Literature DB >> 35565215

Cancers and COVID-19 Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study.

Zengbin Li1, Yudong Wei1, Guixian Zhu1, Mengjie Wang1, Lei Zhang1,2,3,4.   

Abstract

Observational studies have shown increased COVID-19 risk among cancer patients, but the causality has not been proven yet. Mendelian randomization analysis can use the genetic variants, independently of confounders, to obtain causal estimates which are considerably less confounded. We aimed to investigate the causal associations of cancers with COVID-19 outcomes using the MR analysis. The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method was employed as the primary analysis. Sensitivity analyses and multivariable MR analyses were conducted. Notably, IVW analysis of univariable MR revealed that overall cancer and twelve site-specific cancers had no causal association with COVID-19 severity, hospitalization or susceptibility. The corresponding p-values for the casual associations were all statistically insignificant: overall cancer (p = 0.34; p = 0.42; p = 0.69), lung cancer (p = 0.60; p = 0.37; p = 0.96), breast cancer (p = 0.43; p = 0.74; p = 0.43), endometrial cancer (p = 0.79; p = 0.24; p = 0.83), prostate cancer (p = 0.54; p = 0.17; p = 0.58), thyroid cancer (p = 0.70; p = 0.80; p = 0.28), ovarian cancer (p = 0.62; p = 0.96; p = 0.93), melanoma (p = 0.79; p = 0.45; p = 0.82), small bowel cancer (p = 0.09; p = 0.08; p = 0.19), colorectal cancer (p = 0.85; p = 0.79; p = 0.30), oropharyngeal cancer (p = 0.31; not applicable, NA; p = 0.80), lymphoma (p = 0.51; NA; p = 0.37) and cervical cancer (p = 0.25; p = 0.32; p = 0.68). Sensitivity analyses and multivariable MR analyses yielded similar results. In conclusion, cancers might have no causal effect on increasing COVID-19 risk. Further large-scale population studies are needed to validate our findings.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; Mendelian randomization; SARS-CoV-2; cancer; causal association

Year:  2022        PMID: 35565215      PMCID: PMC9099868          DOI: 10.3390/cancers14092086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancers (Basel)        ISSN: 2072-6694            Impact factor:   6.575


1. Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. As of April 2022, the cumulative cases and deaths of COVID-19 have reached over 500 million and 6 million, respectively [2]. Notably, COVID-19 individuals are mostly presented with mild and moderate infection, but can progress rapidly from asymptomatic to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and even death [3,4]. Therefore, identifying the potential risk factors for COVID-19 will be of significant value for public health and health policy. Cancer patients are a vulnerable population during the COVID-19 pandemic [5,6]. Cancer represents a severe public health problem and is the second leading cause of death worldwide [7]. The Global Cancer Observatory estimated 19.3 million new cancer diagnoses and roughly 10.0 million cancer-associated deaths globally in 2020 [8]. Previous studies suggested that cancer patients showed higher prevalence, severe illness incidence, and mortality rate of COVID-19 compared with the non-cancer population [9,10,11]. However, a prospective cohort of 0.5 million people indicated that confounders—including socioeconomic status, age, and ethnicity—might interfere with the associations between COVID-19 and risk factors [12]. It was unclear whether the positive correlations between cancers and COVID-19 outcomes resulted from confounders or biases [13]. Furthermore, associations are correlative only; they do not imply causality. Mendelian randomization, an epidemiological method, has been widely applied to assess the potential causal association between exposure and outcome [14,15]. According to Mendel’s law, genetic variants are randomly allocated at meiosis [16]. MR analysis, using genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs), can minimize the influence of confounders or reverse causations [14]. Given the limitations of current research, we tried to evaluate the potential impact and the causal associations of cancers with COVID-19 outcomes using the MR method.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

Figure 1 outlines the overall design of investigating the causal associations between cancers and COVID-19 outcomes through MR study. Briefly, the MR method comprises two main steps: first, randomizing participants on the basis of IVs; then, assessing the causal associations between cancers and COVID-19 outcomes [14,17]. IVs should meet three key assumptions: (1) the IVs are robustly associated with cancers; (2) the IVs are not associated with confounders; and (3) the IVs should affect the outcomes of COVID-19 only through cancers, not via alternative pathways [17]. Previous MR studies have shown that some single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for cancers might be associated with confounders between cancers and COVID-19, such as educational attainment [18,19], body mass index (BMI) [20], income [18], alcohol consumption [21] and smoking [22,23]. Thus, we performed multivariable MR analyses to limit the effects of potential confounders.
Figure 1

The overall design of the Mendelian randomization study.

