ArticlePLoS medicine2019
Appraising the role of previously reported risk factors in epithelial ovarian cancer risk: A Mendelian randomization analysis.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 7 of them syntheses 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors of ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomiation studies.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Vitamin D and human health: evidence from Mendelian randomization studies.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Pooled it
- Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review of Mendelian Randomization Studies.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- A multi-level investigation of the genetic relationship between endometriosis and ovarian cancer histotypes.Cell reports. Medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of Mendelian randomization studies on risk of cancer.BMC medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Testing for causality between systematically identified risk factors and glioma: a Mendelian randomization study.BMC cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Can increasing years of schooling reduce type 2 diabetes (T2D)?: Evidence from a Mendelian randomization of T2D and 10 of its risk factors.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Article
- Global epidemiology of ovarian cancer: patterns, trends, and risk factors.Cancer biology & medicine · 2026Review
- Molecular Pathology of Ovarian Endometrioid Carcinoma: A Review.Oncology research · 2025Review
- The Relationship Between Serum Uric Acid and Gynecologic Cancer Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Causal relationship between major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and constipation: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Extracellular Vesicles in Ovarian Cancer: From Chemoresistance Mediators to Therapeutic Vectors.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Mediating role of chiro-inositol metabolites on the effects of HLA-DR-expressing CD14 + monocytes in inflammatory bowel disease.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Global epidemiology of epithelial ovarian cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2024Review
- Mendelian randomization reveals apolipoprotein B shortens healthspan and possibly increases risk for Alzheimer's disease.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Research progress in endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Association of ankylosing spondylitis with cardiovascular disease: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Endometriosis and epithelial ovarian cancer: a two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 10 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVarious risk factors have been associated with epithelial ovarian cancer risk in observational epidemiological studies. However, the causal nature of the risk factors reported, and thus their suitability as effective intervention targets, is unclear given the susceptibility of conventional observational designs to residual confounding and reverse causation. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic variants as proxies for risk factors to strengthen causal inference in observational studies. We used MR to evaluate the association of 12 previously reported risk factors (reproductive, anthropometric, clinical, lifestyle, and molecular factors) with risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, invasive epithelial ovarian cancer histotypes, and low malignant potential tumours. METHODS AND
findingsGenetic instruments to proxy 12 risk factors were constructed by identifying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that were robustly (P < 5 × 10-8) and independently associated with each respective risk factor in previously reported genome-wide association studies. These risk factors included genetic liability to 3 factors (endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, type 2 diabetes) scaled to reflect a 50% higher odds liability to disease. We obtained summary statistics for the association of these SNPs with risk of overall and histotype-specific invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (22,406 cases; 40,941 controls) and low malignant potential tumours (3,103 cases; 40,941 controls) from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC). The OCAC dataset comprises 63 genotyping project/case-control sets with participants of European ancestry recruited from 14 countries (US, Australia, Belarus, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Canada, Poland, UK, Spain, Netherlands, and Sweden). SNPs were combined into multi-allelic inverse-variance-weighted fixed or random effects models to generate effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three complementary sensitivity analyses were performed to examine violations of MR assumptions: MR-Egger regression and weighted median and mode estimators. A Bonferroni-corrected P value threshold was used to establish strong evidence (P < 0.0042) and suggestive evidence (0.0042 < P < 0.05) for associations. In MR analyses, there was strong or suggestive evidence that 2 of the 12 risk factors were associated with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer and 8 of the 12 were associated with 1 or more invasive epithelial ovarian cancer histotypes. There was strong evidence that genetic liability to endometriosis was associated with an increased risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (odds ratio [OR] per 50% higher odds liability: 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15; P = 6.94 × 10-7) and suggestive evidence that lifetime smoking exposure was associated with an increased risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (OR per unit increase in smoking score: 1.36, 95% CI 1.04-1.78; P = 0.02). In analyses examining histotypes and low malignant potential tumours, the strongest associations found were between height and clear cell carcinoma (OR per SD increase: 1.36, 95% CI 1.15-1.61; P = 0.0003); age at natural menopause and endometrioid carcinoma (OR per year later onset: 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.16; P = 0.007); and genetic liability to polycystic ovary syndrome and endometrioid carcinoma (OR per 50% higher odds liability: 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.96; P = 0.002). There was little evidence for an association of genetic liability to type 2 diabetes, parity, or circulating levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and sex hormone binding globulin with ovarian cancer or its subtypes. The primary limitations of this analysis include the modest statistical power for analyses of risk factors in relation to some less common ovarian cancer histotypes (low grade serous, mucinous, and clear cell carcinomas), the inability to directly examine the association of some ovarian cancer risk factors that did not have robust genetic variants available to serve as proxies (e.g., oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy), and the assumption of linear relationships between risk factors and ovarian cancer risk.
conclusionsOur comprehensive examination of possible aetiological drivers of ovarian carcinogenesis using germline genetic variants to proxy risk factors supports a role for few of these factors in invasive epithelial ovarian cancer overall and suggests distinct aetiologies across histotypes. The identification of novel risk factors remains an important priority for the prevention of epithelial ovarian cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.