Citations

Abstract Background People with cancer experience high rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Risk of subsequent cancer is also increased in people experiencing their first VTE. The causal mechanisms underlying this association are not completely understood, and it is unknown whether VTE is itself a risk factor for cancer. Methods We used data from large genome-wide association study meta-analyses to perform bidirectional Mendelian randomization analyses to estimate causal associations between genetic liability to VTE and risk of 18 different cancers. Results We found no conclusive evidence that genetic liability to VTE was causally associated with an increased incidence of cancer, or vice versa. We observed an association between liability to VTE and pancreatic cancer risk [odds ratio for pancreatic cancer: 1.23 (95% confidence interval: 1.08–1.40) per log-odds increase in VTE risk, P = 0.002]. However, sensitivity analyses revealed this association was predominantly driven by a variant proxying non-O blood group, with inadequate evidence to suggest a causal relationship. Conclusions These findings do not support the hypothesis that genetic liability to VTE is a cause of cancer. Existing observational epidemiological associations between VTE and cancer are therefore more likely to be driven by pathophysiological changes which occur in the setting of active cancer and anti-cancer treatments. Further work is required to explore and synthesize evidence for these mechanisms.

Abstract Background Mendelian randomization (MR) studies are susceptible to metadata errors (e.g. incorrect specification of the effect allele column) and other analytical issues that can introduce substantial bias into analyses. We developed a quality control (QC) pipeline for the Fatty Acids in Cancer Mendelian Randomization Collaboration (FAMRC) that can be used to identify and correct for such errors. Methods We collated summary association statistics from fatty acid and cancer genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and subjected the collated data to a comprehensive QC pipeline. We identified metadata errors through comparison of study-specific statistics to external reference data sets (the National Human Genome Research Institute-European Bioinformatics Institute GWAS catalogue and 1000 genome super populations) and other analytical issues through comparison of reported to expected genetic effect sizes. Comparisons were based on three sets of genetic variants: (i) GWAS hits for fatty acids, (ii) GWAS hits for cancer and (iii) a 1000 genomes reference set. Results We collated summary data from 6 fatty acid and 54 cancer GWAS. Metadata errors and analytical issues with the potential to introduce substantial bias were identified in seven studies (11.6%). After resolving metadata errors and analytical issues, we created a data set of 219 842 genetic associations with 90 cancer types, generated in analyses of 566 665 cancer cases and 1 622 374 controls. Conclusions In this large MR collaboration, 11.6% of included studies were affected by a substantial metadata error or analytical issue. By increasing the integrity of collated summary data prior to their analysis, our protocol can be used to increase the reliability of downstream MR analyses. Our pipeline is available to other researchers via the CheckSumStats package (https://github.com/MRCIEU/CheckSumStats).

Abstract Background: Whether circulating polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) levels are associated with pancreatic cancer risk is uncertain. Mendelian randomization (MR) represents a study design using genetic instruments to better characterize the relationship between exposure and outcome. Methods: We utilized data from genome-wide association studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium, involving approximately 9,269 cases and 12,530 controls of European descent, to evaluate associations between pancreatic cancer risk and genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels. Conventional MR analyses were performed using individual-level and summary-level data. Results: Using genetic instruments, we did not find evidence of associations between genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels and pancreatic cancer risk [estimates per one SD increase in each PUFA-specific weighted genetic score using summary statistics: linoleic acid odds ratio (OR) = 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.98–1.02; arachidonic acid OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.99–1.01; and dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.87–1.02]. The OR estimates remained virtually unchanged after adjustment for covariates, using individual-level data or summary statistics, or stratification by age and sex. Conclusions: Our results suggest that variations of genetically determined plasma n-6 PUFA levels are not associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Impact: These results suggest that modifying n-6 PUFA levels through food sources or supplementation may not influence risk of pancreatic cancer.

Abstract Background: Results from epidemiologic studies examining polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and colorectal cancer risk are inconsistent. Mendelian randomization may strengthen causal inference from observational studies. Given their shared metabolic pathway, examining the combined effects of aspirin/NSAID use with PUFAs could help elucidate an association between PUFAs and colorectal cancer risk. Methods: Information was leveraged from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) regarding PUFA-associated SNPs to create weighted genetic scores (wGS) representing genetically predicted circulating blood PUFAs for 11,016 non-Hispanic white colorectal cancer cases and 13,732 controls in the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO). Associations per SD increase in the wGS were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. Interactions between PUFA wGSs and aspirin/NSAID use on colorectal cancer risk were also examined. Results: Modest colorectal cancer risk reductions were observed per SD increase in circulating linoleic acid [ORLA = 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.93–0.98; P = 5.2 × 10−4] and α-linolenic acid (ORALA = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.92–0.97; P = 5.4 × 10−5), whereas modest increased risks were observed for arachidonic (ORAA = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.03–1.08; P = 3.3 × 10−5), eicosapentaenoic (OREPA = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.01–1.07; P = 2.5 × 10−3), and docosapentaenoic acids (ORDPA = 1.03; 95% CI = 1.01–1.06; P = 1.2 × 10−2). Each of these effects was stronger among aspirin/NSAID nonusers in the stratified analyses. Conclusions: Our study suggests that higher circulating shorter-chain PUFAs (i.e., LA and ALA) were associated with reduced colorectal cancer risk, whereas longer-chain PUFAs (i.e., AA, EPA, and DPA) were associated with an increased colorectal cancer risk. Impact: The interaction of PUFAs with aspirin/NSAID use indicates a shared colorectal cancer inflammatory pathway. Future research should continue to improve PUFA genetic instruments to elucidate the independent effects of PUFAs on colorectal cancer.

AbstractGenetic risk scores were used as unconfounded instruments for specific lipid traits (Mendelian randomization) to assess whether circulating lipids causally influence prostate cancer risk. Data from 22,249 prostate cancer cases and 22,133 controls from 22 studies within the international PRACTICAL consortium were analyzed. Allele scores based on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously reported to be uniquely associated with each of low‐density lipoprotein (LDL), high‐density lipoprotein (HDL), and triglyceride (TG) levels, were first validated in an independent dataset, and then entered into logistic regression models to estimate the presence (and direction) of any causal effect of each lipid trait on prostate cancer risk. There was weak evidence for an association between the LDL genetic score and cancer grade: the odds ratio (OR) per genetically instrumented standard deviation (SD) in LDL, comparing high‐ (≥7 Gleason score) versus low‐grade (<7 Gleason score) cancers was 1.50 (95% CI: 0.92, 2.46; P = 0.11). A genetically instrumented SD increase in TGs was weakly associated with stage: the OR for advanced versus localized cancer per unit increase in genetic risk score was 1.68 (95% CI: 0.95, 3.00; P = 0.08). The rs12916‐T variant in 3‐hydroxy‐3‐methylglutaryl‐CoA reductase (HMGCR) was inversely associated with prostate cancer (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.00; P = 0.03). In conclusion, circulating lipids, instrumented by our genetic risk scores, did not appear to alter prostate cancer risk. We found weak evidence that higher LDL and TG levels increase aggressive prostate cancer risk, and that a variant in HMGCR (that mimics the LDL lowering effect of statin drugs) reduces risk. However, inferences are limited by sample size and evidence of pleiotropy.