Search

Background: Sedentary behaviours have been associated with increased risks of some common cancers in epidemiological studies; however, it is unclear if these associations are causal., Methods: We used univariable and multivariable two-sample Mendelian randomisation (MR) to examine potential causal relationships between sedentary behaviours and risks of breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Genetic variants associated with self-reported leisure television watching and computer use were identified from a recent genome-wide association study (GWAS). Data related to cancer risk were obtained from cancer GWAS consortia. A series of sensitivity analyses were applied to examine the robustness of the results to the presence of confounding., Results: A 1-standard deviation (SD: 1.5 h/day) increment in hours of television watching increased risk of breast cancer (OR per 1-SD: 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.26) and colorectal cancer (OR per 1-SD: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.16-1.49) while there was little evidence of an association for prostate cancer risk (OR per 1-SD: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.84-1.06). After adjusting for years of education, the effect estimates for television watching were attenuated (breast cancer, OR per 1-SD: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.92-1.27; colorectal cancer, OR per 1-SD: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.90-1.31). Post hoc analyses showed that years of education might have a possible confounding and mediating role in the association between television watching with breast and colorectal cancer. Consistent results were observed for each cancer site according to sex (colorectal cancer), anatomical subsites and cancer subtypes. There was little evidence of associations between genetically predicted computer use and cancer risk., Conclusions: Our univariable analysis identified some positive associations between hours of television watching and risks of breast and colorectal cancer. However, further adjustment for additional lifestyle factors especially years of education attenuated these results. Future studies using objective measures of exposure can provide new insights into the possible role of sedentary behaviour in cancer development., (© 2023 World Health Organization; licensed by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Previous Mendelian randomization (MR) studies on 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) and cancer have typically adopted a handful of variants and found no relationship between 25(OH)D and cancer; however, issues of horizontal pleiotropy cannot be reliably addressed. Using a larger set of variants associated with 25(OH)D (74 SNPs, up from 6 previously), we perform a unified MR analysis to re-evaluate the relationship between 25(OH)D and ten cancers. Our findings are broadly consistent with previous MR studies indicating no relationship, apart from ovarian cancers (OR 0.89; 95% C.I: 0.82 to 0.96 per 1 SD change in 25(OH)D concentration) and basal cell carcinoma (OR 1.16; 95% C.I.: 1.04 to 1.28). However, after adjustment for pigmentation related variables in a multivariable MR framework, the BCC findings were attenuated. Here we report that lower 25(OH)D is unlikely to be a causal risk factor for most cancers, with our study providing more precise confidence intervals than previously possible.

ObjectivesPhysical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are associated with higher breast cancer risk in observational studies, but ascribing causality is difficult. Mendelian randomisation (MR) assesses causality by simulating randomised trial groups using genotype. We assessed whether lifelong physical activity or sedentary time, assessed using genotype, may be causally associated with breast cancer risk overall, pre/post-menopause, and by case-groups defined by tumour characteristics.MethodsWe performed two-sample inverse-variance-weighted MR using individual-level Breast Cancer Association Consortium case-control data from 130 957 European-ancestry women (69 838 invasive cases), and published UK Biobank data (n=91 105-377 234). Genetic instruments were single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank with wrist-worn accelerometer-measured overall physical activity (nsnps=5) or sedentary time (nsnps=6), or accelerometer-measured (nsnps=1) or self-reported (nsnps=5) vigorous physical activity.ResultsGreater genetically-predicted overall activity was associated with lower breast cancer overall risk (OR=0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.83 per-standard deviation (SD;~8 milligravities acceleration)) and for most case-groups. Genetically-predicted vigorous activity was associated with lower risk of pre/perimenopausal breast cancer (OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87,≥3 vs. 0 self-reported days/week), with consistent estimates for most case-groups. Greater genetically-predicted sedentary time was associated with higher hormone-receptor-negative tumour risk (OR=1.77; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.92 per-SD (~7% time spent sedentary)), with elevated estimates for most case-groups. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses examining pleiotropy (including weighted-median-MR, MR-Egger).ConclusionOur study provides strong evidence that greater overall physical activity, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk. More widespread adoption of active lifestyles may reduce the burden from the most common cancer in women.

BackgroundObservational studies suggest greater height is associated with increased ovarian cancer risk, but cannot exclude bias and/or confounding as explanations for this. Mendelian randomisation (MR) can provide evidence which may be less prone to bias.MethodsWe pooled data from 39 Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium studies (16,395 cases; 23,003 controls). We applied two-stage predictor-substitution MR, using a weighted genetic risk score combining 609 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Study-specific odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between genetically predicted height and risk were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsGreater genetically predicted height was associated with increased ovarian cancer risk overall (pooled-OR (pOR) = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01-1.11 per 5 cm increase in height), and separately for invasive (pOR = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01-1.11) and borderline (pOR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.02-1.29) tumours.ConclusionsWomen with a genetic propensity to being taller have increased risk of ovarian cancer. This suggests genes influencing height are involved in pathways promoting ovarian carcinogenesis.