2.2. Data Sources

The summary statistics in the genome-wide association studies (GWASs) for COVID-19 were sourced from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative V5 [24], which excluded “23andMe” data. The COVID-19 GWAS data has been adjusted for age, gender, age2, age × gender, principal components and study-specific covariates by the original GWAS researchers. The COVID-19 outcomes included 1,683,768 participants (38,984 infection cases and 1,644,784 controls) for susceptibility, 1,887,658 participants (9986 hospitalized patients and 1,877,672 controls) for hospitalization, and 1,388,342 participants (5101 very serious respiratory confirmed patients and 1,383,241 controls) for severity, respectively. The uninfected individuals served as the controls. All cases were confirmed by laboratory, self-reported, or physician diagnosis. The severe cases were defined as patients who died or required respiratory support with COVID-19 infection [24]. The summary statistics of the GWASs for cancers were obtained from the UK biobank [25], International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO) [26], Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) [27], Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) [28], Endometrial Cancer Association Consortium (ECAC) [29], Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome Consortium (PRACTICALC) [30] and the thyroid cancer study of Kohler et al. [31]. Overall cancer and 12 site-specific cancers were included: 336,272 participants for overall cancer, 27,209 participants for lung cancer, 18,313 participants for squamous cell lung cancer, 228,951 participants for breast cancer, 175,475 participants for estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer, 127,442 participants for ER- breast cancer, 66,450 participants for ovarian cancer, 121,885 participants for endometrial cancer, 140,254 participants for prostate cancer, 1080 participants for thyroid cancer, 375,767 participants for melanoma, 337,159 participants for small bowel cancer, 377,673 participants for colorectal cancer, 372,510 participants for oropharyngeal cancer, 361,194 participants for lymphoma and 463,010 participants for cervical cancer. Covariates for multivariable MR analyses were included: BMI (681,275 participants) [32], educational attainment (766,345 participants) [33], intelligence (269,867 participants) [34], average total household income before tax (income, 397,751 participants) [25], cigarettes per day (smoking, 337,334 participants) [35] and alcoholic drinks per week (alcohol consumption, 335,394 participants) [35]. All data came from the European population. Detailed information on data can be found in Table 1.
Table 1

Summary of the included data.

VariableCasesControlsSample SizeYearGWAS ID
COVID-19COVID-19 susceptibility38,9841,644,7841,683,7682021-
COVID-19 hospitalization99861,877,6721,887,6582021-
COVID-19 severity51011,383,2411,388,3422021-
CancerOverall cancer26,576309,696336,2722017ukb-a-307
Lung cancer11,34815,86127,2092014ieu-a-966
Squamous cell lung cancer327515,03818,3132014ieu-a-967
Breast cancer122,977105,974228,9512017ieu-a-1126
ER+ Breast cancer69,501105,974175,4752017ieu-a-1127
ER− Breast cancer21,468105,974127,4422017ieu-a-1128
Ovarian cancer25,50940,94166,4502017ieu-a-1120
Endometrial cancer12,906108,979121,8852018ebi-a-GCST006464
Prostate cancer79,14861,106140,2542018ieu-b-85
Thyroid cancer64943110802013ieu-a-1082
Melanoma3751372,016375,7672021ieu-b-4969
Small bowel cancer156337,003337,1592017ukb-a-56
Colorectal cancer5657372,016377,6732021ieu-b-4965
Oropharyngeal cancer494372,016372,5102021ieu-b-4968
Lymphoma1752359,442361,1942018ukb-d-C_LYMPHOMA
Cervical cancer3175459,835463,0102018ukb-b-918
CovariatesBMI--681,2752018ieu-b-40
Educational attainment--766,3452018ieu-a-1239
Intelligence--269,8672018ebi-a-GCST006250
Income--397,7512018ukb-b-7408
Smoking--337,3342019ieu-b-25
Alcohol consumption--335,3942019ieu-b-73
At the beginning of our study design, 24 site-specific cancers were considered. Overall cancer and 12 site-specific cancers were included, but another 12 types of cancer were not included due to insufficient SNPs (stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, esophagus cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, biliary tract cancer, head and neck cancer, bladder cancer, testis cancer, brain cancer, multiple myeloma and bone cancer). In Table S1, we provide detailed information on cancers that failed to perform the MR study.

2.3. Selection of Instrumental Variables

Appropriate SNPs used as IVs must be robustly associated with cancers (p < 5 × 10−8). To ensure independence, SNPs were restricted by low linkage disequilibrium (LD, r2 < 0.001, window size = 10,000 kb) using clumping [14,36]. We excluded palindromic SNPs whose minor allele frequency (MAF) was less than 0.42. In addition, we calculated F-statistics for SNPs to measure instrumental strength. SNPs with an F-statistic less than 10 were removed [37]. Detailed information on selected SNPs can be found in Table S2. One SNP (rs11571818) of squamous cell lung cancer was removed (F-statistic: 7.94).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

In the univariable MR analysis, the IVW analysis was chosen as the primary approach to estimate the causal effects of cancers on COVID-19 outcomes [15,38]. We added the MR-Egger regression [39], weighted median [40], weighted mode [41] and MR pleiotropy residual sum and outlier (MR-PRESSO) [42] methods as supplements to sensitivity analyses. The third assumption (that IVs cannot affect the outcomes of COVID-19 through alternative pathways) was defined as independence from pleiotropy [14]. When performing MR analysis, results may be inaccurate due to the pleiotropy of these SNPs [36]. Therefore, we evaluated the potential pleiotropy via the MR-PRESSO approach. The MR-PRESSO approach could identify and correct possible outliers and estimate causal effects [42]. We evaluated the heterogeneity by Cochran’s Q test. The fixed-effect model was used if no heterogeneity was observed (p < 0.1); otherwise, a random-effect model was applied. In addition, we used the “leave-one-out” validation to determine whether a single SNP had a significant independent influence on the MR estimation. We applied the random-effect IVW method to assess the causal effects of cancers on COVID-19 outcomes for the multivariable MR analyses, after controlling BMI, educational attainment, intelligence, smoking and alcohol consumption. Given the number of cancers and COVID-19 outcomes considered, a two-sided p-value using the Bonferroni correction (0.0033, 0.05/15 cancers) was used. 0.0033 < p < 0.05 was regarded as suggestive evidence for a potential association. The β (β = lnOR; OR, odds ratio) and its SE (standard error) were calculated to reflect effect sizes. All statistical analyses were conducted in R v4.0.1 (R Foundation, Vienna, Austria) with the packages “TwoSampleMR” and “MRPRESSO” [42,43].

