Line Rode1, Børge G Nordestgaard1, Stig E Bojesen2. 1. Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark, Copenhagen City Heart Study, Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Frederiksberg, Denmark and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark, Copenhagen City Heart Study, Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Frederiksberg, Denmark and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark stig.egil.bojesen@regionh.dk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Results regarding telomere length and cancer risk are conflicting. We tested the hypothesis that long telomeres are associated with increased risk of any cancer and specific cancer types in genetic and observational analyses. METHODS: Individuals (N = 95 568) from the Copenhagen City Heart Study and the Copenhagen General Population Study had the telomere length-associated genotypes rs7726159 (TERT), rs1317082 (TERC), and rs2487999 (OBFC1) determined, and 65 176 had telomere length measured. A total of 10 895 individuals had had a cancer diagnosis. Endpoints were any cancer and 25 specific cancer types. We conducted Cox regression analyses and logistic regression analyses. The three genotypes were combined as an allele sum. RESULTS: Telomere length increased 67 base-pairs [95% confidence interval (CI) 61-74] per allele. In logistic regression models, the per-allele odds ratio (OR) for cancer was 1.05 (95% CI 1.03-1.07) for the allele sum, 1.05 (1.02-1.09) for rs7726159, 1.05 (1.02-1.08) for rs1317082 and 1.07 (1.02-1.12) for rs2487999. In contrast, the hazard ratio for any cancer was 1.01 (1.00-1.01) per 200-base-pair increase in telomere length in multivariable adjusted observational analysis. In genetic analyses according to specific cancer types, the per-allele odds ratio was 1.19 (1.12-1.27) for melanoma and 1.14 (1.06-1.22) for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic determinants of long telomeres are associated with increased cancer risk, particularly melanoma and lung cancer. This genetic predisposition to enhanced telomere maintenance may represent a survival advantage for pre-cancerous cells, allowing for multiple cell divisions leading to cancer development.
BACKGROUND: Results regarding telomere length and cancer risk are conflicting. We tested the hypothesis that long telomeres are associated with increased risk of any cancer and specific cancer types in genetic and observational analyses. METHODS: Individuals (N = 95 568) from the Copenhagen City Heart Study and the Copenhagen General Population Study had the telomere length-associated genotypes rs7726159 (TERT), rs1317082 (TERC), and rs2487999 (OBFC1) determined, and 65 176 had telomere length measured. A total of 10 895 individuals had had a cancer diagnosis. Endpoints were any cancer and 25 specific cancer types. We conducted Cox regression analyses and logistic regression analyses. The three genotypes were combined as an allele sum. RESULTS: Telomere length increased 67 base-pairs [95% confidence interval (CI) 61-74] per allele. In logistic regression models, the per-allele odds ratio (OR) for cancer was 1.05 (95% CI 1.03-1.07) for the allele sum, 1.05 (1.02-1.09) for rs7726159, 1.05 (1.02-1.08) for rs1317082 and 1.07 (1.02-1.12) for rs2487999. In contrast, the hazard ratio for any cancer was 1.01 (1.00-1.01) per 200-base-pair increase in telomere length in multivariable adjusted observational analysis. In genetic analyses according to specific cancer types, the per-allele odds ratio was 1.19 (1.12-1.27) for melanoma and 1.14 (1.06-1.22) for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic determinants of long telomeres are associated with increased cancer risk, particularly melanoma and lung cancer. This genetic predisposition to enhanced telomere maintenance may represent a survival advantage for pre-cancerous cells, allowing for multiple cell divisions leading to cancer development.
Authors: Jian-Min Yuan; Kenneth B Beckman; Renwei Wang; Caroline Bull; Jennifer Adams-Haduch; Joyce Y Huang; Aizhen Jin; Patricia Opresko; Anne B Newman; Yun-Ling Zheng; Michael Fenech; Woon-Puay Koh Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Kristen E Schratz; Lisa Haley; Sonye K Danoff; Amanda L Blackford; Amy E DeZern; Christopher D Gocke; Amy S Duffield; Mary Armanios Journal: Blood Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Kunitoshi Chiba; Franziska K Lorbeer; A Hunter Shain; David T McSwiggen; Eva Schruf; Areum Oh; Jekwan Ryu; Xavier Darzacq; Boris C Bastian; Dirk Hockemeyer Journal: Science Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Linda Kachuri; Olli Saarela; Stig Egil Bojesen; George Davey Smith; Geoffrey Liu; Maria Teresa Landi; Neil E Caporaso; David C Christiani; Mattias Johansson; Salvatore Panico; Kim Overvad; Antonia Trichopoulou; Paolo Vineis; Ghislaine Scelo; David Zaridze; Xifeng Wu; Demetrius Albanes; Brenda Diergaarde; Pagona Lagiou; Gary J Macfarlane; Melinda C Aldrich; Adonina Tardón; Gad Rennert; Andrew F Olshan; Mark C Weissler; Chu Chen; Gary E Goodman; Jennifer A Doherty; Andrew R Ness; Heike Bickeböller; H-Erich Wichmann; Angela Risch; John K Field; M Dawn Teare; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Erik H F M van der Heijden; June C Carroll; Aage Haugen; Shanbeh Zienolddiny; Vidar Skaug; Victor Wünsch-Filho; Eloiza H Tajara; Raquel Ayoub Moysés; Fabio Daumas Nunes; Stephen Lam; Jose Eluf-Neto; Martin Lacko; Wilbert H M Peters; Loïc Le Marchand; Eric J Duell; Angeline S Andrew; Silvia Franceschi; Matthew B Schabath; Jonas Manjer; Susanne Arnold; Philip Lazarus; Anush Mukeriya; Beata Swiatkowska; Vladimir Janout; Ivana Holcatova; Jelena Stojsic; Dana Mates; Jolanta Lissowska; Stefania Boccia; Corina Lesseur; Xuchen Zong; James D McKay; Paul Brennan; Christopher I Amos; Rayjean J Hung Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 7.196