Causal associations between dietary antioxidant vitamin intake and lung cancer: A Mendelian randomization study

This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.

ABSTRACT Developments in genome‐wide association studies and the increasing availability of summary genetic association data have made application of Mendelian randomization relatively straightforward. However, obtaining reliable results from a Mendelian randomization investigation remains problematic, as the conventional inverse‐variance weighted method only gives consistent estimates if all of the genetic variants in the analysis are valid instrumental variables. We present a novel weighted median estimator for combining data on multiple genetic variants into a single causal estimate. This estimator is consistent even when up to 50% of the information comes from invalid instrumental variables. In a simulation analysis, it is shown to have better finite‐sample Type 1 error rates than the inverse‐variance weighted method, and is complementary to the recently proposed MR‐Egger (Mendelian randomization‐Egger) regression method. In analyses of the causal effects of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol on coronary artery disease risk, the inverse‐variance weighted method suggests a causal effect of both lipid fractions, whereas the weighted median and MR‐Egger regression methods suggest a null effect of high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol that corresponds with the experimental evidence. Both median‐based and MR‐Egger regression methods should be considered as sensitivity analyses for Mendelian randomization investigations with multiple genetic variants.

Horizontal pleiotropy occurs when the variant has an effect on disease outside of its effect on the exposure in Mendelian randomization (MR). Violation of the ‘no horizontal pleiotropy’ assumption can cause severe bias in MR. We developed the Mendelian Randomization Pleiotropy RESidual Sum and Outlier (MR-PRESSO) test to identify horizontal pleiotropic outliers in multi-instrument summary-level MR testing. We showed using simulations that MR-PRESSO is best suited when horizontal pleiotropy occurs in <50% of instruments. Next, we applied MR-PRESSO, along with several other MR tests to complex traits and diseases, and found that horizontal pleiotropy: (i) was detectable in over 48% of significant causal relationships in MR; (ii) introduced distortions in the causal estimates in MR that ranged on average from −131% to 201%; (iii) induced false positive causal relationships in up to 10% of relationships; and (iv) can be corrected in some but not all instances.