4.5 Article

Association between periodontitis and breast cancer: two-sample Mendelian randomization study

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 2843-2849

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-04874-x

Keywords

Periodontitis; Breast cancer; Mendelian randomization; GWAS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used Mendelian randomization analysis to investigate the causal relationship between periodontitis and breast cancer. The results showed no significant causal relationship between periodontitis and breast cancer in both directions of analysis.
ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate whether there is a causal relationship between periodontitis and breast cancer by Mendelian randomization analysis.Materials and methodsWe performed a two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using publicly released genome-wide association studies (GWAS) statistics. The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method was used as the primary analysis. We applied complementary methods, including weighted median, weighted mode, simple mode, MR-Egger regression, and MR-pleiotropy residual sum and outlier (MR-PRESSO) to detect and correct for the effect of horizontal pleiotropy.ResultsIVW MR analysis showed no effect of periodontitis on breast cancer (IVW OR=0.99, P =0.14). Similarly, no significant causal relationship between breast cancer and periodontitis was found in reverse MR analysis (IVW OR=0.95, P =0.83). The results of MR-Egger regression, weighted median, and weighted mode methods were consistent with those of the IVW method. Based on sensitivity analyses, horizontal pleiotropy is unlikely to distort causal estimates.ConclusionsAlthough observational studies have reported an association between periodontitis and breast cancer, the results of our MR analysis do not support a causal relationship between periodontitis and breast cancer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available