3. Results

3.1. Cancers and COVID-19 Severity

A total of 1,388,342 participants (5101 very serious respiratory confirmed patients and 1,383,241 controls) were included for COVID-19 severity. Severe COVID-19 cases were defined as patients who died or required respiratory support with COVID-19 infection. The effects of each SNP in cancers on COVID-19 severity can be found in Figure S1. There was significant heterogeneity in the IVW analyses of prostate cancer (p = 0.07), ovarian cancer (p < 0.001), melanoma (p = 0.01) and cervical cancer (p = 0.08) (Table 2). Hence, we performed the random-effect model in their IVW analyses. IVW analysis suggested no causal effect of overall cancer (p = 0.34), lung cancer (p = 0.60), squamous cell lung cancer (p = 0.66), breast cancer (p = 0.43), ER+ breast cancer (p = 0.79), ER− breast cancer (p = 0.66), endometrial cancer (p = 0.79), prostate cancer (p = 0.54), thyroid cancer (p = 0.70), ovarian cancer (p = 0.62), melanoma (p = 0.79), small bowel cancer (p = 0.09), colorectal cancer (p = 0.85), oropharyngeal cancer (p = 0.31), lymphoma (p = 0.51) or cervical cancer (p = 0.25) on the COVID-19 severity (Table 2).
Table 2

Causal effects of cancers on COVID-19 severity estimated by univariable Mendelian randomization.

Cancer TypesNo. of SNPsIVWMR-EggerWeighted MedianWeighted ModeMR-PRESSOHeterogeneityPleiotropy
β SE p β SE p β SE p β SE p β SE p p p
Overall cancer4−3.443.610.34112.35104.870.40−1.634.250.700.776.260.91−3.444.110.460.270.33
Lung cancer50.030.070.600.160.250.570.060.080.450.080.080.380.030.060.590.530.58
Squamous cell lung cancer2−0.050.120.66--------------
Breast cancer1090.040.050.430.050.110.610.070.080.390.050.090.560.050.050.310.350.23
ER+ Breast cancer81−0.010.050.790.040.110.700.090.070.200.100.080.240.00010.051.000.130.10
ER− Breast cancer270.030.060.66−0.200.170.25−0.030.090.73−0.070.110.560.030.060.630.290.35
Endometrial cancer120.020.090.79−0.080.360.840.010.130.960.310.260.260.020.090.800.360.38
Prostate cancer91−0.020.040.54−0.150.090.11−0.020.070.74−0.070.070.30−0.020.040.600.07 *0.03 $
Thyroid cancer249−0.0010.0020.70−0.0030.0030.29−0.0030.0030.32−0.0040.0040.27−0.0010.0020.700.330.33
Ovarian cancer90.080.160.62−0.080.410.840.060.110.570.110.120.400.0040.100.96<0.001 *0.01 $
Melanoma6−3.4512.830.79−6.5639.710.88−10.7610.130.29−17.5011.330.18−3.4512.830.800.01 *0.02 $
Small bowel cancer584.0348.790.09−11.30156.920.9543.10 61.670.4840.6079.890.6484.0331.590.060.790.76
Colorectal cancer7−1.055.440.85 1.4519.050.94−1.15 6.940.87−1.768.85 0.85−1.053.460.770.880.89
Oropharyngeal cancer2−52.1951.790.31------------0.95-
Lymphoma2−15.0422.770.51------------0.95-
Cervical cancer2−28.5824.700.25------------0.08 *-

* Significant heterogeneity (p < 0.1); $ significant horizontal pleiotropy (p < 0.05).

In the sensitivity analyses, the MR-PRESSO test indicated significant horizontal pleiotropy in the analyses of prostate cancer (p = 0.03) and ovarian cancer (p = 0.01) (Table 2). After removing the horizontal pleiotropy SNPs (rs12139208 for prostate cancer; rs115478735 for ovarian cancer), MR-PRESSO analysis suggested that prostate cancer and ovarian cancer had no causal association with COVID-19 severity (p = 0.60; p = 0.96). Although horizontal pleiotropy was observed in melanoma (p = 0.02), it showed no significant outlier. We conducted the “leave-one-out” analysis and found no potential SNP significantly biasing the results (Figure S4). Taken together, sensitivity analyses (MR-Egger, weighted median, weighted mode and MR-PRESSO) revealed that cancers had no causal association with COVID-19 severity (Table 2). Results of multivariable MR analyses also supported our findings (Table S3).

