.17) 19 ⊕⊕⊖⊖ low Downgraded for:
  • 1. Inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies

  • 2. Small study effect

Upgraded for:
  • 1. Large magnitude of an effect

  • 2. Dose-response gradient

 
OR of colorectal cancer per 10-cm increase in height RR 1.09 (1.05–1.13) 14 ⊕⊕⊕⊖ moderate Downgraded for:
  • 1. Inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies

Upgraded for:
  • 1. Large magnitude of an effect

  • 2. Dose-response gradient

 
HR of colorectal cancer comparing highest vs. lowest height percentile HR 1.24 (1.19–1.30) 19 ⊕⊕⊕⊖ moderate Downgraded for:
  • 1. Inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies

Upgraded for:
  • 1. Large magnitude of an effect

  • 2. Dose-response gradient

 
OR of colorectal cancer comparing highest vs. lowest height percentile OR 1.07 (0.92–1.25) ⊕⊖⊖⊖ very low Downgraded for:
  • 1. Inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies;

  • 2. Inconsistency of results across studies

  • 3. Imprecision of overall estimate

Upgraded for:
  • 1. Dose-response gradient

 
OR of colorectal adenoma per 10-cm increase in height OR 1.06 (1.00–1.12) ⊕⊕⊖⊖ low Downgraded for:
  • 1. Inadequate control of confounding, short follow-up in some studies

Upgraded for:
  • 1. Dose-response gradient

 

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate an association between taller heights and increased risk for colorectal cancer and colorectal adenoma. In our study, the tallest individuals had a 24% higher risk of developing colorectal cancer than the shortest. Every 10-cm increase in height imposed a 14% higher risk of colorectal cancer after adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and other known risk factors. The association of increased height with colon cancer appeared to be stronger than with rectal cancer. A higher risk of colorectal cancer or colorectal adenoma was observed with increasing height. Higher adult-attained height seems to be an independent risk factor for both colorectal cancer and colorectal adenoma.

The importance of height as a potential risk for disease relates to the increasing trend of increased tallness in certain populations. A recent British study published by the Institute of Labour Economics (Bonn, Germany) showed that the attained height of adult men in the United Kingdom has increased by 4 inches (10 centimeters) since the turn of the 20th century (74). Nordic countries have also reported an increase in adult height, alongside a faster growth rate by the earlier timing of puberty, during the last four decades (75). In the Japanese population, height has been increasing in recent decades (18). This trend for increases in height has been attributed to nutritional factors, physical activities, improved hygiene, and healthcare delivery services.

Adult-attained stature may also represent a possible marker of the effects of early nutrition on human carcinogenesis and seems to be related to nutritional exposures occurring at the time of human physical maturation (76). Other factors related to height, such as hormonal and genetic factors, stimulate both cancer development and progression (28). One proposed reason taller individuals may be at higher risk for cancer is the increased opportunity for a cell mutation, given that taller people have overall more cells. Over the past century, children's body size has also been increasing and growing to maturity more rapidly (77). Although a recent systematic review of early-onset colorectal adenoma and cancer has recently reported that smoking and alcohol consumption, obesity, elevated blood glucose, elevated blood pressure, and elevated triglycerides are associated risk factors for younger-onset colorectal cancer, height has not been evaluated (78).

Another proposed mechanism that may link height to cancers is that adult height correlates with body organ size (79). More active cell proliferation in organs of taller people could increase the possibility of mutations leading to malignant transformation (32). In addition, multiple interconnected biological pathways have been implicated in the association between height and cancer. Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which correlates with height in children (80), can increase the risk of several cancers (81), including colorectal cancer in adults (49, 82, 83). IGF-1 is known to promote cell proliferation and inhibit apoptosis (84). Growth hormone also stimulates IGF-1, which is important for determining adult height via regulation of bone growth (85). Adult-attained height may represent cumulative exposure to IGF-1 throughout important periods of growth and development (86).

