Baron, John A

Abstract Background: Evidence for aspirin's chemopreventative properties on colorectal cancer (CRC) is substantial, but its mechanism of action is not well-understood. We combined a proteomic approach with Mendelian randomization (MR) to identify possible new aspirin targets that decrease CRC risk. Methods: Human colorectal adenoma cells (RG/C2) were treated with aspirin (24 hours) and a stable isotope labeling with amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) based proteomics approach identified altered protein expression. Protein quantitative trait loci (pQTLs) from INTERVAL (N = 3,301) and expression QTLs (eQTLs) from the eQTLGen Consortium (N = 31,684) were used as genetic proxies for protein and mRNA expression levels. Two-sample MR of mRNA/protein expression on CRC risk was performed using eQTL/pQTL data combined with CRC genetic summary data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR), Colorectal Transdisciplinary (CORECT), Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer (GECCO) consortia and UK Biobank (55,168 cases and 65,160 controls). Results: Altered expression was detected for 125/5886 proteins. Of these, aspirin decreased MCM6, RRM2, and ARFIP2 expression, and MR analysis showed that a standard deviation increase in mRNA/protein expression was associated with increased CRC risk (OR: 1.08, 95% CI, 1.03–1.13; OR: 3.33, 95% CI, 2.46–4.50; and OR: 1.15, 95% CI, 1.02–1.29, respectively). Conclusions: MCM6 and RRM2 are involved in DNA repair whereby reduced expression may lead to increased DNA aberrations and ultimately cancer cell death, whereas ARFIP2 is involved in actin cytoskeletal regulation, indicating a possible role in aspirin's reduction of metastasis. Impact: Our approach has shown how laboratory experiments and population-based approaches can combine to identify aspirin-targeted proteins possibly affecting CRC risk.

Abstract Purpose: Reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality through early detection would improve efficacy if targeted. We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction model incorporating personal, family, genetic, and environmental risk factors to enhance prevention. Methods: A familial risk profile (FRP) was calculated to summarize individuals' risk based on detailed cancer family history (FH), family structure, probabilities of mutation in major colorectal cancer susceptibility genes, and a polygenic component. We developed risk models, including individuals' FRP or binary colorectal cancer FH, and colorectal cancer risk factors collected at enrollment using population-based colorectal cancer cases (N = 4,445) and controls (N = 3,967) recruited by the Colon Cancer Family Registry Cohort (CCFRC). Model validation used CCFRC follow-up data for population-based (N = 12,052) and clinic-based (N = 5,584) relatives with no cancer history at recruitment to assess model calibration [expected/observed rate ratio (E/O)] and discrimination [area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC)]. Results: The E/O [95% confidence interval (CI)] for FRP models for population-based relatives were 1.04 (0.74–1.45) for men and 0.86 (0.64–1.20) for women, and for clinic-based relatives were 1.15 (0.87–1.58) for men and 1.04 (0.76–1.45) for women. The age-adjusted AUCs (95% CI) for FRP models for population-based relatives were 0.69 (0.60–0.78) for men and 0.70 (0.62–0.77) for women, and for clinic-based relatives were 0.77 (0.69–0.84) for men and 0.68 (0.60–0.76) for women. The incremental values of AUC for FRP over FH models for population-based relatives were 0.08 (0.01–0.15) for men and 0.10 (0.04–0.16) for women, and for clinic-based relatives were 0.11 (0.05–0.17) for men and 0.11 (0.06–0.17) for women. Conclusions: Both models calibrated well. The FRP-based model provided better risk stratification and risk discrimination than the FH-based model. Impact: Our findings suggest detailed FH may be useful for targeted risk-based screening and clinical management.