Title |
The causal relevance of body mass index in different histological types of lung cancer: A Mendelian randomization study
|
---|---|
Published in |
Scientific Reports, August 2016
|
DOI | 10.1038/srep31121 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Robert Carreras-Torres, Philip C. Haycock, Caroline L. Relton, Richard M. Martin, George Davey Smith, Peter Kraft, Chi Gao, Shelley Tworoger, Loïc Le Marchand, Lynne R. Wilkens, Sungshim L. Park, Christopher Haiman, John K. Field, Michael Davies, Michael Marcus, Geoffrey Liu, Neil E. Caporaso, David C. Christiani, Yongyue Wei, Chu Chen, Jennifer A. Doherty, Gianluca Severi, Gary E. Goodman, Rayjean J. Hung, Christopher I. Amos, James McKay, Mattias Johansson, Paul Brennan |
Abstract |
Body mass index (BMI) is inversely associated with lung cancer risk in observational studies, even though it increases the risk of several other cancers, which could indicate confounding by tobacco smoking or reverse causality. We used the two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach to circumvent these limitations of observational epidemiology by constructing a genetic instrument for BMI, based on results from the GIANT consortium, which was evaluated in relation to lung cancer risk using GWAS results on 16,572 lung cancer cases and 21,480 controls. Results were stratified by histological subtype, smoking status and sex. An increase of one standard deviation (SD) in BMI (4.65 Kg/m(2)) raised the risk for lung cancer overall (OR = 1.13; P = 0.10). This was driven by associations with squamous cell (SQ) carcinoma (OR = 1.45; P = 1.2 × 10(-3)) and small cell (SC) carcinoma (OR = 1.81; P = 0.01). An inverse trend was seen for adenocarcinoma (AD) (OR = 0.82; P = 0.06). In stratified analyses, a 1 SD increase in BMI was inversely associated with overall lung cancer in never smokers (OR = 0.50; P = 0.02). These results indicate that higher BMI may increase the risk of certain types of lung cancer, in particular SQ and SC carcinoma. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 49 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
Professor | 7 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
Researcher | 4 | 8% |
Other | 6 | 12% |
Unknown | 14 | 28% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 26% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 10% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
Environmental Science | 2 | 4% |
Other | 8 | 16% |
Unknown | 15 | 30% |