ArticleUrologic oncology2014
Commentary on "common genetic polymorphisms modify the effect of smoking on absolute risk of bladder cancer." Garcia-Closas M, Rothman N, Figueroa JD, Prokunina-Olsson L, Han SS, Baris D, Jacobs EJ, Malats N, De Vivo I, Albanes D, Purdue MP, Sharma S, Fu YP, Kogevinas M, Wang Z, Tang W, Tardón A, Serra C, Carrato A, García-Closas R, Lloreta J, Johnson A, Schwenn M, Karagas MR, Schned A, Andriole G Jr., Grubb R 3rd, Black A, Gapstur SM, Thun M, Diver WR, Weinstein SJ, Virtamo J, Hunter DJ, Caporaso N, Landi MT, Hutchinson A, Burdett L, Jacobs KB, Yeager M, Fraumeni JF Jr., Chanock SJ, Silverman DT, Chatterjee N, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.: Cancer Res 2013;73(7):2211-20 [Epub 2013 Mar 27].
Article in Urologic oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Next generation modeling in GWAS: comparing different genetic architectures.Human genetics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bladder cancer results from the combined effects of environmental and genetic factors, smoking being the strongest risk factor. Evaluating absolute risks resulting from the joint effects of smoking and genetic factors is critical to assess the public health relevance of genetic information. Analyses included up to 3,942 cases and 5,680 controls of European background in seven studies. We tested for multiplicative and additive interactions between smoking and 12 susceptibility loci, individually and combined as a polygenic risk score (PRS). Thirty-year absolute risks and risk differences by levels of the PRS were estimated for U.S. males aged 50 years. Six of 12 variants showed significant additive gene-environment interactions, most notably NAT2 (P = 7×10(-4)) and UGT1A6 (P = 8×10(-4)). The 30-year absolute risk of bladder cancer in U.S. males was 6.2% for all current smokers. This risk ranged from 2.9% for current smokers in the lowest quartile of the PRS to 9.9% for current smokers in the upper quartile. Risk difference estimates indicated that 8,200 cases would be prevented if elimination of smoking occurred in 100,000 men in the upper PRS quartile compared with 2,000 cases prevented by a similar effort in the lowest PRS quartile (P(additive) = 1×10(-4)). Thus, the potential impact of eliminating smoking on the number of bladder cancer cases prevented is larger for individuals at higher than lower genetic risk. Our findings could have implications for targeted prevention strategies. However, other smoking-related diseases, as well as practical and ethical considerations, need to be considered before any recommendations could be made.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24445297What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.