3.2. Cancers and COVID-19 Hospitalization

COVID-19 hospitalization analysis contained 1,887,658 participants (9986 hospitalization patients and 1,877,672 controls). Figure S2 represents the effects of each SNP in cancers on COVID-19 hospitalization. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the analyses of thyroid cancer (p = 0.06), ovarian cancer (p < 0.001) and cervical cancer (p = 0.04) (Table 3). The random-effect model was subsequently applied. IVW analysis revealed no causal effect of overall cancer (p = 0.42), lung cancer (p = 0.37), squamous cell lung cancer (p = 0.66), breast cancer (p = 0.74), ER+ breast cancer (p = 0.51), ER− breast cancer (p = 0.93), endometrial cancer (p = 0.24), prostate cancer (p = 0.17), thyroid cancer (p = 0.80), ovarian cancer (p = 0.96), melanoma (p = 0.45), small bowel cancer (p = 0.08), colorectal cancer (p = 0.79) or cervical cancer (p = 0.32) on COVID-19 hospitalization (Table 3).
Table 3

Causal effects of cancers on COVID-19 hospitalization estimated by univariable Mendelian randomization.

Cancer TypesNo. of SNPsIVWMR-EggerWeighted MedianWeighted ModeMR-PRESSOHeterogeneityPleiotropy
β SE p β SE p β SE p β SE p β SE p p p
Overall cancer4−1.862.320.4222.7061.390.75−2.322.730.40−2.833.810.51−1.861.650.340.680.71
Lung cancer40.040.050.370.290.200.290.060.050.230.070.060.310.040.030.310.660.63
Squamous cell lung cancer2−0.040.08 0.66 ------------0.99 -
Breast cancer1060.010.030.74-0.0030.070.970.010.050.800.020.060.700.020.030.600.200.13
ER+ Breast cancer79−0.020.030.510.040.070.56−0.020.050.710.020.050.77−0.010.030.700.360.22
ER− Breast cancer25−0.0040.040.930.030.120.83−0.030.060.63−0.050.090.59-0.0050.040.900.580.60
Endometrial cancer120.060.050.240.430.210.070.070.080.340.030.110.770.060.060.280.360.37
Prostate cancer900.040.030.17−0.010.060.850.060.040.150.050.050.280.040.030.160.120.07
Thyroid cancer246−0.00030.0010.80−0.0040.0020.04 #−0.00050.0020.790.00020.0020.940.00030.00050.630.06 *0.08
Ovarian cancer90.010.110.96−0.200.280.520.010.080.940.010.080.850.010.040.78<0.001 *<0.001 $
Melanoma6−3.524.620.45−3.6216.930.84−10.086.000.09−11.147.970.22−3.525.600.560.200.26
Small bowel cancer278.9045.540.08------------0.83-
Colorectal cancer70.993.700.797.6713.800.602.914.620.534.045.770.510.992.480.700.850.85
Oropharyngeal cancer------------------
Lymphoma------------------
Cervical cancer2−19.9520.170.32------------0.04 *-

* Significant heterogeneity (p < 0.1); $ significant horizontal pleiotropy (p < 0.05); # potential association (p < 0.05).

In the sensitivity analyses, the MR-PRESSO test indicated significant horizontal pleiotropy in the analysis of ovarian cancer (p < 0.001; Table 3). After removing the horizontal pleiotropy SNPs (rs115478735 and rs71238846), ovarian cancer was still not significantly associated with COVID-19 hospitalization in the MR-PRESSO analysis (p = 0.78). The “leave-one-out” analysis showed no outliers (Figure S5). Although MR-Egger test indicated a potential association of thyroid cancer with COVID-19 hospitalization (p = 0.04), estimates in the three analyses (weighted median, weighted mode and MR-PRESSO; Table 3) directionally matched the result of IVW analysis. In the multivariable MR analyses (Table S4), potential association with COVID-19 hospitalization was observed in overall cancer (p = 0.01) and prostate cancer (p = 0.046) when adjusting for education attainment. A significant association was also found in small bowel cancer (p = 0.047) when adjusting for smoking. However, the associations of overall cancer, prostate cancer and small bowel cancer with COVID-19 hospitalization could not be replicated when intelligence (p = 0.18; p = 0.10; p = 0.23), income (p = 0.28; p = 0.06; p = 0.28) and alcohol consumption (p = 0.58; p = 0.11; p = 0.43) were adjusted (Table S4). Therefore, there was no strong evidence for a causal association of overall cancer, prostate cancer, or small bowel cancer with COVID-19 hospitalization.

3.3. Cancers and COVID-19 Susceptibility

A total of 1,683,768 participants (38,984 infection patients and 1,644,784 controls) were included for COVID-19 susceptibility. Figure S3 shows the effects of each SNP in cancers on COVID-19 susceptibility. There was significant heterogeneity in the IVW analyses of ER+ breast cancer (p = 0.02), prostate cancer (p = 0.06), thyroid cancer (p = 0.06), ovarian cancer (p < 0.001), melanoma (p = 0.05) and cervical cancer (p < 0.001) (Table 4). Thus, we performed the random-effect model for their IVW analyses. IVW analysis suggested no causal effect of overall cancer (p = 0.69), lung cancer (p = 0.96), squamous cell lung cancer (p = 0.08), breast cancer (p = 0.43), ER+ breast cancer (p = 0.30), ER− breast cancer (p = 0.18), endometrial cancer (p = 0.83), prostate cancer (p = 0.58), thyroid cancer (p = 0.28), ovarian cancer (p = 0.93), melanoma (p = 0.82), small bowel cancer (p = 0.19), colorectal cancer (p = 0.30), oropharyngeal cancer (p = 0.80), lymphoma (p = 0.37) or cervical cancer (p = 0.68) on COVID-19 susceptibility (Table 4).
Table 4

Causal effects of cancers on COVID-19 susceptibility estimated by univariable Mendelian randomization.