Our findings indicate a dose-response association between height and colorectal neoplasm. By examining the cancer risk by both per 10-cm increase in height and the highest versus the lowest height categories, from all eligible studies published to date, we were able to establish the consistent height-cancer association among studies using different metrics. This is corroborated by previous studies that we excluded from our analysis because they examined height in different metrics and reported the same direction of association (data not shown; refs. 11, 12, 15, 27, 28, 31, 34, 45, 87–89). Khankari and colleagues published a meta-analysis in 2016, with 24 studies and an unclear number of subjects (63), showing that a 10-cm increase in height was associated with a RR of 1.12 (95% CI, 1.10–1.15) for colorectal cancer. Song and colleagues published a meta-analysis in 2018 (64), including 31 studies and 93,818 colorectal cancer cases. The pooled RR (95% CI) comparing the highest versus the lowest category of height was 1.25 (1.18–1.32) for colorectal cancer. Finally in 2018, Abar and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 14 studies with 50,936 colorectal cancer cases, examining attained height, body fatness, and colorectal cancer risk (62). They found an RR (95% CI) of 1.04 (1.02–1.05) per 5-cm increase in height. Our meta-analysis investigating the association between increased height and colorectal cancer is the most comprehensive to date, with the highest number of studies (n = 47) and patients (280,644). Moreover, while three meta-analyses investigated the association between height and colorectal cancer (62–64), to our knowledge, none to date investigated the association between height and colorectal adenoma. In this study, we analyzed primary data collected from the Johns Hopkins Biofilm Colonoscopy Study and examined if adult-attained height is associated with colonic adenomatosis. We found a 6% higher risk for colorectal adenoma with every 10-cm increase in height after adjusting for other risk factors. However, we did not observe a stronger association between attained height and advanced adenoma versus nonadvanced adenoma, consistent with prior studies (59, 61, 90).

In our study, the effect estimates for colorectal cancer stratified by location (proximal colon, distal colon, and rectum) were too sparse to unify. However, Pust and colleagues in a large prospective study of 1.3 million UK women reported 18,518 incident colorectal cancers and showed that the relative risk of colon cancer comparing women 165-cm or taller with those below 160-cm was highest for the proximal tumors 1.28 (95% CI, 1.20–1.36), and lowest for rectal cancer 1.21 (95% CI, 1.14–1.30) with left-sided colon having intermediate heightened risk 1.24 (95% CI, 1.16–1.33; ref. 56).

For comparison to other known risk factors for colorectal cancer, in pooled analyses, processed red meat intake is positively associated with colorectal cancer risk (HR = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01–1.32; P = 0.03) and particularly with distal colon cancer (HR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.09–1.69; P = 0.006; ref. 91). As another comparison, a meta-analysis has shown that the risk of colon cancer is increased among ever smokers (pooled RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.11–1.25) compared with never smokers (92). In our study, attained height demonstrates a strong association with colorectal cancer development (HR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.19–1.30; P < 0.001) like these aforementioned well-known risk factors. However, magnitudes of the HR for height and HRs for these other exposures (i.e., processed red meat intake and smoking) are not directly comparable as they all use different measurement scales (i.e., smoking is commonly expressed in pack-years while red meat consumption scales are widely varied).

Due to the observational nature and method limitations of included studies, our findings need to be interpreted with caution. Ideally, a randomized controlled trial is needed to establish the causal association between an exposure and the outcome, as observational studies are subject to confounding. However, in our case, height cannot be randomized. Therefore, the positive association found in observational studies need to be interpreted with caution. And adequate control of confounding is most valuable. The main limitations include self-reported height and inadequate control of confounding detected in multiple studies. Self-reported height may not accurately reflect the true height. For instance, there are reports that as one ages height declines and extraneous factors such as changes in cognition may set in, so reliability on reported height with advanced age may introduce error (93). Measured adult height is the most accurate means of determining tallness. Overall, aside from the elderly population, the direction of the difference between self-reported height and true height is unknown for all adult populations and therefore, it may introduce an element of inaccuracy with unknown direction.

Risk of bias is a concern as height values in nearly 50% of the included studies were self-reported. The adjustment for other colorectal cancer or colorectal adenoma risk factors was considered inadequate in nearly 20% of the included studies. For example, well-established risk factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, red meat intake, and obesity were neglected from these studies when attempting to isolate the association between height and colorectal cancer. For instance, Walter 2013 and MacInnis 2004 had only adjusted for a very limited set of confounders. Examining the direction and the magnitude of the association, we did not find systematic differences between these two studies and other studies (i.e., Giovannucci 2004, Hughes 2011, Park 2012) that had controlled for a comprehensive list of confounders. In addition, the follow-up duration was short for some studies, and the completeness of height measures was unclear for other studies. Although some of these limitations may be due to resource limitations, they highlight potential areas of improvement for the design, analysis, and reporting of future research to address mechanisms underlying the association of height and colorectal carcinogenesis. Ideally, future research should use measured height instead of self-reported height, consider adjusting for all well-known risk factors of colorectal neoplasm, and allow sufficient study follow-up for cancer development. In addition, clinicians are interested in knowing more precisely who should undergo earlier screening due to having a greater vertical height. Tallness in a population is defined as having a height greater than or equal to two SDs from the mean. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, males 6′3″ or women 5′9″ or greater would meet this definition (94). For instance, tall athletes, individuals with inherited tallness, acromegaly (gigantism), Marfan syndrome, and other like disorders could be screened earlier, and its impact could be studied. Future studies should address the risk per the definition of tallness in their respective populations.

