4.7 Article

The Genetic Association of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Risk of Endometrial Cancer: A Mendelian Randomization Study

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.756137

关键词

polycystic ovary syndrome; endometrial cancer; Mendelian randomization; GWAS; SNP

资金

  1. Sichuan Science and Technology Program [2020YFS0127]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that genetically predicted PCOS is not causally associated with the risk of endometrial cancer in both Europeans and Asians. Subgroup analyses suggest that PCOS may not be linked to the risk of endometrioid endometrial cancer or non-endometrioid endometrial cancer in European ancestry.
The association between polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometrial cancer remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the causal association between genetically predicted PCOS and endometrial cancer risk in two ethnic groups through a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. Our study includes 13 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as instrumental variables (IVs) for PCOS in Europeans, and another 13 SNPs are used as IVs for PCOS in Asians. Outcome data were obtained from the largest published meta-GWAS of European ancestry to date, as well as from the BioBank Japan Project of Asian ancestry. Our study demonstrates that genetically predicted PCOS is not causally associated with the risk of overall endometrial cancer in either Europeans or Asians (odds ratio (OR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.85-1.01, p = 0.09 and OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.84-1.13, p = 0.75, respectively). Subgroup analyses according to histotype further illustrate that PCOS might not be associated with the risk of either endometrioid endometrial cancer or non-endometrioid endometrial cancer in European ancestry. No pleiotropy is found in our study, and a sensitivity analysis shows similar results. Our results indicate that genetically predicted PCOS might not be associated with the risk of endometrial cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据