Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35218345›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2022

Assessment of causal effects of visceral adipose tissue on risk of cancers: a Mendelian randomization study.

Yao Lu, Haibo Tang, Peiyuan Huang, Jie Wang, Peizhi Deng, Yalan Li, Jie Zheng, Liang Weng

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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 2 countries.

Yao LuHealth Management Center, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Haibo TangDepartment of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Peiyuan HuangMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8562-9152
Jie WangCenter of Clinical Pharmacology, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Peizhi DengCenter of Clinical Pharmacology, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yalan LiCenter of Clinical Pharmacology, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Jie ZhengMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Liang WengDepartment of Pathology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Central South University · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation SBF006\1117Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/4Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the established association between obesity and cancer risk, it remains unclear whether visceral obesity is causally related to cancer risk and whether it is more pro-oncogenic than total body fat.

methodsWe conducted two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis to assess the causal effects of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) on six common cancers. For exposure data, 221 genetic variants associated with the predicted volume of VAT in 325 153 Europeans from UK Biobank were used as instrumental variables. Genetic association data of six common cancers (breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, pancreatic and prostate cancers) were obtained from large-scale consortia with an average of 19 576 cases and 43 272 controls. We performed univariable MR with five MR methods [inverse-variance weighted (IVW), MR-Egger regression, weighted median, MR-Pleiotropy Residual Sum and Outlier (MR-PRESSO) and Radial MR] and multivariable MR to estimate the effect of VAT independent of body mass index (BMI). Finally, we performed a series of sensitivity analyses as validation of primary MR results.

resultsTwo associations survived the false discovery rate correction for multiple testing (q-value < 0.05): in IVW, the odds ratios (95% CIs) per unit increase in genetically determined VAT were 1.65 (1.03 to 2.62) for pancreatic cancer and 1.47 (1.20 to 1.82) for lung squamous-cell carcinoma, respectively, which showed the same directions and overlapped confidence intervals with MR-Egger regression and weighted median results. There were no outlier variants identified by MR-PRESSO and no evidence supporting the presence of heterogeneity and pleiotropy in sensitivity analyses, although with wider confidence intervals that included the null, multivariable MR results for these two cancers showed the same directions and similar effect sizes as in IVW, which were independent of the effect from BMI. There was no evidence for a causal effect of VAT on the risk of other types of cancer.

conclusionOur findings suggest that lifelong exposure to elevated volumes of VAT might increase the risk of pancreatic cancer and lung squamous-cell carcinoma, highlighting the importance of revealing the underlying mechanisms for intervention targets.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellPancreatic NeoplasmsGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansIntra-Abdominal FatMaleMendelian Randomization AnalysisPolymorphism, Single Nucleotidecancerscausal inferenceMendelian randomizationvisceral adipose tissue

Identifiers

PMID35218345
PMCPMC9380424
OpenAlexW4210374804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.