In our study, despite the limitations that we encountered, as iterated above, the large magnitude of the effect of height on colorectal cancer and adenoma risk, and the dose-response gradient observed, warrant attention in clinical practice and future research.

After adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and other known risk factors, taller adult-attained height is associated with increased colorectal cancer and colorectal adenoma risks in a dose-response manner. Height should be considered as a risk factor in the evaluation of patients for colorectal cancer screening. However, more research is needed to define precise tallness risk parameters to translate this information to clinical care.

L.M. Hylind reports grants from NIH during the conduct of the study. J.J. Gills reports grants from NIH during the conduct of the study. L. La Luna reports other support from Johns Hopkins/NIH during the conduct of the study. J.L. Drewes reports grants from NIH during the conduct of the study. C.L. Sears reports grants from NCI during the conduct of the study; grants from Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from Up to Date outside the submitted work. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.

E. Zhou: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. L. Wang: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, validation, investigation, methodology, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. C.N. Santiago: Data curation, formal analysis, investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. J. Nanavati: Conceptualization, data curation, supervision, investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. S. Rifkin: Data curation, investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. E. Spence: Data curation, investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. L.M. Hylind: Investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. J.J. Gills: Investigation, writing–review and editing. L. La Luna: Investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. D.R. Kafonek: Investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. D.M. Cromwell: Investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. J.L. Drewes: Investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. C.L. Sears: Investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. F.M. Giardiello: Investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. G.E. Mullin: Conceptualization, formal analysis, supervision, validation, methodology, writing–original draft, project administration, writing–review and editing.

This study was supported by grants R01CA196845 (to C.L. Sears, F. Giardello, C.N.Santiago, J. Drewes, G. Mullin, E. Spence, D. Kafonek, D.M. Cromwell, L. LaLuna), Bloomberg Philanthropies (to C.L. Santiago, J.J. Gills), T32DK007632 (to S. Rifkin), intramural funds (to L.M. Hylind), and the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center Support Grant, NCI P30CA006973 (to C.L. Santiago, F.M. Giardello). All data from R01CA196845 (Johns Hopkins University) were stored in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NCI or the NIH. The authors thank all members of the Sears laboratory for assistance with the Biofilm Colonoscopy Study. Biofilm Study Consortium authors: Madison McMann (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine), Courtney Stevens (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine), Brent Tabisz (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine), Marshall Bedine (Green Spring Station Endoscopy), Eduardo Gonzalez-Velez (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine), Hazel Marie Galon Veloso (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine), Pamela Schearer (Reading Hospital, Tower Health), Stacy Gerhart (Digestive Diseases Associates), Amy Schiller (Digestive Disease Associates), Karin Donato (Digestive Disease Associates), Randi Sweigart (Digestive Disease Associates), John Altomare (Digestive Disease Associates), Nirav Shah (Digestive Disease Associates), Christopher Ibrahim (Digestive Disease Associates), Ravi Ghanta (Digestive Disease Associates).

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.

