Repository logo
 

Systematic review of Mendelian randomization studies on risk of cancer.

Published version
Peer-reviewed

Repository DOI


No Thumbnail Available

Type

Article

Change log

Authors

Markozannes, Georgios 
Kanellopoulou, Afroditi 
Dimopoulou, Olympia 
Kosmidis, Dimitrios 
Zhang, Xiaomeng 

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We aimed to map and describe the current state of Mendelian randomization (MR) literature on cancer risk and to identify associations supported by robust evidence. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Scopus up to 06/10/2020 for MR studies investigating the association of any genetically predicted risk factor with cancer risk. We categorized the reported associations based on a priori designed levels of evidence supporting a causal association into four categories, namely robust, probable, suggestive, and insufficient, based on the significance and concordance of the main MR analysis results and at least one of the MR-Egger, weighed median, MRPRESSO, and multivariable MR analyses. Associations not presenting any of the aforementioned sensitivity analyses were not graded. RESULTS: We included 190 publications reporting on 4667 MR analyses. Most analyses (3200; 68.6%) were not accompanied by any of the assessed sensitivity analyses. Of the 1467 evaluable analyses, 87 (5.9%) were supported by robust, 275 (18.7%) by probable, and 89 (6.1%) by suggestive evidence. The most prominent robust associations were observed for anthropometric indices with risk of breast, kidney, and endometrial cancers; circulating telomere length with risk of kidney, lung, osteosarcoma, skin, thyroid, and hematological cancers; sex steroid hormones and risk of breast and endometrial cancer; and lipids with risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large amount of research on genetically predicted risk factors for cancer risk, limited associations are supported by robust evidence for causality. Most associations did not present a MR sensitivity analysis and were thus non-evaluable. Future research should focus on more thorough assessment of sensitivity MR analyses and on more transparent reporting.

Description

Keywords

Cancer, Evidence grading, Mendelian randomization, Risk factors, Systematic review, Causality, Genome-Wide Association Study, Humans, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, Ovarian Neoplasms, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Risk Factors

Journal Title

BMC Med

Conference Name

Journal ISSN

1741-7015
1741-7015

Volume Title

Publisher

BioMed Central
Sponsorship
Wellcome Trust (204623/Z/16/Z)
National Institute for Health and Care Research (IS-BRC-1215-20014)
British Heart Foundation (None)
British Heart Foundation (CH/12/2/29428)
British Heart Foundation (RG/18/13/33946)
This work was supported by Cancer Res UK (grant number C18281/A29019). SB is supported by a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship jointly funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (204623/Z/16/Z). This research was supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. ET is supported by a Cancer Res UK Career Development Fellowship (C31250/A22804). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Version History

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
VersionDateSummary
2*
2023-10-30 11:26:07
Published version created
2022-01-12 00:30:44
* Selected version