| 1. |
- Dixon-Suen, Suzanne C, et al.
(författare)
-
Physical activity, sedentary time and breast cancer risk : a Mendelian randomisation study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Sports Medicine. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0306-3674 .- 1473-0480. ; 56:20, s. 1157-1170
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: Physical 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.METHODS: We 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.RESULTS: Greater 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).CONCLUSION: Our 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Papadimitriou, Nikos, et al.
(författare)
-
Physical activity and risks of breast and colorectal cancer : a Mendelian randomisation analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Nature. - 2041-1723. ; 11:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Physical activity has been associated with lower risks of breast and colorectal cancer in epidemiological studies; however, it is unknown if these associations are causal or confounded. In two-sample Mendelian randomisation analyses, using summary genetic data from the UK Biobank and GWA consortia, we found that a one standard deviation increment in average acceleration was associated with lower risks of breast cancer (odds ratio [OR]: 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27 to 0.98, P-value=0.04) and colorectal cancer (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.90, P-value=0.01). We found similar magnitude inverse associations for estrogen positive (ER+ve) breast cancer and for colon cancer. Our results support a potentially causal relationship between higher physical activity levels and lower risks of breast cancer and colorectal cancer. Based on these data, the promotion of physical activity is probably an effective strategy in the primary prevention of these commonly diagnosed cancers. Physical activity has been linked to lower risks of colorectal and breast cancer. Here, the authors present a Mendelian randomisation analysis supporting a potentially causal relationship between higher physical activity levels and lower risks of breast cancer and colorectal cancer.
|
|
| 3. |
- Papadimitriou, Nikos, et al.
(författare)
-
Body size and risk of colorectal cancer molecular defined subtypes and pathways : mendelian randomization analyses
- 2024
-
Ingår i: EBioMedicine. - : Elsevier. - 2352-3964. ; 101
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Obesity has been positively associated with most molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer (CRC); however, the magnitude and the causality of these associations is uncertain.Methods: We used Mendelian randomization (MR) to examine potential causal relationships between body size traits (body mass index [BMI], waist circumference, and body fat percentage) with risks of Jass classification types and individual subtypes of CRC (microsatellite instability [MSI] status, CpG island methylator phenotype [CIMP] status, BRAF and KRAS mutations). Summary data on tumour markers were obtained from two genetic consortia (CCFR, GECCO).Findings: A 1-standard deviation (SD:5.1 kg/m2) increment in BMI levels was found to increase risks of Jass type 1MSI-high,CIMP-high,BRAF-mutated,KRAS-wildtype (odds ratio [OR]: 2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46, 3.13; p-value = 9 × 10−5) and Jass type 2non-MSI-high,CIMP-high,BRAF-mutated,KRAS-wildtype CRC (OR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.26, 3.86; p-value = 0.005). The magnitude of these associations was stronger compared with Jass type 4non-MSI-high,CIMP-low/negative,BRAF-wildtype,KRAS-wildtype CRC (p-differences: 0.03 and 0.04, respectively). A 1-SD (SD:13.4 cm) increment in waist circumference increased risk of Jass type 3non-MSI-high,CIMP-low/negative,BRAF-wildtype,KRAS-mutated (OR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.34, 2.25; p-value = 9 × 10−5) that was stronger compared with Jass type 4 CRC (p-difference: 0.03). A higher body fat percentage (SD:8.5%) increased risk of Jass type 1 CRC (OR: 2.59, 95% CI: 1.49, 4.48; p-value = 0.001), which was greater than Jass type 4 CRC (p-difference: 0.03).Interpretation: Body size was more strongly linked to the serrated (Jass types 1 and 2) and alternate (Jass type 3) pathways of colorectal carcinogenesis in comparison to the traditional pathway (Jass type 4).Funding: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, American Institute for Cancer Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Victorian Cancer Agency, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Region Västerbotten, Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Lion's Cancer Research Foundation, Insamlingsstiftelsen, Umeå University. Full funding details are provided in acknowledgements.
|
|
