4.3 Article

Colorectal cancer risk based on extended family history and body mass index

Journal

GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 7, Pages 778-784

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gepi.22338

Keywords

body mass index; cancer screening; colorectal cancer; family history; obesity; UPDB

Funding

  1. University of Utah
  2. National Cancer Institute [P30 CA42014]
  3. Huntsman Cancer Foundation
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [NU58DP0063200-01]
  5. NCI SEER Program [HHSN261201800016I]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Family history and body mass index (BMI) are well-known risk factors for colorectal cancer (CRC), however, their joint effects are not well described. Using linked data for genealogy, self-reported height and weight from driver's licenses, and the Utah Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results cancer registry, we found that an increasing number of first-degree relatives (FDR) with CRC is associated with higher standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for overweight/obese probands but not for under/normal weight probands. For probands with two CRC-affected FDRs, the SIR = 1.91 (95% CI [0.52, 4.89]) for under/normal weight probands and SIR = 4.31 (95% CI [2.46, 7.00]) for overweight/obese probands. In the absence of CRC-affected FDRs, any number of CRC-affected SDRs did not significantly increase CRC risk for under/normal weight probands, but for overweight/obese probands with at least three CRC-affected SDRs the SIR = 2.68 (95% CI [1.29, 4.93]). In the absence of CRC-affected FDRs and SDRs, any number of CRC-affected third-degree relatives (TDRs) did not increase risk in under/normal weight probands, but significantly elevated risk for overweight/obese probands with at least two CRC-affected TDRs was observed; SIR = 1.32 (95% CI [1.04, 1.65]). For nonsyndromic CRC, maximum midlife BMI affects risk based on family history and should be taken into account for CRC risk communication when possible.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available