1.
Bray
FFJ
,
Soerjomataram
I
,
Siegel
RL
,
Torre
LA
,
Jemal
A
.
Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2018
;
394
424
.
2.
Li
C
,
Zhang
B
,
Zhou
H
,
Wang
X
,
Pi
X
,
Wang
X
, et al
.
Beneficial influences of dietary Aspergillus awamori fermented soybean meal on oxidative homoeostasis and inflammatory response in turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.)
.
Fish Shellfish Immunol
2019
;
93
:
8
16
.
3.
American Cancer Society
.
Key statistics for colorectal cancer
.
2020
.
4.
Islami
F
,
Goding Sauer
A
,
Miller
KD
,
Siegel
RL
,
Fedewa
SA
,
Jacobs
EJ
, et al
.
Proportion and number of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2018
;
68
:
31
54
.
5.
Veettil
SK
,
Wong
TY
,
Loo
YS
,
Playdon
MC
,
Lai
NM
,
Giovannucci
EL
, et al
.
Role of diet in colorectal cancer incidence: Umbrella review of meta-analyses of prospective observational studies
.
JAMA Netw Open
2021
;
4
:
e2037341
.
6.
Bou
Malhab
LJ
,
Abdel-Rahman
WM
.
Obesity and inflammation: colorectal cancer engines
.
Curr Mol Pharmacol
2021 Sep 6 [Epub ahead of print]
.
7.
Gunnell
D
,
May
M
,
Ben-Shlomo
Y
,
Yarnell
J
,
Smith
GD
.
Height, leg length, and cancer: the Caerphilly Study
.
Nutr Cancer
2003
;
47
:
34
9
.
8.
Chute
CG
,
Willett
WC
,
Colditz
GA
,
Stampfer
MJ
,
Baron
JA
,
Rosner
B
, et al
.
A prospective study of body mass, height, and smoking on the risk of colorectal cancer in women
.
Cancer Causes Control
1991
;
2
:
117
24
.
9.
Suadicani
P
,
Hein
HO
,
Gyntelberg
F
.
Height, weight, and risk of colorectal cancer. An 18-year follow-up in a cohort of 5249 men
.
Scand J Gastroenterol
1993
;
28
:
285
8
.
10.
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
1997
;
8
:
591
7
.
11.
Robsahm
TE
,
Tretli S.
Height
,
weight and gastrointestinal cancer: a follow-up study in Norway
.
Eur J Cancer Prev
1999
;
8
:
105
13
.
12.
Shimizu
N
,
Nagata
C
,
Shimizu
H
,
Kametani
M
,
Takeyama
N
,
Ohnuma
T
, et al
.
Height, weight, and alcohol consumption in relation to the risk of colorectal cancer in Japan: a prospective study
.
Br J Cancer
2003
;
88
:
1038
43
.
13.
Oxentenko
AS
,
Bardia
A
,
Vierkant
RA
,
Wang
AH
,
Anderson
KE
,
Campbell
PT
, et al
.
Body size and incident colorectal cancer: a prospective study of older women
.
Cancer Prev Res
2010
;
3
:
1608
20
.
14.
Park
JY
,
Mitrou
PN
,
Keogh
RH
,
Luben
RN
,
Wareham
NJ
,
Khaw
K-T
.
Self-reported and measured anthropometric data and risk of colorectal cancer in the EPIC-Norfolk study
.
Int J Obes
2012
;
36
:
107
18
.
15.
Boursi
B
,
Haynes
K
,
Mamtani
R
,
Yang
YX
.
Height as an independent anthropomorphic risk factor for colorectal cancer
.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2014
;
26
:
1422
7
.
16.
Dietz
AT
,
Newcomb
PA
,
Marcus
PM
,
Storer
BE
.
The association of body size and large bowel cancer risk in Wisconsin (United States) women
.
Cancer Causes Control
1995
;
6
:
30
6
.
17.
Russo
A
,
Franceschi
S
,
La Vecchia
C
,
Dal Maso
L
,
Montella
M
,
Conti
E
, et al
.
Body size and colorectal-cancer risk
.
Int J Cancer
1998
;
78
:
161
5
.
18.
Otani
T
,
Iwasaki
M
,
Inoue
M
.
Body mass index, body height, and subsequent risk of colorectal cancer in middle-aged and elderly Japanese men and women: Japan public health center-based prospective study
.
Cancer Causes Control
2005
;
16
:
839
50
.
19.
Bowers
K
,
Albanes
D
,
Limburg
P
,
Pietinen
P
,
Taylor
PR
,
Virtamo
J
, et al
.
A prospective study of anthropometric and clinical measurements associated with insulin resistance syndrome and colorectal cancer in male smokers
.
Am J Epidemiol
2006
;
164
:
652
64
.
20.
Pischon
T
,
Lahmann
PH
,
Boeing
H
,
Friedenreich
C
,
Norat
T
,
Tjønneland
A
, et al
.
Body size and risk of colon and rectal cancer in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2006
