Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30034993›Full record

ArticleCurrent epidemiology reports2018

Mendelian randomization studies of cancer risk: a literature review.

Brandon L Pierce, Peter Kraft, Chenan Zhang

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current epidemiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Heritable Traits and Lung Cancer Risk: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Epidemiology beyond its limits.Science advances · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Brandon L PierceDepartment of Public Health Sciences and Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago IL 60615.
Peter KraftDepartment of Epidemiology and Department of Biostatistics; T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston MA 02115.
Chenan ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158.
Harvard University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Chicago · US

Funding

Pilot Program CoreP30ES027792 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Gokhan M. Mutlu, Gail S Prins · 2017 to 2026
$13.6M
Statistical Methods for Analysis of Massive Genetic and Genomic Data in Cancer ResearchR35CA197449 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI XIHONG LIN · 2015 to 2026
$10.9M
Statistical Methods for the Spatio-Temporal Assessment of Social Disparities in CancerP01CA134294 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI HANEUSE, SEBASTIEN, HERNAN, MIGUEL · 2008 to 2017
$6.8M
A Study of Telomeres in an Arsenic-Exposed Bangladesh CohortR01ES020506 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI PIERCE, BRANDON LEE · 2011 to 2015
$1.9M
Telomere length and chromosomal instability across various tissue typesU01HG007601 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI PIERCE, BRANDON LEE · 2014 to 2016
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA134294NCI NIH HHS R35 CA197449NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG007601NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES020506
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewIn this paper, we summarize prior studies that have used Mendelian Randomization (MR) methods to study the effects of exposures, lifestyle factors, physical traits, and/or biomarkers on cancer risk in humans. Many such risk factors have been associated with cancer risk in observational studies, and the MR approach can be used to provide evidence as to whether these associations represent causal relationships. MR methods require a risk factor of interest to have known genetic determinants that can be used as proxies for the risk factor (i.e., "instrumental variables" or IVs), and these can be used to obtain an effect estimate that, under certain assumptions, is not prone to bias caused by unobserved confounding or reverse causality. This review seeks to describe how MR studies have contributed to our understanding of cancer causation. RECENT

findingsWe searched the published literature and identified 76 MR studies of cancer risk published prior to October 31, 2017. Risk factors commonly studied included alcohol consumption, Vitamin D, anthropometric traits, telomere length, lipid traits, glycemic traits, and markers of inflammation. Risk factors showing compelling evidence of a causal association with risk for at least one cancer type include alcohol consumption (for head/neck and colorectal), adult body mass index (increases risk for multiple cancers, but decreases risk for breast), height (increases risk for breast, colorectal, and lung; decreases risk for esophageal), telomere length (increases risk for lung adenocarcinoma, melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, glioma, B-cell lymphoma subtypes, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and neuroblastoma), and hormonal factors (affects risk for sex-steroid sensitive cancers). SUMMARY: This review highlights alcohol consumption, body mass index, height, telomere length, and the hormonal exposures as factors likely to contribute to cancer causation. This review also highlights the need to study specific cancer types, ideally subtypes, as the effects of risk factors can be heterogeneous across cancer types. As consortia-based genome-wide association studies increase in sample size and analytical methods for MR continue to become more sophisticated, MR will become an increasingly powerful tool for understanding cancer causation.

Indexed as

cancer riskcausal inferenceinstrumental variableMendelian randomization

Identifiers

PMID30034993
PMCPMC6053056
OpenAlexW2804880772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.