活产数量与乳腺癌因果关系:双样本孟德尔随机化
Causal Relationship between Number of Live Births and Breast Cancer: Two Sample Mendelian Randomisation Analysis
摘要: 目的:本研究旨在应用双样本孟德尔随机化分析研究欧洲人群中活产数量与乳腺癌发病率之间的因果关系。方法:在开放GWAS网站中获得暴露因素GWAS ID,筛选与暴露相关的SNP且去除连锁不平衡,将去除与混杂因素及结局相关的SNPs作为工具变量。提取结局中与工具变量相关的SNPs并去除回文序列。进行双样本孟德尔随机化,得到初步结果。检测异质性及离群值,剔除离群的SNPs。计算beta值和标准误(SE),并将beta值转换成OR值,并计算beta和OR的95%置信区间。结果:双样本孟德尔随机化分析得到数据活产数量(OR: 0.778, 95%CI: 0.655~0.925, P = 0.005)。结论:活产数量与乳腺癌存在因果关系,并且存在负向因果,即活产数量越多乳腺癌发病率越低。
Abstract: Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the causal relationship between the number of live births and the incidence of breast cancer in a European population using two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis. Methods: The exposure factor GWAS ID was obtained from the open GWAS website, the SNPs associated with exposure were screened and the linkage disequilibrium was removed, and the SNPs associated with confounders and outcomes were removed as instrumental variables. The SNPs associated with instrumental variables in the outcome were extracted and the palindromic sequence was removed. Two-sample Mendelian randomization was performed to obtain preliminary results. Heterogeneity and outlier values were detected, and outlier SNPs were eliminated. Compute beta values and standard errors (SE), and convert beta values to OR values, and compute 95% confidence intervals for beta and OR. Results: The number of live births was obtained by two-sample Mendelian randomization (OR: 0.778, 95%CI: 0.655~0.925, P = 0.005). Conclusion: There is a causal relationship between the number of live births and breast cancer, and there is a negative causal relationship, that is, the higher the number of live births, the lower the incidence of breast cancer.
文章引用:邵馨影, 赵红. 活产数量与乳腺癌因果关系:双样本孟德尔随机化[J]. 临床医学进展, 2023, 13(10): 15274-15280. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2023.13102137

参考文献

[1] Siegel, R.L., Miller, K.D., Wagle, N.S., et al. (2023) Cancer Statistics, 2023. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 73, 17-48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., et al. (2018) Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68, 394-424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3] World Health Organization (2020) Global Cancer Observatory (GCO): Cancer Today. http://gco.iarc.fr/today/home
[4] Chen, W.Q., Zheng, R.S., Baade, P.D., et al. (2016) Cancer Statistics in China, 2015. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 66, 115-132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Burgess, S., Thompson, S.G. and CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration (2011) Avoiding Bias from Weak Instruments in Mendelian Randomization Studies. International Journal of Epidemi-ology, 40, 755-764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Lawlor, D.A., Harbord, R.M., Sterne, J.A.C., et al. (2008) Mendelian Ran-domization: Using Genes as Instruments for Making Causal Inferences in Epidemiology. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 1133-1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Hackinger, S. and Zeggini, E. (2017) Statistical Methods to De-tect Pleiotropy in Human Complex Traits. Open Biology, 7, Article ID: 170125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Baum, C.F., Schaffer, M.E. and Stillman, S. (2007) Enhanced Routines for Instrumental Variables/Generalized Method of Moments Estimation and Testing. The Stata Journal, 7, 465-506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[9] Bowden, J., Del Greco, F.M., Minelli, C., et al. (2016) As-sessing the Suitability of Summary Data for Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Analyses Using MR-Egger Regres-sion: The Role of the i-2 Statistic. International Journal of Epidemiology, 45, 1961-1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Bowden, J., Smith, G.D., Haycock, P.C., et al. (2016) Consistent Estima-tion in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator. Genetic Epidemi-ology, 40, 304-314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Burgess, S., Dudbridge, F. and Thompson, S.G. (2016) Combining In-formation on Multiple Instrumental Variables in Mendelian Randomization: Comparison of Allele Score and Summarized Data Methods. Statistics in Medicine, 35, 1880-1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Burgess, S. and Thompson, S.G. (2017) Interpreting Findings from Mendelian Randomization Using the MR-Egger Method. European Journal of Epidemiology, 32, 377-389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Carter, A.R., Sanderson, E., Hammerton, G., et al. (2021) Mendelian Randomisation for Mediation Analysis: Current Methods and Challenges for Implementation. European Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 465-478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Jenkins, S., Betancourt, A.M., Wang, J., et al. (2012) Endo-crineactive Chemicals in Mammary Cancer Causation and Prevention. The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecu-lar Biology, 129, 191-200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Pathak, D.R. and Whittemore, A.S. (1992) Combined Effects of Body Size, Parity, and Menstrual Events on Breast Cancer Incidence in Seven Countries. American Journal of Epidemi-ology, 135, 153-168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Pike, M.C., Kolonel, L.N., Henderson, B.E., et al. (2002) Breast Cancer in a Multiethnic Cohort in Hawaii and Los Angeles: Risk Factor-Adjusted Incidence in Japanese Equals and in Hawaiians Exceeds That in Whites. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 11, 795-800.