| Literature DB >> 26817443 |
Tilman Kühn1, Anna Floegel2, Disorn Sookthai3, Theron Johnson4, Ulrike Rolle-Kampczyk5, Wolfgang Otto6, Martin von Bergen7,8,9, Heiner Boeing10, Rudolf Kaaks11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: First metabolomics studies have indicated that metabolic fingerprints from accessible tissues might be useful to better understand the etiological links between metabolism and cancer. However, there is still a lack of prospective metabolomics studies on pre-diagnostic metabolic alterations and cancer risk.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26817443 PMCID: PMC4730724 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0552-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med ISSN: 1741-7015 Impact factor: 8.775
Characteristics of the study population (EPIC-Heidelberg, case-cohort sample)
| Incident cancer cases | Subcohort | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorectum | Breast | Prostate | Women | Men | |
| N | 163 | 362 | 310 | 426 | 348 |
| Age at recruitment (years) | 55.8 ± 6.4 | 51.4 ± 7.8 | 57.9 ± 5.2 | 49.1 ± 8.5 | 52.3 ± 7.1 |
| Women (%) | 37.4 | 100 | |||
| Menopausal status (%) | |||||
| Premenopausal | 31.5 | 48.6 | |||
| Postmenopausal | 68.5 | 51.4 | |||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 27.2 ± 3.8 | 25.1 ± 4.4 | 26.9 ± 3.3 | 24.8 ± 4.4 | 26.5 ± 3.4 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 93.5 ± 12.5 | 81.0 ± 11.3 | 96.2 ± 9.6 | 79.8 ± 11.0 | 95.2 ± 9.8 |
| Smoking (%) | |||||
| Never | 31.9 | 55.0 | 42.6 | 50.5 | 34.4 |
| Former | 44.8 | 25.7 | 41.6 | 28.4 | 41.7 |
| Current | 23.3 | 19.3 | 15.8 | 21.1 | 23.9 |
| Physical activity (%)a | |||||
| Inactive | 12.3 | 11.6 | 11.6 | 9.9 | 11.8 |
| Moderately inactive | 34.3 | 35.1 | 36.1 | 34.5 | 31.3 |
| Moderately active | 27.0 | 26.5 | 29.7 | 29.8 | 29.6 |
| Active | 26.4 | 26.8 | 22.6 | 25.8 | 27.3 |
| Education level (%) | |||||
| Primary school | 33.1 | 24.6 | 34.2 | 25.6 | 25.9 |
| Secondary school | 34.4 | 48.6 | 32.9 | 51.2 | 33.0 |
| University degree | 32.5 | 26.8 | 32.9 | 23.2 | 41.1 |
| NSAID use (%) | 9.2 | 2.5 | 8.7 | 2.1 | 6.0 |
| Age at diagnosis (years) | 62.3 ± 7.2 | 57.5 ± 7.8 | 64.5 ± 5.2 | ||
| Stage at diagnosis (%) | |||||
| Local | 40.5 | 62.2 | 70.7 | ||
| Regional | 40.5 | 32.0 | 24.8 | ||
| Distant | 19.0 | 2.2 | 3.2 | ||
| Unknown | - | 3.6 | 1.3 | ||
Values are means ± standard deviations or proportions. aAccording to the Cambridge physical activity index
Fig. 1Plasma metabolite concentrations and cancer risk. P values from Cox regression analyses on individual metabolite concentrations on the log-2 scale and cancer risk are represented by the needles. The blue dashed lines depict the significance threshold at an uncorrected P <0.05 and green dashed lines depict the significance threshold after Bonferroni correction (0.05 divided by 120). Unfilled circles indicate inverse associations and filled circles indicate direct associations. Metabolites are grouped by chemical properties: block 1, acylcarnitines; block 2, amino acids; block 3, biogenic amines; block 4, lysophosphatidylcholines (lysoPCs); block 5, diacylphosphatidylcholines; block 6, acyl-alkyl-phosphatidylcholines; block 7, sphingolipids; and block 8, overall hexoses. All multivariable Cox regression models were adjusted for age, smoking (never, former, current), lifetime alcohol intake (g/d), current aspirin use (yes/no), physical activity (Cambridge index), waist circumference (cm), BMI (continuous), height (cm), and education level (primary school, secondary school, university degree). Analyses on breast cancer risk were additionally adjusted for menopausal status, current HRT use (yes/no), current oral contraceptive use (yes/no), and at least one full term pregnancy (yes/no). Analyses on colorectal cancer risk were additionally adjusted for sex, fiber intake (g/d), and processed meat intake (g/d)
