Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34325683›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2021

Circulating vitamin C concentration and risk of cancers: a Mendelian randomization study.

Yuanqing Fu, Fengzhe Xu, Longda Jiang, Zelei Miao, Xinxiu Liang, Jian Yang, Susanna C Larsson, Ju-Sheng Zheng

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.0field-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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Causal Effects of Breast Cancer Risk Factors across Hormone Receptor Breast Cancer Subtypes: 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 · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Yuanqing Fu *Key Laboratory of Growth Regulation and Translational Research of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, 18 Shilongshan Rd, Cloud Town, Hangzhou, 310024, China.
Fengzhe Xu *Key Laboratory of Growth Regulation and Translational Research of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, 18 Shilongshan Rd, Cloud Town, Hangzhou, 310024, China.
Longda JiangInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Zelei MiaoKey Laboratory of Growth Regulation and Translational Research of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, 18 Shilongshan Rd, Cloud Town, Hangzhou, 310024, China.
Xinxiu LiangKey Laboratory of Growth Regulation and Translational Research of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, 18 Shilongshan Rd, Cloud Town, Hangzhou, 310024, China.
Jian YangKey Laboratory of Growth Regulation and Translational Research of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, 18 Shilongshan Rd, Cloud Town, Hangzhou, 310024, China.
Susanna C LarssonUnit of Cardiovascular and Nutritional Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ju-Sheng ZhengKey Laboratory of Growth Regulation and Translational Research of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, 18 Shilongshan Rd, Cloud Town, Hangzhou, 310024, China. zhengjusheng@westlake.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-6560-4890
Westlake University · CNThe University of Queensland · AUUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCirculating vitamin C concentrations have been associated with several cancers in observational studies, but little is known about the causal direction of the associations. This study aims to explore the potential causal relationship between circulating vitamin C and risk of five most common cancers in Europe.

methodsWe used summary-level data for genetic variants associated with plasma vitamin C in a large vitamin C genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis on 52,018 Europeans, and the corresponding associations with lung, breast, prostate, colon, and rectal cancer from GWAS consortia including up to 870,984 participants of European ancestry. We performed two-sample, bi-directional Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses using inverse-variance-weighted method as the primary approach, while using 6 additional methods (e.g., MR-Egger, weighted median-based, and mode-based methods) as sensitivity analysis to detect and adjust for pleiotropy. We also conducted a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials to examine the association of vitamin C intakes with cancer outcomes.

resultsThe MR analysis showed no evidence of a causal association of circulating vitamin C concentration with any examined cancer. Although the odds ratio (OR) per one standard deviation increase in genetically predicted circulating vitamin C concentration was 1.34 (95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.57) for breast cancer in the UK Biobank, this association could not be replicated in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium with an OR of 1.05 (0.94 to 1.17). Smoking initiation, as a positive control for our reverse MR analysis, showed a negative association with circulating vitamin C concentration. However, there was no strong evidence of a causal association of any examined cancer with circulating vitamin C. Sensitivity analysis using 6 different analytical approaches yielded similar results. Moreover, our MR results were consistent with the null findings from the meta-analysis exploring prospective associations of dietary or supplemental vitamin C intakes with cancer risk, except that higher dietary vitamin C intake, but not vitamin C supplement, was associated with a lower risk of lung cancer (risk ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.99).

conclusionsThese findings provide no evidence to support that physiological-level circulating vitamin C has a large effect on risk of the five most common cancers in European populations, but we cannot rule out very small effect sizes.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMendelian Randomization AnalysisAscorbic AcidFemaleGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMalePolymorphism, Single NucleotideProspective StudiesRisk FactorsVitamin DAscorbic AcidVitamin DCirculating vitamin CMendelian randomization analysisSite-specific cancers

Identifiers

PMID34325683
PMCPMC8323227
OpenAlexW3185344990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.