Cancer TypesNo. of SNPsIVWMR-EggerWeighted MedianWeighted ModeMR-PRESSOHeterogeneityPleiotropy
β SE p β SE p β SE p β SE p β SE p p p
Overall cancer40.471.150.69−3.2942.930.95−0.621.380.65−0.781.950.720.471.320.750.270.35
Lung cancer50.0010.020.960.030.080.770.020.030.540.020.030.56 0.000.020.950.540.59
Squamous cell lung cancer2−0.070.04 0.08 ------------0.77 -
Breast cancer109−0.010.020.43−0.010.040.85−0.020.030.44−0.030.030.43−0.010.020.570.260.23
ER+ Breast cancer81−0.020.020.300.010.040.78−0.020.020.38−0.030.03 0.36−0.010.020.500.02 *0.02 $
ER− Breast cancer27−0.030.020.18−0.080.060.19−0.030.030.27−0.050.04 0.24−0.030.020.220.390.46
Endometrial cancer12−0.010.030.830.040.110.69−0.010.030.69−0.020.05 0.69 −0.010.020.760.920.91
Prostate cancer91−0.010.010.58−0.040.030.16−0.030.020.16−0.030.02 0.17 −0.010.010.670.06 *0.05
Thyroid cancer2480.0010.00060.28−0.0000010.0011.000.00010.00090.940.00040.001 0.71 0.00060.00060.280.06 *0.05
Ovarian cancer9−0.010.090.93−0.140.220.54−0.010.040.740.02 0.04 0.68 −0.030.030.39<0.001 *<0.001 $
Melanoma6 0.763.280.829.848.38 0.31 −1.102.970.71−1.113.780.780.763.280.83 0.05 * 0.05
Small bowel cancer423.0917.710.19148.10 80.980.21 5.8520.890.78−2.5929.450.9423.0919.360.32 0.31 0.37
Colorectal cancer71.961.880.308.718.860.371.852.640.486.566.090.321.962.310.43 0.17 0.16
Oropharyngeal cancer2−3.8215.140.80------------0.77 -
Lymphoma2−6.056.790.37------------0.47 -
Cervical cancer2−7.0117.210.68------------<0.001 *-

* Significant heterogeneity (p < 0.1); $ significant horizontal pleiotropy (p < 0.05).

In the sensitivity analyses, the MR-PRESSO test indicated significant horizontal pleiotropy in the analyses of ER+ breast cancer (p = 0.02) and ovarian cancer (p < 0.001) (Table 4). After removing the horizontal pleiotropy SNPs (rs4971059 for ER+ breast cancer, rs115478735 and rs71238846 for ovarian cancer), MR-PRESSO analysis suggested that ER+ breast cancer and ovarian cancer still had no causal association with COVID-19 susceptibility (p = 0.50; p = 0.39). The “leave-one-out” plot showed one potential instrumental outlier (rs6983267) for colorectal cancer (Figure S6M). However, results of multivariable MR analyses (Table S5) supported colorectal cancer having no significant causal effect on COVID-19 susceptibility. In summary, there was no strong evidence for a causal association of overall cancer or twelve site-specific cancers with COVID-19 susceptibility.