;
98
:
920
31
.
21.
Lundqvist
E
,
Kaprio
J
,
Verkasalo
PK
,
Pukkala
E
,
Koskenvuo
M
,
Söderberg
KC
, et al
.
Co-twin control and cohort analyses of body mass index and height in relation to breast, prostate, ovarian, corpus uteri, colon and rectal cancer among Swedish and Finnish twins
.
Int J Cancer
2007
;
121
:
810
8
.
22.
Hughes
LAE
,
Simons
CCJM
,
van den Brandt
PA
,
Goldbohm
RA
,
de Goeij
AF
,
de Bruïne
AP
, et al
.
Body size, physical activity and risk of colorectal cancer with or without the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP)
.
PLoS One
2011
;
6
:
e18571
.
23.
Tang
RQ
,
Zheng
W
,
Li
HL
,
Gao
YT
,
Shu
XO
,
Xiang
YB
.
Prospective cohort study of body height and cancer incidence among adult men and women in Shanghai
.
Tumor
2012
;
32
:
992
1000
.
24.
Wei
EK
,
Giovannucci
E
,
Wu
K
,
Rosner
B
,
Fuchs
CS
,
Willett
WC
, et al
.
Comparison of risk factors for colon and rectal cancer
.
Int J Cancer
2004
;
108
:
433
42
.
25.
MacInnis
RJ
,
English
DR
,
Hopper
JL
,
Gertig
DM
,
Haydon
AM
,
Giles
GG
.
Body size and composition and colon cancer risk in women
.
Int J Cancer
2006
;
118
:
1496
500
.
26.
Shin
A
,
Joo
J
,
Bak
J
,
Yang
HR
,
Kim
J
,
Park
S
, et al
.
Site-specific risk factors for colorectal cancer in a Korean population
.
PLoS One
2011
;
6
:
e23196
.
27.
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
:
1697
706
.
28.
Wirén
S
,
Häggström
C
,
Ulmer
H
,
Manjer
J
,
Bjørge
T
,
Nagel
G
, et al
.
Pooled cohort study on height and risk of cancer and cancer death
.
Cancer Causes Control
2014
;
25
:
151
9
.
29.
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
:
53
64
.
30.
Wirén
S
,
Häggström
C
,
Ulmer
H
,
Manjer
J
,
Bjørge
T
,
Nagel
G
, et al
.
Height and body mass index in relation to colorectal and gallbladder cancer in two million Norwegian men and women
.
Cancer Causes Control
2005
;
16
:
987
96
.
31.
Sung
J
,
Song
YM
,
Lawlor
DA
,
Smith
GD
,
Ebrahim
S
.
Height and cancer incidence in the Million Women Study: prospective cohort, and meta-analysis of prospective studies of height and total cancer risk
.
Lancet Oncol
2011
;
12
:
785
94
.
32.
Ortega
LS
,
Bradbury
KE
,
Cross
AJ
,
Morris
JS
,
Gunter
MJ
,
Murphy
N
.
A Prospective investigation of body size, body fat composition and colorectal cancer risk in the UK Biobank
.
Sci Rep
2017
;
7
:
17807
.
33.
Onyeaghala
G
,
Lintelmann
AK
,
Joshu
CE
,
Lutsey
PL
,
Folsom
AR
,
Robien
K
, et al
.
Adherence to the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research cancer prevention guidelines and colorectal cancer incidence among African Americans and whites: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study
.
Cancer
2020
;
126
:
1041
50
.
34.
Green
J
,
Cairns
BJ
,
Casabonne
D
,
Wright
FL
,
Reeves
G
,
Beral
V
.
Adult height in relation to risk of cancer in a cohort of 22,809,722 Korean adults
.
Br J Cancer
2019
;
120
:
668
74
.
35.
Ortega
LS
,
Bradbury
KE
,
Cross
AJ
,
Morris
JS
,
Gunter
MJ
,
Murphy
N
.
Gender, anthropometric factors and risk of colorectal cancer with particular reference to tumour location and TNM stage: a cohort study
.
Biol Sex Differ
2012
;
3
:
23
.
36.
Onyeaghala
G
,
Lintelmann
AK
,
Joshu
CE
,
Lutsey
PL
,
Folsom
AR
,
Robien
K
, et al
.
Sugar, meat, and fat intake, and non-dietary risk factors for colon cancer incidence in Iowa women (United States)
.
Cancer Causes Control
1994
;
5
:
38
52
.
37.
Choi
YJ
,
Lee
DH
,
Han
KD
,
Yoon
H
,
Shin
CM
,
Park
YS
, et al
.
Body size and the risk of colon cancer in a large case-control study
.
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord
1998
;
22
:
178
84
.
38.
Brändstedt
J
,
Wangefjord
S
,
Nodin
B
,
Gaber
A
,
Manjer
J
,
Jirström
K
