Observational studies have suggested a protective role for eosinophils in colorectal cancer (CRC) development and implicated neutrophils, but the causal relationships remain unclear. Here, we aimed to estimate the causal effect of circulating white blood cell (WBC) counts (N = ~550 000) for basophils, eosinophils, monocytes, lymphocytes and neutrophils on CRC risk (N = 52 775 cases and 45 940 controls) using Mendelian randomisation (MR). For comparison, we also examined this relationship using individual-level data from UK Biobank (4043 incident CRC cases and 332 773 controls) in a longitudinal cohort analysis. The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) MR analysis suggested a protective effect of increased basophil count and eosinophil count on CRC risk [OR per 1-SD increase: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78-0.99, P = .04; OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98, P = .01]. The protective effect of eosinophils remained [OR per 1-SD increase: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.97, P = .01] following adjustments for all other WBC subtypes, to account for genetic correlation between the traits, using multivariable MR. A protective effect of increased lymphocyte count on CRC risk was also found [OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.76-0.93, P = 6.70e-4] following adjustment. Consistent with MR results, a protective effect for eosinophils in the cohort analysis in the fully adjusted model [RR per 1-SD increase: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.93-0.99, P = .02] and following adjustment for the other WBC subtypes [RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.93-0.99, P = .001] was observed. Our study implicates peripheral blood immune cells, in particular eosinophils and lymphocytes, in CRC development, highlighting a need for mechanistic studies to interrogate these relationships.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2023.
All research outputs
#6,314,131
of 29,353,077 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Cancer
#3,200
of 13,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,924
of 372,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Cancer
#23
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,353,077 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,124 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
