| 1. |
- Alcala, Karine, et al.
(author)
-
The relationship between blood pressure and risk of renal cell carcinoma
- 2022
-
In: International Journal of Epidemiology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1464-3685 .- 0300-5771. ; 51:4, s. 1317-1327
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The relation between blood pressure and kidney cancer risk is well established but complex and different study designs have reported discrepant findings on the relative importance of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP). In this study, we sought to describe the temporal relation between diastolic and SBP with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) risk in detail.METHODS: Our study involved two prospective cohorts: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study and UK Biobank, including >700 000 participants and 1692 incident RCC cases. Risk analyses were conducted using flexible parametric survival models for DBP and SBP both separately as well as with mutuality adjustment and then adjustment for extended risk factors. We also carried out univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses (DBP: ninstruments = 251, SBP: ninstruments = 213) to complement the analyses of measured DBP and SBP.RESULTS: In the univariable analysis, we observed clear positive associations with RCC risk for both diastolic and SBP when measured ≥5 years before diagnosis and suggestive evidence for a stronger risk association in the year leading up to diagnosis. In mutually adjusted analysis, the long-term risk association of DBP remained, with a hazard ratio (HR) per standard deviation increment 10 years before diagnosis (HR10y) of 1.20 (95% CI: 1.10-1.30), whereas the association of SBP was attenuated (HR10y: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.91-1.10). In the complementary multivariable MR analysis, we observed an odds ratio for a 1-SD increment (ORsd) of 1.34 (95% CI: 1.08-1.67) for genetically predicted DBP and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.56-0.88) for genetically predicted SBP.CONCLUSION: The results of this observational and MR study are consistent with an important role of DBP in RCC aetiology. The relation between SBP and RCC risk was less clear but does not appear to be independent of DBP.
|
|
| 2. |
- Anantharaman, Devasena, et al.
(author)
-
Combined effects of smoking and HPV16 in oropharyngeal cancer
- 2016
-
In: International Journal of Epidemiology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0300-5771 .- 1464-3685. ; 45:3, s. 752-761
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Although smoking and HPV infection are recognized as important risk factors for oropharyngeal cancer, how their joint exposure impacts on oropharyngeal cancer risk is unclear. Specifically, whether smoking confers any additional risk to HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer is not understood.Methods: Using HPV serology as a marker of HPV-related cancer, we examined the interaction between smoking and HPV16 in 459 oropharyngeal (and 1445 oral cavity and laryngeal) cancer patients and 3024 control participants from two large European multicentre studies. Odds ratios and credible intervals [CrI], adjusted for potential confounders, were estimated using Bayesian logistic regression.Results: Both smoking [odds ratio (OR [CrI]: 6.82 [4.52, 10.29]) and HPV seropositivity (OR [CrI]: 235.69 [99.95, 555.74]) were independently associated with oropharyngeal cancer. The joint association of smoking and HPV seropositivity was consistent with that expected on the additive scale (synergy index [CrI]: 1.32 [0.51, 3.45]), suggesting they act as independent risk factors for oropharyngeal cancer.Conclusions: Smoking was consistently associated with increase in oropharyngeal cancer risk in models stratified by HPV16 seropositivity. In addition, we report that the prevalence of oropharyngeal cancer increases with smoking for both HPV16-positive and HPV16-negative persons. The impact of smoking on HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancer highlights the continued need for smoking cessation programmes for primary prevention of head and neck cancer.
|
|
| 3. |
- Battram, Thomas, et al.
(author)
-
Appraising the causal relevance of DNA methylation for risk of lung cancer
- 2019
-
In: International Journal of Epidemiology. - : Oxford University Press. - 0300-5771 .- 1464-3685. ; 48:5, s. 1493-1504
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: DNA methylation changes in peripheral blood have recently been identified in relation to lung cancer risk. Some of these changes have been suggested to mediate part of the effect of smoking on lung cancer. However, limitations with conventional mediation analyses mean that the causal nature of these methylation changes has yet to be fully elucidated.Methods: We first performed a meta-analysis of four epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) of lung cancer (918 cases, 918 controls). Next, we conducted a two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis, using genetic instruments for methylation at CpG sites identified in the EWAS meta-analysis, and 29 863 cases and 55 586 controls from the TRICL-ILCCO lung cancer consortium, to appraise the possible causal role of methylation at these sites on lung cancer.Results: Sixteen CpG sites were identified from the EWAS meta-analysis [false discovery rate (FDR) < 0.05], for 14 of which we could identify genetic instruments. Mendelian randomization provided little evidence that DNA methylation in peripheral blood at the 14 CpG sites plays a causal role in lung cancer development (FDR > 0.05), including for cg05575921-AHRR where methylation is strongly associated with both smoke exposure and lung cancer risk.Conclusions: The results contrast with previous observational and mediation analysis, which have made strong claims regarding the causal role of DNA methylation. Thus, previous suggestions of a mediating role of methylation at sites identified in peripheral blood, such as cg05575921-AHRR, could be unfounded. However, this study does not preclude the possibility that differential DNA methylation at other sites is causally involved in lung cancer development, especially within lung tissue.