.
The association of body size and large bowel cancer risk in Wisconsin (United States) women
.
Cancer Causes Control
1995
;
6
:
30
6
.
39.
Bostick
RM
,
Potter
JD
,
Kushi
LH
,
Sellers
TA
,
Steinmetz
KA
,
McKenzie
DR
, et al
.
Height, urban-born and prostate cancer risk in Japanese men
.
Jpn J Clin Oncol
2008
;
38
:
205
13
.
40.
Suadicani
P
,
Hein
HO
,
Gyntelberg
F
.
Height, weight, and risk of colorectal cancer. An 18-year follow-up in a cohort of 5249 men
.
Scand J Gastroenterol
1993
;
28
:
285
8
.
41.
Dietz
AT
,
Newcomb
PA
,
Mareus
PM
,
Storer
BE
.
Body surface area, height, and body fat percentage as more sensitive risk factors of cancer and cardiovascular disease
.
Cancer Med
2020
;
9
:
4433
46
.
42.
Minami
Y
,
Tochigi
T
,
Kawamura
S
,
Tateno
H
,
Hoshi
S
,
Nishino
Y
, et al
.
Exploring geographical differences in the incidence of colorectal cancer in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study: a population-based prospective study
.
Clin Epidemiol
2019
;
11
:
669
82
.
43.
Demb
J
,
Earles
A
,
Martinez
ME
,
Bustamante
R
,
Bryant
AK
,
Murphy
JD
, et al
.
Risk factors for colorectal cancer significantly vary by anatomic site
.
BMJ Open Gastroenterol
2019
;
6
:
e000313
.
44.
Si
S
,
Tewara
MA
,
Ji
X
,
Wang
Y
,
Liu
Y
,
Dai
X
, et al
.
Modifiable pathways for colorectal cancer: a mendelian randomisation analysis
.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol
2020
;
5
:
55
62
.
45.
Oyeyemi
SO
,
Braaten
T
,
Botteri
E
,
Berstad
P
,
Borch
KB
.
Height and cancer risk in a network of case-control studies from northern Italy
.
Int J Cancer
1990
;
45
:
275
9
.
46.
Demb
J
,
Earles
A
,
Martínez
ME
,
Bustamante
R
,
Bryant
AK
,
Murphy
JD
, et al
.
Physical activity, obesity, and risk for colon cancer and adenoma in men
.
Ann Intern Med
1995
;
122
:
327
34
.
47.
Cornish
AJ
,
Law
PJ
,
Timofeeva
M
,
Palin
K
,
Farrington
SM
,
Palles
C
, et al
.
Epidemiology of sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle, medical history, and colon cancer: a case-control study among French Canadians in Montreal
.
Cancer Detect Prev
1998
;
22
:
396
404
.
48.
La Vecchia
C
,
Negri
E
,
Parazzini
F
,
Boyle
P
,
D'Avanzo
B
,
Levi
F
, et al
.
Energy intake, overweight, physical exercise and colorectal cancer risk
.
Eur J Cancer Prev
1999
;
8
:
S53
60
.
49.
Giovannucci
E
,
Rimm
EB
,
Liu
Y
,
Willett
WC
.
Height, predictors of C-peptide and cancer risk in men
.
Int J Epidemiol
2004
;
33
:
217
25
.
50.
Ghadirian
P
,
Maisonneuve
P
,
Perret
C
,
Lacroix
A
,
Boyle
P
.
Excess body weight and colorectal cancer risk in Canada: associations in subgroups of clinically defined familial risk of cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2007
;
16
:
1735
44
.
51.
Shin
A
,
Joo
J
,
Yang
HR
,
Bak
J
,
Park
Y
,
Kim
J
, et al
.
Risk prediction model for colorectal cancer: National Health Insurance Corporation study, Korea
.
PLoS One
2014
;
9
:
e88079
.
52.
Simons
CC
,
van den Brandt
PA
,
Stehouwer
CD
,
van Engeland
M
,
Weijenberg
MP
.
Body size, physical activity, early-life energy restriction, and associations with methylated insulin-like growth factor-binding protein genes in colorectal cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2014
;
23
:
1852
62
.
53.
Lin
ZW
.
Analysis of the height dependence of site-specific cancer risk in relation to organ mass
.
Ann Transl Med
2016
;
4
:
88
.
54.
Shin
A
,
Joo
J
,
Yang
HR
,
Bak
J
,
Park
Y
,
Kim
J
, et al
.
Body size, physical activity, genetic variants in the insulin-like growth factor pathway and colorectal cancer risk
.
Carcinogenesis
2015
;
36
:
971
81
.
55.
Keskin
H
,
Etemadi
A
,
Taylor
P
.
Risk factors of colorectal cancer in Linxian, China: A nutrition intervention trial with 30 years follow-up