4. Discussion

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare resources are extremely scarce, and there is an urgent need to allocate healthcare resources rationally [44]. Identifying individuals who are vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and those who are prone to severe illness is of great significance for optimizing the allocation of healthcare resources. Epidemiological studies have suggested that cancer is an independent adverse prognostic factor on COVID-19 outcomes [10,45], but causality has not been assessed. We used the MR analysis to evaluate the causal effects of overall cancer and twelve site-specific cancers (lung cancer, breast cancer, endometrial cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, melanoma, small bowel cancer, colorectal cancer, oropharyngeal cancer, lymphoma and cervical cancer) on COVID-19 outcomes (severity, hospitalization and susceptibility). The MR study on extensive international genetic consortia provided no strong evidence to support the causal role of cancer in COVID-19 development. MR leverages the random allocation of genetic variants at conception, independently of confounders, to identify the causal effects that are substantially less confounded and not vulnerable to reverse causation [14,15]. We used SNPs as instrumental variables to conduct the MR study. Five analyses (IVW, MR-Egger, weighted median, weighted mode and MR-PRESSO) suggested no causal effect of overall cancer or twelve site-specific cancers on COVID-19 outcomes. Multivariate MR estimates (adjusted for BMI, education attainment, intelligence, income, smoking and alcohol consumption) were consistent with the results of five analyses. Besides UK biobank, we introduced other data to verify the results of this study (Table S6). Taken together, we concluded that cancers might have no causal effect on increasing COVID-19 risk, and these results were robust. Although many studies have generally shown positive correlations of cancers with the risk of COVID-19 [10,45,46,47], some subsequent findings are inconsistent with previous studies. No statistically significant difference was found between the severe and non-severe COVID-19 group of cancer among non-Asian patients [48]. A meta-analysis involving 46,499 patients revealed that cancer was not a risk factor for COVID-19 death in elderly patients [49]. Moreover, another meta-analysis showed that colorectal cancer patients are not significantly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 in the global population [50]. Interestingly, a recent meta-analysis suggested that no significantly increased risk of severe illness of COVID-19 was observed in patients with lung or stage IV cancer [51]. The conflicting results indicated that cancers might not be causally associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Risk factors may be correlated with COVID-19 outcomes, but not as a causal association. Previous MR studies have shown that many traditional risk factors have no causal association with COVID-19 outcomes, such as decreased lung function, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, stroke and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [52,53,54,55]. However, BMI has been robustly correlated and causally associated with COVID-19 outcomes [54]. In fact, many studies have shown that there is a significant difference in the age distribution between cancer and non-cancer patients infected with COVID-19 [46,47,56]. In addition, the mortality rate of COVID-19 in cancer patients appears to be mainly determined by age, gender and comorbidities [57,58]. Therefore, the reported correlations of risk factors with COVID-19 outcomes might be confounded in observational studies, possibly due to confounders including BMI, age and gender. Notably, cancer patients should remain a key focus during the COVID-19 pandemic. Risk factors were clinically helpful in identifying critically ill patients of COVID-19, even without a causal association. MR design is less confounding than observational study, but limitations of this MR study need to be acknowledged. First, some types of cancer—such as stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer and brain cancer—were not included in the study because of insufficient SNPs (Table S1). Potential causality for COVID-19 outcomes might be observed in other types of cancer. Second, our results are primarily based on participants of European descent, to reduce racial influence. The findings of our MR study might not apply to other ethnic groups. With racial minorities disproportionately affected by the pandemic [59,60], reliable research on non-European ancestry is urgently needed. Third, gender-specific cancers (breast cancer, endometrial cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer and cervical cancer) were included. Although the original researchers have adjusted the COVID-19 GWAS data for gender, it might have a confounded impact. Lastly, data were extracted from vast genetic epidemiological networks, but our study failed to detect minimal effects.

5. Conclusions

Overall, we used MR analysis to evaluate the causal effects of overall cancer and twelve site-specific cancers on COVID-19 severity, hospitalization and susceptibility. Results of the MR study did not suggest strong evidence to support the causal associations of any examined cancer with COVID-19 outcomes. Previous observational correlations of cancers with COVID-19 outcomes were likely confounded. More large-scale epidemiological studies are needed to validate our findings.
  60 in total

1.  Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for height and body mass index in ∼700000 individuals of European ancestry.

Authors:  Loic Yengo; Julia Sidorenko; Kathryn E Kemper; Zhili Zheng; Andrew R Wood; Michael N Weedon; Timothy M Frayling; Joel Hirschhorn; Jian Yang; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 6.150

