SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Public Health
Sec. Environmental Health and Exposome
Volume 13 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1623840
Environmental risk factors, protective factors and lifestyles for lung cancer: an umbrella review
Provisionally accepted
- 1Shanghai East Hospital, Shanghai, China
- 2Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, Shanghai city, China
- 3Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with environmental exposures and lifestyle factors playing a crucial role in its etiology. This umbrella review aims to systematically assess and classify the strength of evidence for environmental and lifestyle factors associated with lung cancer risk.Methods A systematic search of published meta-analyses was conducted from database inception until January 31, 2025. Eligible meta-analyses included those evaluating associations between environmental or lifestyle exposures and lung cancer risk, with effect sizes reported as risk ratio (RR), odds ratios (OR), or standardized mortality ratios (SMR). The credibility of associations was assessed using statistical significance, heterogeneity (I²), small-study effects, and excess significance bias. The evidence was categorized into convincing (Class I), highly suggestive (Class II), suggestive (Class III), and weak or non-significant associations.Results A total of 58 meta-analyses covering 34 environmental factors and 24 lifestyle factors were included. Three environmental exposures-cadmium exposure (RR=1.24, 95% CI: 1.18-1.29), diesel exhaust exposure (RR=1.16, 95% CI: 1.13-1.18), and occupational exposure to paints (OR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.29-1.51)-were classified as convincing evidence (Class I).Fifteen additional environmental factors, including secondhand smoke, benzene, formaldehyde, and indoor coal use, were classified as highly suggestive evidence (Class II). Among lifestyle factors, cooking-related exposures (OR=1.21, 95% CI: 1.10-1.31) showed a convincing association with lung cancer risk, while dietary cholesterol intake (OR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.20-1.64) and the Western dietary pattern (RR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.01-1.66) were classified as highly suggestive evidence. Dietary patterns associated with reduced lung cancer risk included the Mediterranean diet (RR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.82-0.93) and the prudent dietary pattern (RR=0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.96), both of which were significantly associated with lower lung cancer risk.Heterogeneity was substantial in 48.57% of environmental associations and 39.13% of lifestyle associations, highlighting potential confounding factors.This umbrella review highlights multiple environmental and lifestyle exposures with strong or suggestive associations with lung cancer. These findings support stricter environmental regulations, workplace protections, and lifestyle interventions. Future research should prioritize biomarker-based exposure assessments and long-term cohort studies to refine risk estimates and inform prevention strategies.
Keywords: lung cancer, Environmental Exposure, lifestyle factors, Umbrella review, Evidence grading
Received: 06 May 2025; Accepted: 08 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Feng, Wang, Bao and Zhu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Lei Zhu, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.