.
Ann Oncol
2018
;
29
:
56
56
.
56.
Pust
AB
,
Alison
R
,
Blanks
R
,
Pirie
K
,
Gaitskell
K
,
Barnes
I
, et al
.
Heterogeneity of colorectal cancer risk by tumour characteristics: Large prospective study of UK women
.
Int J Cancer
2017
;
140
:
1082
90
.
57.
US Preventive Services Task Force
.
Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
.
JAMA
2021
;
325
:
1965
77
.
58.
Provenzale
D
,
Ness
RM
,
Llor
X
,
Weiss
JM
,
Abbadessa
B
,
Cooper
G
, et al
.
NCCN guidelines insights: colorectal cancer screening, version 2.2020
.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw
2020
;
18
:
1312
20
.
59.
Burón Pust
A
,
Alison
R
,
Blanks
R
,
Pirie
K
,
Gaitskell
K
,
Barnes
I
, et al
.
Is height a risk factor for colorectal adenoma?
Korean J Intern Med
2016
;
31
:
653
9
.
60.
Boutron-Ruault
MC
,
Senesse
P
,
Meance
S
,
Belghiti
C
,
Faivre
J
.
Energy intake, body mass index, physical activity, and the colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence
.
Nutr Cancer
2001
;
39
:
50
7
.
61.
Provenzale
D
,
Ness
RM
,
Llor
X
,
Weiss
JM
,
Abbadessa
B
,
Cooper
G
, et al
.
Body fatness during childhood and adolescence, adult height, and risk of colorectal adenoma in women
.
Cancer Prev Res
2011
;
4
:
1710
8
.
62.
Pyo
JH
,
Hong
SN
,
Min
BH
,
Chang
DK
,
Son
HJ
,
Rhee
PL
, et al
.
Height and body fatness and colorectal cancer risk: an update of the WCRF-AICR systematic review of published prospective studies
.
Eur J Nutr
2018
;
57
:
1701
20
.
63.
Boutron-Ruault
M-C
,
Senesse
P
,
Mèance
S
,
Belghiti
C
,
Faivre
J
.
Association between adult height and risk of colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer: Results from meta-analyses of prospective studies and Mendelian randomization analyses
.
PLoS Med
2016
;
13
:
e1002118
.
64.
Nimptsch
K
,
Giovannucci
E
,
Willett
WC
,
Fuchs
CS
,
Wei
EK
,
Wu
K
.
Height and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis
.
Eur J Cancer Prev
2018
;
27
:
521
9
.
65.
Abar
L
,
Vieira
AR
,
Aune
D
,
Sobiecki
JG
,
Vingeliene
S
,
Polemiti
E
, et al
.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
.
PLoS Med
2009
;
6
:
e1000097
.
66.
Khankari
NK
,
Shu
X
,
Wen
W
,
Kraft
P
,
Lindström
S
,
Peters
U
, et al
.
Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group
.
JAMA
2000
;
283
:
2008
12
.
67.
Song
X
,
Gong
X
,
Zhang
T
,
Jiang
W
.
Yogurt consumption and colorectal polyps
.
Br J Nutr
2020
;
124
:
80
91
.
68.
Moher
D
,
Liberati
A
,
Tetzlaff
J
,
Altman
DG
.
Self-reported metabolic risk factor associations with adenomatous, sessile serrated, and synchronous adenomatous and sessile serrated polyps
.
Cancer Prev Res
2021
;
14
:
697
708
.
69.
Wells BS
GA
,
O'Connell
D
,
Peterson
J
,
Welch
V
,
Losos
M
,
Tugwell
P
.
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses
.
Ottawa, Canada
:
The Ottawa Hospital
;
2020
[cited 2020 August 26]. Available from
: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
70.
DerSimonian
R
,
Laird
N
.
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
.
Control Clin Trials
1986
;
7
:
177
88
.
71.
Higgins
JP
,
Thompson
SG
.
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis
.
Stat Med
2002
;
21
:
1539
58
.
72.
Egger
M
,
Smith
GD
,
Schneider
M
,
Minder
C
.
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
.
BMJ
1997
;
315
:
629
34
.
73.
Guyatt
GH
,
Oxman
AD
,
Vist
GE
,
Kunz
R
,
Falck-Ytter
Y
,
Alonso-Coello
P
, et al
.
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
.
BMJ
2008
;
336
:
924
6
.
74.
Bailey
RHT
,
Health
IK
. Health,
height and the household at the turn of the 20th century
.
Econ Hist Rev
2016
;
69
:
35–53
.
Discussion paper no. 8128
.
75.
Holmgren
A
,
Niklasson
A
,
Aronson
AS
,
Sjoberg
A
,
Lissner
L
,
Albertsson-Wikland
K
.
