Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30927373›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2020

Diabetes and cancer risk: A Mendelian randomization study.

Atsushi Goto, Taiki Yamaji, Norie Sawada, Yukihide Momozawa, Yoichiro Kamatani, Michiaki Kubo, Taichi Shimazu, Manami Inoue, Mitsuhiko Noda, Shoichiro Tsugane and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Atsushi GotoEpidemiology and Prevention Group, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Taiki YamajiEpidemiology and Prevention Group, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Norie SawadaEpidemiology and Prevention Group, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Yukihide MomozawaLaboratory for Genotyping Development, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan.
Yoichiro KamataniLaboratory for Genotyping Development, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan.
Michiaki KuboRIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan.
Taichi ShimazuEpidemiology and Prevention Group, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Manami InoueEpidemiology and Prevention Group, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Mitsuhiko NodaDepartment of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Shoichiro TsuganeEpidemiology and Prevention Group, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Motoki IwasakiEpidemiology and Prevention Group, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences · JPSaitama Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Earlier cohort studies using conventional regression models have consistently shown an increased cancer risk among individuals with type 2 diabetes. However, reverse causality and residual confounding due to common risk factors could exist, and it remains unclear whether diabetes per se contributes to cancer development. Mendelian randomization analyses might clarify the true association between diabetes and cancer risk. We conducted a case-cohort study with 10,536 subcohort subjects and 3,541 newly diagnosed cancer cases derived from 32,949 eligible participants aged 40-69 years within the Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study. With 29 known type 2 diabetes susceptibility variants, we used an inverse variance-weighted method to estimate hazard ratios for the associations of diabetes with risks of total and site-specific cancers. The hazard ratios of cancer per doubling of the probability of diabetes were 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.15) overall, 1.08 (95% CI: 0.73-1.59) for the pancreas, 0.80 (95% CI: 0.57-1.14) for the liver and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.74-1.10) for the colorectum. Additional analyses, using publicly available large-scale genome-wide association study data on colorectal cancer in Japan, resulted in a narrower CI (hazard ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93-1.07). In this prospective Mendelian randomization study with a large number of incident cancer cases, we found no strong evidence to support associations between diabetes and overall and site-specific cancer risks. Our findings suggest that there is little evidence to support the genetic role of type 2 diabetes in cancer development in the Japanese population.

Indexed as

Mendelian Randomization AnalysisAdultAgedBody Mass IndexCase-Control StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Follow-Up StudiesGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansIncidenceJapanMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentdiabetesepidemiologygeneticsMendelian randomization

Identifiers

PMID30927373
PMCPMC6916579
OpenAlexW2929242478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.