2.  Identification of 12 new susceptibility loci for different histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Catherine M Phelan; Karoline B Kuchenbaecker; Jonathan P Tyrer; Siddhartha P Kar; Kate Lawrenson; Stacey J Winham; Joe Dennis; Ailith Pirie; Marjorie J Riggan; Ganna Chornokur; Madalene A Earp; Paulo C Lyra; Janet M Lee; Simon Coetzee; Jonathan Beesley; Lesley McGuffog; Penny Soucy; Ed Dicks; Andrew Lee; Daniel Barrowdale; Julie Lecarpentier; Goska Leslie; Cora M Aalfs; Katja K H Aben; Marcia Adams; Julian Adlard; Irene L Andrulis; Hoda Anton-Culver; Natalia Antonenkova; Gerasimos Aravantinos; Norbert Arnold; Banu K Arun; Brita Arver; Jacopo Azzollini; Judith Balmaña; Susana N Banerjee; Laure Barjhoux; Rosa B Barkardottir; Yukie Bean; Matthias W Beckmann; Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel; Javier Benitez; Marina Bermisheva; Marcus Q Bernardini; Michael J Birrer; Line Bjorge; Amanda Black; Kenneth Blankstein; Marinus J Blok; Clara Bodelon; Natalia Bogdanova; Anders Bojesen; Bernardo Bonanni; Åke Borg; Angela R Bradbury; James D Brenton; Carole Brewer; Louise Brinton; Per Broberg; Angela Brooks-Wilson; Fiona Bruinsma; Joan Brunet; Bruno Buecher; Ralf Butzow; Saundra S Buys; Trinidad Caldes; Maria A Caligo; Ian Campbell; Rikki Cannioto; Michael E Carney; Terence Cescon; Salina B Chan; Jenny Chang-Claude; Stephen Chanock; Xiao Qing Chen; Yoke-Eng Chiew; Jocelyne Chiquette; Wendy K Chung; Kathleen B M Claes; Thomas Conner; Linda S Cook; Jackie Cook; Daniel W Cramer; Julie M Cunningham; Aimee A D'Aloisio; Mary B Daly; Francesca Damiola; Sakaeva Dina Damirovna; Agnieszka Dansonka-Mieszkowska; Fanny Dao; Rosemarie Davidson; Anna DeFazio; Capucine Delnatte; Kimberly F Doheny; Orland Diez; Yuan Chun Ding; Jennifer Anne Doherty; Susan M Domchek; Cecilia M Dorfling; Thilo Dörk; Laure Dossus; Mercedes Duran; Matthias Dürst; Bernd Dworniczak; Diana Eccles; Todd Edwards; Ros Eeles; Ursula Eilber; Bent Ejlertsen; Arif B Ekici; Steve Ellis; Mingajeva Elvira; Kevin H Eng; Christoph Engel; D Gareth Evans; Peter A Fasching; Sarah Ferguson; Sandra Fert Ferrer; James M Flanagan; Zachary C Fogarty; Renée T Fortner; Florentia Fostira; William D Foulkes; George Fountzilas; Brooke L Fridley; Tara M Friebel; Eitan Friedman; Debra Frost; Patricia A Ganz; Judy Garber; María J García; Vanesa Garcia-Barberan; Andrea Gehrig; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Graham G Giles; Rosalind Glasspool; Gord Glendon; Andrew K Godwin; David E Goldgar; Teodora Goranova; Martin Gore; Mark H Greene; Jacek Gronwald; Stephen Gruber; Eric Hahnen; Christopher A Haiman; Niclas Håkansson; Ute Hamann; Thomas V O Hansen; Patricia A Harrington; Holly R Harris; Jan Hauke; Alexander Hein; Alex Henderson; Michelle A T Hildebrandt; Peter Hillemanns; Shirley Hodgson; Claus K Høgdall; Estrid Høgdall; Frans B L Hogervorst; Helene Holland; Maartje J Hooning; Karen Hosking; Ruea-Yea Huang; Peter J Hulick; Jillian Hung; David J Hunter; David G Huntsman; Tomasz Huzarski; Evgeny N Imyanitov; Claudine Isaacs; Edwin S Iversen; Louise Izatt; Angel Izquierdo; Anna Jakubowska; Paul James; Ramunas Janavicius; Mats Jernetz; Allan Jensen; Uffe Birk Jensen; Esther M John; Sharon Johnatty; Michael E Jones; Päivi Kannisto; Beth Y Karlan; Anthony Karnezis; Karin Kast; Catherine J Kennedy; Elza Khusnutdinova; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Johanna I Kiiski; Sung-Won Kim; Susanne K Kjaer; Martin Köbel; Reidun K Kopperud; Torben A Kruse; Jolanta Kupryjanczyk; Ava Kwong; Yael Laitman; Diether Lambrechts; Nerea Larrañaga; Melissa C Larson; Conxi Lazaro; Nhu D Le; Loic Le Marchand; Jong Won Lee; Shashikant B Lele; Arto Leminen; Dominique Leroux; Jenny Lester; Fabienne Lesueur; Douglas A Levine; Dong Liang; Clemens Liebrich; Jenna Lilyquist; Loren Lipworth; Jolanta Lissowska; Karen H Lu; Jan Lubinński; Craig Luccarini; Lene Lundvall; Phuong L Mai; Gustavo Mendoza-Fandiño; Siranoush Manoukian; Leon F A G Massuger; Taymaa May; Sylvie Mazoyer; Jessica N McAlpine; Valerie McGuire; John R McLaughlin; Iain McNeish; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Alfons Meindl; Usha Menon; Arjen R Mensenkamp; Melissa A Merritt; Roger L Milne; Gillian Mitchell; Francesmary Modugno; Joanna Moes-Sosnowska; Melissa Moffitt; Marco Montagna; Kirsten B Moysich; Anna Marie Mulligan; Jacob Musinsky; Katherine L Nathanson; Lotte Nedergaard; Roberta B Ness; Susan L Neuhausen; Heli Nevanlinna; Dieter Niederacher; Robert L Nussbaum; Kunle Odunsi; Edith Olah; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Håkan Olsson; Curtis Olswold; David M O'Malley; Kai-Ren Ong; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Nicholas Orr; Sandra Orsulic; Ana Osorio; Domenico Palli; Laura Papi; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; James Paul; Celeste L Pearce; Inge Søkilde Pedersen; Petra H M Peeters; Bernard Peissel; Ana Peixoto; Tanja Pejovic; Liisa M Pelttari; Jennifer B Permuth; Paolo Peterlongo; Lidia Pezzani; Georg Pfeiler; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Marion Piedmonte; Malcolm C Pike; Anna M Piskorz; Samantha R Poblete; Timea Pocza; Elizabeth M Poole; Bruce Poppe; Mary E Porteous; Fabienne Prieur; Darya Prokofyeva; Elizabeth Pugh; Miquel Angel Pujana; Pascal Pujol; Paolo Radice; Johanna Rantala; Christine Rappaport-Fuerhauser; Gad Rennert; Kerstin Rhiem; Patricia Rice; Andrea Richardson; Mark Robson; Gustavo C Rodriguez; Cristina Rodríguez-Antona; Jane Romm; Matti A Rookus; Mary Anne Rossing; Joseph H Rothstein; Anja Rudolph; Ingo B Runnebaum; Helga B Salvesen; Dale P Sandler; Minouk J Schoemaker; Leigha Senter; V Wendy Setiawan; Gianluca Severi; Priyanka Sharma; Tameka Shelford; Nadeem Siddiqui; Lucy E Side; Weiva Sieh; Christian F Singer; Hagay Sobol; Honglin Song; Melissa C Southey; Amanda B Spurdle; Zsofia Stadler; Doris Steinemann; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Lara E Sucheston-Campbell; Grzegorz Sukiennicki; Rebecca Sutphen; Christian Sutter; Anthony J Swerdlow; Csilla I Szabo; Lukasz Szafron; Yen Y Tan; Jack A Taylor; Muy-Kheng Tea; Manuel R Teixeira; Soo-Hwang Teo; Kathryn L Terry; Pamela J Thompson; Liv Cecilie Vestrheim Thomsen; Darcy L Thull; Laima Tihomirova; Anna V Tinker; Marc Tischkowitz; Silvia Tognazzo; Amanda Ewart Toland; Alicia Tone; Britton Trabert; Ruth C Travis; Antonia Trichopoulou; Nadine Tung; Shelley S Tworoger; Anne M van Altena; David Van Den Berg; Annemarie H van der Hout; Rob B van der Luijt; Mattias Van Heetvelde; Els Van Nieuwenhuysen; Elizabeth J van Rensburg; Adriaan Vanderstichele; Raymonda Varon-Mateeva; Ana Vega; Digna Velez Edwards; Ignace Vergote; Robert A Vierkant; Joseph Vijai; Athanassios Vratimos; Lisa Walker; Christine Walsh; Dorothea Wand; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Penelope M Webb; Clarice R Weinberg; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Nicolas Wentzensen; Alice S Whittemore; Juul T Wijnen; Lynne R Wilkens; Alicja Wolk; Michelle Woo; Xifeng Wu; Anna H Wu; Hannah Yang; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Argyrios Ziogas; Kristin K Zorn; Steven A Narod; Douglas F Easton; Christopher I Amos; Joellen M Schildkraut; Susan J Ramus; Laura Ottini; Marc T Goodman; Sue K Park; Linda E Kelemen; Harvey A Risch; Mads Thomassen; Kenneth Offit; Jacques Simard; Rita Katharina Schmutzler; Dennis Hazelett; Alvaro N Monteiro; Fergus J Couch; Andrew Berchuck; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Ellen L Goode; Thomas A Sellers; Simon A Gayther; Antonis C Antoniou; Paul D P Pharoah
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 38.330

