Search

Background: Tumour-promoting inflammation is a "hallmark" of cancer and conventional epidemiological studies have reported links between various inflammatory markers and cancer risk. The causal nature of these relationships and, thus, the suitability of these markers as intervention targets for cancer prevention is unclear., Methods: We meta-analysed 6 genome-wide association studies of circulating inflammatory markers comprising 59,969 participants of European ancestry. We then used combined cis-Mendelian randomization and colocalisation analysis to evaluate the causal role of 66 circulating inflammatory markers in risk of 30 adult cancers in 338,294 cancer cases and up to 1,238,345 controls. Genetic instruments for inflammatory markers were constructed using genome-wide significant (P < 5.0 × 10 -8 ) cis-acting SNPs (i.e., in or ±250 kb from the gene encoding the relevant protein) in weak linkage disequilibrium (LD, r 2  < 0.10). Effect estimates were generated using inverse-variance weighted random-effects models and standard errors were inflated to account for weak LD between variants with reference to the 1000 Genomes Phase 3 CEU panel. A false discovery rate (FDR)-corrected P-value ("q-value") <0.05 was used as a threshold to define "strong evidence" to support associations and 0.05 ≤ q-value < 0.20 to define "suggestive evidence". A colocalisation posterior probability (PPH 4 ) >70% was employed to indicate support for shared causal variants across inflammatory markers and cancer outcomes. Findings were replicated in the FinnGen study and then pooled using meta-analysis., Findings: We found strong evidence to support an association of genetically-proxied circulating pro-adrenomedullin concentrations with increased breast cancer risk (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10-1.29, q-value = 0.033, PPH 4  = 84.3%) and suggestive evidence to support associations of interleukin-23 receptor concentrations with increased pancreatic cancer risk (OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.20-1.69, q-value = 0.055, PPH 4  = 73.9%), prothrombin concentrations with decreased basal cell carcinoma risk (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53-0.81, q-value = 0.067, PPH 4  = 81.8%), and interleukin-1 receptor-like 1 concentrations with decreased triple-negative breast cancer risk (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88-0.97, q-value = 0.15, PPH 4  = 85.6%). These findings were replicated in pooled analyses with the FinnGen study. Though suggestive evidence was found to support an association of macrophage migration inhibitory factor concentrations with increased bladder cancer risk (OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.48-4.10, q-value = 0.072, PPH 4  = 76.1%), this finding was not replicated when pooled with the FinnGen study. For 22 of 30 cancer outcomes examined, there was little evidence (q-value ≥0.20) that any of the 66 circulating inflammatory markers examined were associated with cancer risk., Interpretation: Our comprehensive joint Mendelian randomization and colocalisation analysis of the role of circulating inflammatory markers in cancer risk identified potential roles for 4 circulating inflammatory markers in risk of 4 site-specific cancers. Contrary to reports from some prior conventional epidemiological studies, we found little evidence of association of circulating inflammatory markers with the majority of site-specific cancers evaluated., Funding: Cancer Research UK (C68933/A28534, C18281/A29019, PPRCPJT∖100005), World Cancer Research Fund (IIG&#95;FULL&#95;2020&#95;022), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR202411, BRC-1215-20011), Medical Research Council (MC&#95;UU&#95;00011/1, MC&#95;UU&#95;00011/3, MC&#95;UU&#95;00011/6, and MC&#95;UU&#95;00011/4), Academy of Finland Project 326291, European Union's Horizon 2020 grant agreement no. 848158 (EarlyCause), French National Cancer Institute (INCa SHSESP20, 2020-076), Versus Arthritis (21173, 21754, 21755), National Institutes of Health (U19 CA203654), National Cancer Institute (U19CA203654)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GDS reports Scientific Advisory Board Membership for Relation Therapeutics and Insitro. Where authors are identified as personnel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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)., Competing Interests: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.)

