4.4 Article

Circulating Biomarkers of One-Carbon Metabolism in Relation to Renal Cell Carcinoma Incidence and Survival

Journal

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju327

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. World Cancer Research Fund (UK)
  2. International Agency for Research on Cancer
  3. Cancer Council Australia
  4. Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO)
  5. Deutsche Krebshilfe
  6. Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
  7. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
  8. Danish Cancer Society
  9. Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health
  10. Spanish Regional Government of Andalucia
  11. Spanish Regional Government of Asturias
  12. Spanish Regional Government of Basque Country
  13. Spanish Regional Government of Murcia
  14. Spanish Regional Government of Navarra
  15. Catalan Institute of Oncology, Spain
  16. ISCIII of the Spanish Ministry of Health [RETICC DR06/0020]
  17. Cancer Research UK
  18. Medical Research Council, UK
  19. Greek Ministry of Health
  20. Stavros Niarchos Foundation
  21. Hellenic Health Foundation
  22. Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC)
  23. Italian National Research Council
  24. Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy
  25. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Milan
  26. Compagnia di San Paolo
  27. Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports
  28. World Cancer Research Fund
  29. Swedish Cancer Society
  30. Swedish Scientific Council
  31. Regional Government of Vasterbotten, Sweden
  32. NordForsk (Centre of excellence programme HELGA), Norway
  33. French League against Cancer (LNCC), France
  34. National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France
  35. Mutuelle Generale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France
  36. 3M Co, France
  37. Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France
  38. General Councils of France
  39. MRC [MC_UU_12013/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  40. Cancer Research UK [16491] Funding Source: researchfish
  41. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_12013/2] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The etiology of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is only partially understood, but a metabolic component appears likely. We investigated biomarkers of one-carbon metabolism and RCC onset and survival. Methods The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) recruited 385 747 participants with blood samples between 1992 and 2000, and this analysis included 556 RCC case-control pairs. A subsequent replication study included 144 case-control pairs nested within the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS). Plasma concentrations of vitamin B2, vitamin B6, folate, vitamin B12, methionine and homocysteine were measured in prediagnostic samples and evaluated with respect to RCC risk using conditional and unconditional logistic regression models, and to all-cause mortality in RCC cases using Cox regression models. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results EPIC participants with higher plasma concentrations of vitamin B6 had lower risk of RCC, the odds ratio comparing the 4th and 1st quartiles (OR4vs1) being 0.40 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.28 to 0.57, P-trend < .001. We found similar results after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted P-trend < .001). In survival analysis, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in RCC cases when comparing the 4th and 1st quartiles (HR4vs1) of vitamin B6 was 0.57 (95% CI = 0.37 to 0.87, P-trend < .001). Subsequent replication of these associations within the MCCS yielded very similar results for both RCC risk (OR4vs1 = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.99, P-trend = .07) and all-cause mortality (HR4vs1 = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.27 to 1.17, P-trend = .02). No association was evident for the other measured biomarkers. Conclusion Study participants with higher circulating concentrations of vitamin B6 had lower risk of RCC and improved survival following diagnosis in two independent cohorts.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available