METHODS: Collaborating investigators from 15 prospective studies provided individual-participant records (from predominantly men of white European ancestry) on blood or toenail selenium concentrations and prostate cancer risk. Odds ratios of prostate cancer by selenium concentration were estimated using multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Blood selenium was not associated with the risk of total prostate cancer (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [OR] per 80 percentile increase = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 1.23, based on 4527 case patients and 6021 control subjects). However, there was heterogeneity by disease aggressiveness (ie, advanced stage and/or prostate cancer death, Pheterogeneity = .01), with high blood selenium associated with a lower risk of aggressive disease (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.87) but not with nonaggressive disease. Nail selenium was inversely associated with total prostate cancer (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.40, Ptrend < .001, based on 1970 case patients and 2086 control subjects), including both nonaggressive (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.50) and aggressive disease (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.31, Pheterogeneity = .08).
CONCLUSIONS: Nail, but not blood, selenium concentration is inversely associated with risk of total prostate cancer, possibly because nails are a more reliable marker of long-term selenium exposure. Both blood and nail selenium concentrations are associated with a reduced risk of aggressive disease, which warrants further investigation.
METHODS: We conducted a large agnostic pathway-based meta-analysis of GWAS data using the summary-based adaptive rank truncated product method to identify gene sets and pathways associated with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in 9040 cases and 12 496 controls. We performed expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) analysis and functional annotation of the top SNPs in genes contributing to the top associated pathways and gene sets. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: We identified 14 pathways and gene sets associated with PDAC at a false discovery rate of less than 0.05. After Bonferroni correction (P ≤ 1.3 × 10-5), the strongest associations were detected in five pathways and gene sets, including maturity-onset diabetes of the young, regulation of beta-cell development, role of epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor transactivation by G protein-coupled receptors in cardiac hypertrophy pathways, and the Nikolsky breast cancer chr17q11-q21 amplicon and Pujana ATM Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) network gene sets. We identified and validated rs876493 and three correlating SNPs (PGAP3) and rs3124737 (CASP7) from the Pujana ATM PCC gene set as eQTLs in two normal derived pancreas tissue datasets.
CONCLUSION: Our agnostic pathway and gene set analysis integrated with functional annotation and eQTL analysis provides insight into genes and pathways that may be biologically relevant for risk of PDAC, including those not previously identified.
METHODS: We used Mendelian randomization approaches to evaluate the association of height and BMI on breast cancer risk, using data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 with 14 676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, including 11 451 cases of breast cancer. We created a height genetic score using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score using 93 BMI-associated variants. We examined both observed and genetically determined height and BMI with breast cancer risk using weighted Cox models. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Observed height was positively associated with breast cancer risk (HR = 1.09 per 10 cm increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0 to 1.17; P = 1.17). Height genetic score was positively associated with breast cancer, although this was not statistically significant (per 10 cm increase in genetically predicted height, HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.17; P = .47). Observed BMI was inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase, HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.90 to 0.98; P = .007). BMI genetic score was also inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase in genetically predicted BMI, HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.98; P = .02). BMI was primarily associated with premenopausal breast cancer.
CONCLUSION: Height is associated with overall breast cancer and BMI is associated with premenopausal breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Incorporating height and BMI, particularly genetic score, into risk assessment may improve cancer management.
Methods: We examined associations of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-hip ratio (WHR) with lung cancer risk among 1.6 million Americans, Europeans, and Asians. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with adjustment for potential confounders. Analyses for WC/WHR were further adjusted for BMI. The joint effect of BMI and WC/WHR was also evaluated.
