Genetics and Computational Biology Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD, Australia.
School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Apr 1;47(2):450-459. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx236.
Coffee consumption has been shown to be associated with various health outcomes in observational studies. However, evidence for its association with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is inconsistent and it is unclear whether these associations are causal.
We used single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with (i) coffee and (ii) caffeine consumption to perform Mendelian randomization (MR) on EOC risk. We conducted a two-sample MR using genetic data on 44 062 individuals of European ancestry from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC), and combined instrumental variable estimates using a Wald-type ratio estimator.
For all EOC cases, the causal odds ratio (COR) for genetically predicted consumption of one additional cup of coffee per day was 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79, 1.06]. The COR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.10) for high-grade serous EOC. The COR for genetically predicted consumption of an additional 80 mg caffeine was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.11) for all EOC cases and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.10) for high-grade serous cases.
We found no evidence indicative of a strong association between EOC risk and genetically predicted coffee or caffeine levels. However, our estimates were not statistically inconsistent with earlier observational studies and we were unable to rule out small protective associations.
观察性研究表明,咖啡的摄入与各种健康结果有关。然而,其与上皮性卵巢癌(EOC)的关联证据并不一致,并且尚不清楚这些关联是否具有因果关系。
我们使用与(i)咖啡和(ii)咖啡因摄入相关的单核苷酸多态性,对 EOC 风险进行孟德尔随机化(MR)分析。我们使用来自卵巢癌协会联盟(OCAC)的 44062 名欧洲血统个体的遗传数据进行了两样本 MR 分析,并使用 Wald 型比率估计器对工具变量估计值进行了合并。
对于所有 EOC 病例,每天多喝一杯咖啡的遗传预测摄入量的因果比值比(COR)为 0.92 [95%置信区间(CI):0.79, 1.06]。高级别浆液性 EOC 的 COR 为 0.90(95% CI:0.73, 1.10)。对于所有 EOC 病例,遗传预测的咖啡因摄入量增加 80mg 的 COR 为 1.01(95% CI:0.92, 1.11),而高级别浆液性病例的 COR 为 0.90(95% CI:0.73, 1.10)。
我们没有发现 EOC 风险与遗传预测的咖啡或咖啡因水平之间存在强烈关联的证据。然而,我们的估计与早期观察性研究没有统计学上的不一致,我们无法排除较小的保护关联。