Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre and Medical Research Council Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Br J Cancer. 2021 Mar;124(6):1169-1174. doi: 10.1038/s41416-020-01211-x. Epub 2021 Jan 7.
Epidemiological studies of the relationship between gallstone disease and circulating levels of bilirubin with risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) have been inconsistent. To address possible confounding and reverse causation, we examine the relationship between these potential risk factors and CRC using Mendelian randomisation (MR).
We used two-sample MR to examine the relationship between genetic liability to gallstone disease and circulating levels of bilirubin with CRC in 26,397 patients and 41,481 controls. We calculated the odds ratio per genetically predicted SD unit increase in log bilirubin levels (OR) for CRC and tested for a non-zero causal effect of gallstones on CRC. Sensitivity analysis was applied to identify violations of estimator assumptions.
No association between either gallstone disease (P value = 0.60) or circulating levels of bilirubin (OR = 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96-1.03, P value = 0.90) with CRC was shown.
Despite the large scale of this study, we found no evidence for a causal relationship between either circulating levels of bilirubin or gallstone disease with risk of developing CRC. While the magnitude of effect suggested by some observational studies can confidently be excluded, we cannot exclude the possibility of smaller effect sizes and non-linear relationships.
胆石病与循环胆红素水平与结直肠癌(CRC)发病风险之间的关系的流行病学研究结果并不一致。为了解决可能存在的混杂因素和反向因果关系,我们使用孟德尔随机化(MR)来研究这些潜在危险因素与 CRC 之间的关系。
我们使用两样本 MR 分析了 26397 名患者和 41481 名对照中胆石病遗传易感性与循环胆红素水平与 CRC 之间的关系。我们计算了每增加一个 SD 单位的遗传预测胆红素水平的比值比(OR),并检验了胆石症对 CRC 的非零因果效应。敏感性分析用于识别估计量假设的违反情况。
胆石病(P 值=0.60)或循环胆红素水平(OR=1.00,95%置信区间(CI)=0.96-1.03,P 值=0.90)与 CRC 之间均无关联。
尽管这项研究规模很大,但我们没有发现循环胆红素水平或胆石病与 CRC 发病风险之间存在因果关系的证据。虽然一些观察性研究所提示的效应大小可以有把握地排除,但我们不能排除较小的效应大小和非线性关系的可能性。