|
|
| 4. |
- Larose, Tricia L., et al.
(author)
-
Circulating cotinine concentrations and lung cancer risk in the Lung Cancer Cohort Consortium (LC3)
- 2018
-
In: International Journal of Epidemiology. - : Oxford University Press. - 0300-5771 .- 1464-3685. ; 47:6, s. 1760-1771
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Self-reported smoking is the principal measure used to assess lung cancer risk in epidemiological studies. We evaluated if circulating cotinine—a nicotine metabolite and biomarker of recent tobacco exposure—provides additional information on lung cancer risk.Methods: The study was conducted in the Lung Cancer Cohort Consortium (LC3) involving 20 prospective cohort studies. Pre-diagnostic serum cotinine concentrations were measured in one laboratory on 5364 lung cancer cases and 5364 individually matched controls. We used conditional logistic regression to evaluate the association between circulating cotinine and lung cancer, and assessed if cotinine provided additional risk-discriminative information compared with self-reported smoking (smoking status, smoking intensity, smoking duration), using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.Results: We observed a strong positive association between cotinine and lung cancer risk for current smokers [odds ratio (OR ) per 500 nmol/L increase in cotinine (OR500): 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32–1.47]. Cotinine concentrations consistent with active smoking (≥115 nmol/L) were common in former smokers (cases: 14.6%; controls: 9.2%) and rare in never smokers (cases: 2.7%; controls: 0.8%). Former and never smokers with cotinine concentrations indicative of active smoking (≥115 nmol/L) also showed increased lung cancer risk. For current smokers, the risk-discriminative performance of cotinine combined with self-reported smoking (AUCintegrated: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.68–0.71) yielded a small improvement over self-reported smoking alone (AUCsmoke: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.64–0.68) (P = 1.5x10–9).Conclusions: Circulating cotinine concentrations are consistently associated with lung cancer risk for current smokers and provide additional risk-discriminative information compared with self-report smoking alone.
|
|
| 5. |
- Porta, Miquel, et al.
(author)
-
Plasma concentrations of persistent organic pollutants and pancreatic cancer risk
- 2022
-
In: International Journal of Epidemiology. - : Oxford University Press. - 0300-5771 .- 1464-3685. ; 51:2, s. 479-490
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Findings and limitations of previous studies on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and pancreatic cancer risk support conducting further research in prospective cohorts.Methods: We conducted a prospective case-control study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. Participants were 513 pancreatic cancer cases and 1020 matched controls. Concentrations of 22 POPs were measured in plasma collected at baseline.Results: Some associations were observed at higher concentrations of p, p'-DDT, trans-nonachlor, β-hexachlorocyclohexane and the sum of six organochlorine pesticides and of 16 POPs. The odds ratio (OR) for the upper quartile of trans-nonachlor was 1.55 (95% confidence interval 1.06-2.26; P for trend = 0.025). Associations were stronger in the groups predefined as most valid (participants having fasted >6 h, with microscopic diagnostic confirmation, normal weight, and never smokers), and as most relevant (follow-up ≥10 years). Among participants having fasted >6 h, the ORs were relevant for 10 of 11 exposures. Higher ORs were also observed among cases with microscopic confirmation than in cases with a clinical diagnosis, and among normal-weight participants than in the rest of participants. Among participants with a follow-up ≥10 years, estimates were higher than in participants with a shorter follow-up (for trans-nonachlor: OR = 2.14, 1.01 to 4.53, P for trend = 0.035). Overall, trans-nonachlor, three PCBs and the two sums of POPs were the exposures most clearly associated with pancreatic cancer risk.Conclusions: Individually or in combination, most of the 22 POPs analysed did not or only moderately increased the risk of pancreatic cancer.
|
|