It is unclear if body weight in early life affects cancer risk independently of adult body weight. To investigate this question for 6 obesity-related cancers, we performed univariable and multivariable analyses using 1) Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis and 2) longitudinal analyses in prospective cohorts. Both the MR and longitudinal analyses indicated that larger early life body size was associated with higher risk of endometrial (odds ratioMR = 1.61, 95% confidence interval = 1.23 to 2.11) and kidney (odds ratioMR = 1.40, 95% confidence interval = 1.09 to 1.80) cancer. These associations were attenuated after accounting for adult body size in both the MR and cohort analyses. Early life body mass index (BMI) was not consistently associated with the other investigated cancers. The lack of clear independent risk associations suggests that early life BMI influences endometrial and kidney cancer risk mainly through pathways that are common with adult BMI., (© World Health Organization, 2022. All rights reserved. The World Health Organization has granted the Publisher permission for the reproduction of this article.)

Dietary factors are assumed to play an important role in cancer risk, apparent in consensus recommendations for cancer prevention that promote nutritional changes. However, the evidence in this field has been generated predominantly through observational studies, which may result in biased effect estimates because of confounding, exposure misclassification, and reverse causality. With major geographical differences and rapid changes in cancer incidence over time, it is crucial to establish which of the observational associations reflect causality and to identify novel risk factors as these may be modified to prevent the onset of cancer and reduce its progression. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses the special properties of germline genetic variation to strengthen causal inference regarding potentially modifiable exposures and disease risk. MR can be implemented through instrumental variable (IV) analysis and, when robustly performed, is generally less prone to confounding, reverse causation and measurement error than conventional observational methods and has different sources of bias (discussed in detail below). It is increasingly used to facilitate causal inference in epidemiology and provides an opportunity to explore the effects of nutritional exposures on cancer incidence and progression in a cost-effective and timely manner. Here, we introduce the concept of MR and discuss its current application in understanding the impact of nutritional factors (e.g., any measure of diet and nutritional intake, circulating biomarkers, patterns, preference or behaviour) on cancer aetiology and, thus, opportunities for MR to contribute to the development of nutritional recommendations and policies for cancer prevention. We provide applied examples of MR studies examining the role of nutritional factors in cancer to illustrate how this method can be used to help prioritise or deprioritise the evaluation of specific nutritional factors as intervention targets in randomised controlled trials. We describe possible biases when using MR, and methodological developments aimed at investigating and potentially overcoming these biases when present. Lastly, we consider the use of MR in identifying causally relevant nutritional risk factors for various cancers in different regions across the world, given notable geographical differences in some cancers. We also discuss how MR results could be translated into further research and policy. We conclude that findings from MR studies, which corroborate those from other well-conducted studies with different and orthogonal biases, are poised to substantially improve our understanding of nutritional influences on cancer. For such corroboration, there is a requirement for an interdisciplinary and collaborative approach to investigate risk factors for cancer incidence and progression., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Despite improvements in the understanding of cancer causation, much remains unknown regarding the mechanisms by which genomic and non-genomic factors initiate carcinogenesis, drive cell invasion and metastasis, and enable cancer to develop. Technological advances have enabled the analysis of whole genomes, comprising thousands of tumours across populations worldwide, with the aim of identifying mutation signatures associated with particular tumour types. Large collaborative efforts have resulted in the identification and improved understanding of causal factors, and have shed light on new opportunities to prevent cancer. In this new era in cancer genomics, discoveries from studies conducted on an international scale can inform evidence-based strategies in cancer control along the cancer care continuum, from prevention to treatment. In this Review, we present the relevant history and emerging frontiers of cancer genetics and genomics from the perspective of global cancer prevention. We highlight the importance of local context in the adoption of new technologies and emergent evidence, with illustrative examples from worldwide. We emphasize the challenges in implementing important genomic findings in clinical settings with disparate resource availability and present a conceptual framework for the translation of such findings into clinical practice, and evidence-based policies in order to maximize the utility for a population.