Projects per year
Abstract
Background
We aimed to map and describe the current state of Mendelian randomization (MR) literature on cancer risk and to identify associations supported by robust evidence.
Methods
We searched PubMed and Scopus up to 06/10/2020 for MR studies investigating the association of any genetically predicted risk factor with cancer risk. We categorized the reported associations based on a priori designed levels of evidence supporting a causal association into four categories, namely robust, probable, suggestive, and insufficient, based on the significance and concordance of the main MR analysis results and at least one of the MR-Egger, weighed median, MRPRESSO, and multivariable MR analyses. Associations not presenting any of the aforementioned sensitivity analyses were not graded.
Results
We included 190 publications reporting on 4667 MR analyses. Most analyses (3200; 68.6%) were not accompanied by any of the assessed sensitivity analyses. Of the 1467 evaluable analyses, 87 (5.9%) were supported by robust, 275 (18.7%) by probable, and 89 (6.1%) by suggestive evidence. The most prominent robust associations were observed for anthropometric indices with risk of breast, kidney, and endometrial cancers; circulating telomere length with risk of kidney, lung, osteosarcoma, skin, thyroid, and hematological cancers; sex steroid hormones and risk of breast and endometrial cancer; and lipids with risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer.
Conclusions
Despite the large amount of research on genetically predicted risk factors for cancer risk, limited associations are supported by robust evidence for causality. Most associations did not present a MR sensitivity analysis and were thus non-evaluable. Future research should focus on more thorough assessment of sensitivity MR analyses and on more transparent reporting.
We aimed to map and describe the current state of Mendelian randomization (MR) literature on cancer risk and to identify associations supported by robust evidence.
Methods
We searched PubMed and Scopus up to 06/10/2020 for MR studies investigating the association of any genetically predicted risk factor with cancer risk. We categorized the reported associations based on a priori designed levels of evidence supporting a causal association into four categories, namely robust, probable, suggestive, and insufficient, based on the significance and concordance of the main MR analysis results and at least one of the MR-Egger, weighed median, MRPRESSO, and multivariable MR analyses. Associations not presenting any of the aforementioned sensitivity analyses were not graded.
Results
We included 190 publications reporting on 4667 MR analyses. Most analyses (3200; 68.6%) were not accompanied by any of the assessed sensitivity analyses. Of the 1467 evaluable analyses, 87 (5.9%) were supported by robust, 275 (18.7%) by probable, and 89 (6.1%) by suggestive evidence. The most prominent robust associations were observed for anthropometric indices with risk of breast, kidney, and endometrial cancers; circulating telomere length with risk of kidney, lung, osteosarcoma, skin, thyroid, and hematological cancers; sex steroid hormones and risk of breast and endometrial cancer; and lipids with risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer.
Conclusions
Despite the large amount of research on genetically predicted risk factors for cancer risk, limited associations are supported by robust evidence for causality. Most associations did not present a MR sensitivity analysis and were thus non-evaluable. Future research should focus on more thorough assessment of sensitivity MR analyses and on more transparent reporting.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 41 |
| Number of pages | 22 |
| Journal | BMC Medicine |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2 Feb 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:We thank Professor Julian P T Higgins for providing meaningful comments and suggestions.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
Research Groups and Themes
- ICEP
Keywords
- Mendelian randomization
- Cancer
- Risk factors
- Systematic review
- Evidence grading
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via BMC at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02246-y. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Handle.net
Full-text PDF (author accepted manuscript)
Accepted author manuscript, 845 KB
Licence: CC BY
Embargoed Document
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Systematic review of Mendelian randomization studies on risk of cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Projects
- 1 Active
-
8074 (C18281/A29019) ICEP2 - Programme Award: Towards improved casual evidence and enhanced prediction of cancer risk and survival
Martin, R. M. (Principal Investigator)
1/10/20 → 30/09/25
Project: Research