4.6 Article

Genetic predisposition to metabolically unfavourable adiposity and prostate cancer risk: A Mendelian randomization analysis

期刊

CANCER MEDICINE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6220

关键词

adiposity; advanced disease; Mendelian randomization; prostate cancer

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using two-sample Mendelian randomization, the study found unclear associations of metabolically unfavourable adiposity (UFA), favourable adiposity (FA) and body mass index (BMI) with prostate cancer risk.
BackgroundThe associations of adiposity with aggressive prostate cancer risk are unclear. Using two-sample Mendelian randomization, we assessed the association of metabolically unfavourable adiposity (UFA), favourable adiposity (FA) and for comparison body mass index (BMI), with prostate cancer, including aggressive prostate cancer. MethodsWe examined the association of these genetically predicted adiposity-related traits with risk of prostate cancer overall, aggressive and early onset disease using outcome summary statistics from the PRACTICAL consortium (including 15,167 aggressive cases). ResultsIn inverse-variance weighted models, there was little evidence that genetically predicted one standard deviation higher UFA, FA and BMI were associated with aggressive prostate cancer [OR: 0.85 (95% CI:0.61-1.19), 0.80 (0.53-1.23) and 0.97 (0.88-1.08), respectively]; these associations were largely consistent in sensitivity analyses accounting for horizontal pleiotropy. There was no strong evidence that genetically determined UFA, FA or BMI were associated with overall prostate cancer or early age of onset prostate cancer. ConclusionsWe did not find differences in the associations of UFA and FA with prostate cancer risk, which suggest that adiposity is unlikely to influence prostate cancer via the metabolic factors assessed; however, these did not cover some aspects related to metabolic health that may link obesity with aggressive prostate cancer, which should be explored in future studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据