4.5 Article

Investigation of the Interplay between Circulating Lipids and IGF-I and Relevance to Breast Cancer Risk: An Observational and Mendelian Randomization Study

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 30, Issue 12, Pages 2207-2216

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0315

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council (MRC) Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) [MC_UU_12013/3]
  2. Cancer Research UK Programme Grant (The Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme, ICEP) [C18281/A29019]
  3. Wellcome Trust [202802/Z/16/Z]
  4. ICEP [C18281/A19169]
  5. NJT's Wellcome Trust Investigator grant [202802/Z/16/Z]
  6. MRC [MC_UU_00011]
  7. NIHR
  8. Wellcome [201268/Z/16/Z]
  9. NHLBI [K01HL129892]
  10. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the NIH [HL105756]
  11. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, CTSI grant [UL1TR001881]
  12. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease Diabetes Research Center (DRC) [DK063491]
  13. Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01ZZ9603, 01ZZ0103,, 01ZZ0403]
  14. Ministry of Cultural Affairs
  15. Social Ministry of the Federal State of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania
  16. network Greifswald Approach to Individualized Medicine (GANI_MED) - Federal Ministry of Education and Research [03IS2061A]
  17. MRC [MC_UU_12013/3] Funding Source: UKRI
  18. Wellcome Trust [202802/Z/16/Z, 201268/Z/16/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used Mendelian randomization to investigate the relationship between lipids, IGF-I, and breast cancer risk. The results suggest a causal role of HDL-C, TG, and IGF-I in breast cancer, with evidence supporting an interplay between IGF-I and TG. However, MVMR estimates indicate that TG and IGF-I may act independently to influence breast cancer.
Background: Circulating lipids and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-I) have been reliably associated with breast cancer. Observational studies suggest an interplay between lipids and IGF-I, however, whether these relationships are causal and if pathways from these phenotypes to breast cancer overlap is unclear. Methods: Mendelian randomization (MR) was conducted to estimate the relationship between lipids or IGF-I and breast cancer risk using genetic summary statistics for lipids (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, HDL-C; triglycerides, TGs), IGF-I and breast cancer from GLGC/UKBB (N - 239,119), CHARGE/UKBB (N = 252,547), and Breast Cancer Association Consortium (N - 247,173), respectively. Cross-sectional observational and MR analyses were conducted to assess the bidirectional relationship between lipids and IGF-I in SHIP (N = 3,812) and UKBB (N = 422,389), and using genetic summary statistics from GLGC (N = 188,577) and CHARGE/ UKBB (N = 469,872). Results: In multivariable MR (M V MR) analyses, the OR for breast cancer per 1-SD increase in HDL-C and TG was 1.08 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-1.13] and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98), respectively. The OR for breast cancer per 1-SD increase in IGF-I was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.04-1.15). MR analyses suggested a bidirectional TG-IGF-I relationship (TG-IGF-I beta per 1-SD: -0.13; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.04; and IGF-I-TG beta per 1-SD: -0.11; 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.05). There was little evidence for a causal relationship between HDL-C and LDL-C with IGF-I. In MVMR analyses, associations of TG or IGF-I with breast cancer were robust to adjustment for IGF-I or TG, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a causal role of HDL-C, TG, and IGF-I in breast cancer. Observational and MR analyses support an interplay between IGF-I and TG; however, MVMR estimates suggest that TG and IGF-I may act independently to influence breast cancer. Impact: Our findings should be considered in the development of prevention strategies for breast cancer, where interventions are known to modify circulating lipids and IGF-I.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available