Hazard ratios (95 % CIs) of cancer across quartiles of lysoPC a C18:0 and PC ae C30:0 concentrations
| Quartile 1 | Quartile 2 | Quartile 3 | Quartile 4 | ptrend (raw) | ptrend (corrected) | Measured in | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LysoPC a C18:0 | 100 % | |||||||
| Breast cancer | Mediana | 13.52 | 17.34 | 20.36 | 23.23 | |||
| n cases | 137 | 96 | 84 | 45 | ||||
| Ref. | 0.63 (0.41, 0.97) | 0.65 (0.41, 1.02) | 0.29 (0.18, 0.47) | 0.00004 | 0.00421 | |||
| Prostate cancer | Median | 15.33 | 18.69 | 21.43 | 26.3 | |||
| n cases | 93 | 96 | 73 | 48 | ||||
| Ref. | 1.31 (0.75, 2.28) | 0.79 (0.45, 1.39) | 0.57 (0.33, 0.98) | 0.01388 | 1 | |||
| Colorectal cancer | Median | 14.37 | 17.71 | 21.21 | 24.13 | |||
| n cases | 47 | 47 | 46 | 23 | ||||
| Ref. | 1.16 (0.67, 2.01) | 1.06 (0.62, 1.82) | 0.50 (0.28, 0.90) | 0.00196 | 0.2348 | |||
| Overall cancer | Median | 14.37 | 17.93 | 20.85 | 24.63 | |||
| n cases | 280 | 228 | 211 | 116 | ||||
| Ref | 0.83 (0.61, 1.12) | 0.74 (0.55, 1.00) | 0.37 (0.27, 0.51) | 1.10 × 10−9 | 1.10 × 10−7 | |||
| PC ae C30:0 | 95.6 % | |||||||
| Breast cancer | Median | 0.33 | 0.40 | 0.47 | 0.60 | |||
| n cases | 69 | 74 | 92 | 113 | ||||
| Ref. | 1.08 (0.67, 1.75) | 1.45 (0.88, 2.37) | 1.97 (1.20, 3.23) | 0.00522 | 0.6260 | |||
| Prostate cancer | Median | 0.28 | 0.35 | 0.4 | 0.53 | |||
| n cases | 64 | 63 | 71 | 100 | ||||
| Ref. | 0.89 (0.50, 1.58) | 1.38 (0.78, 2.44) | 1.89 (1.06, 3.36) | 0.00194 | 0.2328 | |||
| Colorectal cancer | Median | 0.28 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.59 | |||
| n cases | 36 | 36 | 46 | 39 | ||||
| Ref | 1.00 (0.54, 1.83) | 1.79 (1.01, 3.18) | 1.84 (1.02, 3.34) | 0.01069 | 1 | |||
| Overall cancer | Median | 0.30 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.58 | |||
| n cases | 168 | 174 | 208 | 253 | ||||
| Ref | 1.03 (0.73, 1.45) | 1.41 (1.01, 1.96) | 1.85 (1.31, 2.60) | 0.00026 | 0.03137 |
Results from Cox proportional hazards regression analyses on pre-diagnostic metabolite concentrations and cancer risk over time. All multivariable Cox models were adjusted for age, smoking (never, former, current), lifetime alcohol intake (g/d), current aspirin use (yes/no), physical activity (Cambridge index), waist circumference (cm), BMI (continuous), height (cm), and education level (primary school, secondary school, university degree). Analyses on breast cancer risk were additionally adjusted for menopausal status, current HRT use (yes/no), current oral contraceptive use (yes/no), and at least one full term pregnancy (yes/no). Analyses on colorectal cancer risk were additionally adjusted for sex, fiber intake (g/d), and processed meat intake (g/d). aMedian metabolite concentrations in μmol/L
Fig. 2Age- and sex-adjusted Spearman’s correlations between levels of different lysoPCs
Age- and sex-adjusted partial Spearman’s correlations between levels of lysoPC a C18:0 as well as PC ae C30:0 and covariates
| Age | BMI | Height (cm) | Waist (cm) | Fiber intake (g/d) | Meat intake (g/d) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LysoPC a C18:0 | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.03 | −0.02 | 0.00051 | 0.06 |
| PC ae C30:0 | −0.02 | −0.17 | 0.06 | −0.16 | 0.03 | −0.22 |
Geometric means (95 % CIs) of metabolite levels adjusted for age and sex across strata of covariates
| LysoPC a C18:0 | PC ae C30:0 | |
|---|---|---|
| Smoking status | ||
| Current | 19.3 (18.6, 20.1) | 0.40 (0.38, 0.41) |
| Former | 19.7 (19.1, 20.3) | 0.43 (0.41, 0.44) |
| Never | 19.8 (19.2, 20.3) | 0.42 (0.41, 0.44) |
| Physical activity | ||
| Inactive | 19.5 (18.4, 20.7) | 0.43 (0.40, 0.45) |
| Moderately inactive | 19.1 (18.4, 19.7) | 0.40 (0.39, 0.42) |
| Moderately active | 19.9 (19.2, 20.6) | 0.43 (0.42, 0.45) |
| Active | 20.1 (19.4, 20.9) | 0.43 (0.41, 0.44) |