Nordic populations are still getting taller - secular changes in height from the 20th to 21st century
.
Acta Paediatr
2019
;
108
:
1311
20
.
76.
Albanes
D
,
Jones
DY
,
Schatzkin
A
,
Micozzi
MS
,
Taylor
PR
.
Adult stature and risk of cancer
.
Cancer Res
1988
;
48
:
1658
62
.
77.
Chen
ST
.
Secular trend of growth in Malaysian children
.
J Singapore Paediatr Soc
1990
;
32
:
102
7
.
78.
Breau
G
,
Ellis
U
.
Risk factors associated with young-onset colorectal adenomas and cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research
.
Cancer Control
2020
;
27
:
1073274820976670
.
79.
Albanes
D
,
Winick
M
.
Are cell number and cell proliferation risk factors for cancer?
J Natl Cancer Inst
1988
;
80
:
772
5
.
80.
Juul
A
,
Bang
P
,
Hertel
NT
,
Main
K
,
Dalgaard
P
,
Jorgensen
K
, et al
.
Serum insulin-like growth factor-I in 1030 healthy children, ado- lescents, and adults: relation to age, sex, stage of puberty, testicular size, and body mass index
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
1994
;
78
:
744
52
.
81.
AsghariHanjani
N
,
Vafa
M
.
The role of IGF-1 in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and cancer
.
Med J Islam Repub Iran
2019
;
33
:
56
.
82.
Renehan
AG
,
Zwahlen
M
,
Minder
C
,
O'Dwyer
ST
,
Shalet
SM
,
Egger
M
.
Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein-3, and cancer risk: systematic review and meta-regression analysis
.
Lancet
2004
;
363
:
1346
53
.
83.
Simons
C
,
Schouten
LJ
,
Godschalk
R
,
van Engeland
M
,
van den Brandt
PA
,
van Schooten
FJ
, et al
.
Body size, physical activity, genetic variants in the insulin-like growth factor pathway and colorectal cancer risk
.
Carcinogenesis
2015
;
36
:
971
81
.
84.
Pollak
MN
,
Schernhammer
ES
,
Hankinson
SE
.
Insulin-like growth factors and neoplasia
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2004
;
4
:
505
18
.
85.
Yakar
SRC
,
Beamer
WG
,
Ackert-Bicknell
CL
,
Wu
Y
,
Liu
JL
, et al
.
Circulating levels of IGF-1 directly regulate bone growth and density
.
J Clin Invest
2002
;
110
:
771
81
.
86.
RG
R
.
Insulin-like growth factors and the basis of growth
.
N Engl J Med
2003
;
349
:
2184
6
.
87.
Kabat
GC
,
Anderson
ML
,
Heo
M
,
Hosgood
HD
III
,
Kamensky
V
,
Bea
JW
, et al
.
Adult stature and risk of cancer at different anatomic sites in a cohort of postmenopausal women
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2013
;
22
:
1353
63
.
88.
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
:
1125
32
.
89.
Yakar
S
,
Rosen
CJ
,
Beamer
WG
,
Ackert-Bicknell
CL
,
Wu
Y
,
Liu
JL
, et al
.
Height as an explanatory factor for sex differences in human cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2013
;
105
:
860
8
.
90.
He
X
,
Wu
K
,
Ogino
S
,
Giovannucci
EL
,
Chan
AT
,
Song
M
.
Association between risk factors for colorectal cancer and risk of serrated polyps and conventional adenomas
.
Gastroenterology
2018
;
155
:
355
73
.
91.
Bernstein
AM
,
Song
M
,
Zhang
X
,
Pan
A
,
Wang
M
,
Fuchs
CS
, et al
.
Processed and unprocessed red meat and risk of colorectal cancer: analysis by tumor location and modification by time
.
PLoS One
2015
;
10
:
e0135959
.
92.
Botteri
E
,
Iodice
S
,
Bagnardi
V
,
Giovannucci
EL
,
Chan
AT
,
Song
M
.
Smoking and colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis
.
JAMA
2008
;
300
:
2765
78
.
93.
Kabat
GC
,
Heo
M
,
Kamensky
V
,
Miller
AB
,
Rohan
TE
.
Factors associated with errors in self-reported height and weight in older adults
.
J Nutr Health Aging
2008
;
12
:
108
15
.
94.
Fryar
CD
,
Kruszon-Moran
D
,
Gu
Q
,
Ogden
CL
.
Mean body weight, height, waist circumference, and body mass index among adults: United States, 1999–2000 through 2015–2016
.
Natl Health Stat Report
2018
:
1
16
.

Supplementary data