Review 3.  Mendelian Randomization.

Authors:  Connor A Emdin; Amit V Khera; Sekar Kathiresan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases.

Authors:  Marie Verbanck; Chia-Yen Chen; Benjamin Neale; Ron Do
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 38.330

5.  Cardiometabolic risk factors for COVID-19 susceptibility and severity: A Mendelian randomization analysis.

Authors:  Aaron Leong; Joanne B Cole; Laura N Brenner; James B Meigs; Jose C Florez; Josep M Mercader
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 11.069

6.  Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of cancer patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of global data.

Authors:  Xiangyi Kong; Yihang Qi; Junjie Huang; Yang Zhao; Yongle Zhan; Xuzhen Qin; Zhihong Qi; Adejare Jay Atanda; Lei Zhang; Jing Wang; Yi Fang; Peng Jia; Asieh Golozar; Lin Zhang; Yu Jiang
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  2021-03-20       Impact factor: 8.679

7.  Comparison of comorbidities among severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients in Asian versus non-Asian populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anju Puri; Lin He; Mohan Giri; Chengfei Wu; Qinghua Zhao
Journal:  Nurs Open       Date:  2021-11-10

8.  Is Cancer an Independent Risk Factor for Fatal Outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients?

Authors:  Jie Xu; Wenwei Xiao; Li Shi; Yadong Wang; Haiyan Yang
Journal:  Arch Med Res       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 2.235

9.  Race, ethnicity, community-level socioeconomic factors, and risk of COVID-19 in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Chun-Han Lo; Long H Nguyen; David A Drew; Erica T Warner; Amit D Joshi; Mark S Graham; Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa; Fatma M Shebl; Christina M Astley; Jane C Figueiredo; Chuan-Guo Guo; Wenjie Ma; Raaj S Mehta; Sohee Kwon; Mingyang Song; Richard Davies; Joan Capdevila; Carole H Sudre; Jonathan Wolf; Yvette C Cozier; Lynn Rosenberg; Lynne R Wilkens; Christopher A Haiman; Loïc Le Marchand; Julie R Palmer; Tim D Spector; Sebastien Ourselin; Claire J Steves; Andrew T Chan
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2021-07-17

10.  Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Fei Zhou; Ting Yu; Ronghui Du; Guohui Fan; Ying Liu; Zhibo Liu; Jie Xiang; Yeming Wang; Bin Song; Xiaoying Gu; Lulu Guan; Yuan Wei; Hui Li; Xudong Wu; Jiuyang Xu; Shengjin Tu; Yi Zhang; Hua Chen; Bin Cao
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  2 in total

1.  Association between Blood Donation and Malignant and Benign Tumour Risk: A Population-Based Study of 3.4 Million Participants in China.

Authors:  Shu Su; Ting Ma; Yang Sun; Lingxia Guo; Xiaodong Su; Wenhua Wang; Xinxin Xie; Liqin Wang; Lili Xing; Leilei Zhang; Shiyi He; Jiangcun Yang; Lei Zhang
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 4.501

2.  SARS-CoV-2-Specific T Cell Immunity in HIV-Associated Kaposi Sarcoma Patients in Zambia.

Authors:  Owen Ngalamika; Marie Claire Mukasine; Patrick Kamanzi; Musonda Kawimbe; Aaron Mujajati; For Yue Tso; Salum J Lidenge; Chibamba Mumba
Journal:  J Immunol Res       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 4.493

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.