Results: During an average 12-year follow-up, 23 732 incident lung cancer cases were identified. While BMI was generally associated with a decreased risk, WC and WHR were associated with increased risk after controlling for BMI. These associations were seen 10 years before diagnosis in smokers and never smokers, were strongest among blacks, and varied by histological type. After excluding the first five years of follow-up, hazard ratios per 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI were 0.95 (95% CI = 0.90 to 1.00), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.89 to 0.95), and 0.89 (95% CI = 0.86 to 0.91) in never, former, and current smokers, and 0.86 (95% CI = 0.84 to 0.89), 0.94 (95% CI = 0.90 to 0.99), and 1.09 (95% CI = 1.03 to 1.15) for adenocarcinoma, squamous cell, and small cell carcinoma, respectively. Hazard ratios per 10 cm increase in WC were 1.09 (95% CI = 1.00 to 1.18), 1.12 (95% CI = 1.07 to 1.17), and 1.11 (95% CI = 1.07 to 1.16) in never, former, and current smokers, and 1.06 (95% CI = 1.01 to 1.12), 1.20 (95% CI = 1.12 to 1.29), and 1.13 (95% CI = 1.04 to 1.23) for adenocarcinoma, squamous cell, and small cell carcinoma, respectively. Participants with BMIs of less than 25 kg/m2 but high WC had a 40% higher risk (HR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.26 to 1.56) than those with BMIs of 25 kg/m2 or greater but normal/moderate WC.
Conclusions: The inverse BMI-lung cancer association is not entirely due to smoking and reverse causation. Central obesity, particularly concurrent with low BMI, may help identify high-risk populations for lung cancer.
METHODS: Associations between prediagnostic plasma levels of 17 primary, secondary, and tertiary bile acid metabolites (conjugated and unconjugated) and colon cancer risk were evaluated in a nested case-control study within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. Bile acid levels were quantified by tandem mass spectrometry in samples from 569 incident colon cancer cases and 569 matched controls. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for colon cancer risk across quartiles of bile acid concentrations.
RESULTS: Positive associations were observed between colon cancer risk and plasma levels of seven conjugated bile acid metabolites: the primary bile acids glycocholic acid (ORquartile 4 vs quartile 1= 2.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.52 to 3.26), taurocholic acid (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.23 to 2.58), glycochenodeoxycholic acid (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.48), taurochenodeoxycholic acid (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.36), and glycohyocholic acid (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.40), and the secondary bile acids glycodeoxycholic acid (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.12 to 2.54) and taurodeoxycholic acid (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.02 to 2.31). By contrast, unconjugated bile acids and tertiary bile acids were not associated with risk.
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study showed that prediagnostic levels of certain conjugated primary and secondary bile acids were positively associated with risk of colon cancer. Our findings support experimental data to suggest that a high bile acid load is colon cancer promotive.
METHODS: To discover novel pancreatic cancer risk loci and possible causal genes, we performed a pancreatic cancer transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) in Europeans using three approaches, FUSION, MetaXcan and SMulTiXcan. We integrated GWAS summary statistics from 9,040 pancreatic cancer cases and 12,496 controls, with gene expression prediction models built using transcriptome data from histologically normal pancreatic tissue samples (NCI Laboratory of Translational Genomics, LTG (n = 95) and Genotype-Tissue Expression, GTEx v7 (n = 174) datasets), and data from 48 different tissues (GTEx v7, n = 74-421 samples).
RESULTS: We identified 25 genes whose genetically predicted expression was statistically significantly associated with pancreatic cancer risk (FDR < 0.05), including 14 candidate genes at 11 novel loci (1p36.12: CELA3B; 9q31.1: SMC2, SMC2-AS1; 10q23.31: RP11-80H5.9; 12q13.13: SMUG1; 14q32.33: BTBD6; 15q23: HEXA; 15q26.1: RCCD1; 17q12:, PNMT, CDK12, PGAP3; 17q22: SUPT4H1; 18q11.22: RP11-888D10.3; and 19p13.11: PGPEP1) and 11 at 6 known risk loci (5p15.33: TERT, CLPTM1L, ZDHHC11B; 7p14.1: INHBA; 9q34.2: ABO; 13q12.2: PDX1; 13q22.1: KLF5; and 16q23.1: WDR59, CFDP1, BCAR1, TMEM170A). The association for 12 of these genes (CELA3B, SMC2, and PNMT at novel risk loci, and TERT, CLPTM1L, INHBA, ABO, PDX1, KLF5, WDR59, CFDP1 and BCAR1 at known loci) remained statistically significant after Bonferroni correction.
CONCLUSIONS: By integrating gene expression and genotype data, we identified novel pancreatic cancer risk loci and candidate functional genes that warrant further investigation.