Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34324486›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2021

Body size and composition and risk of site-specific cancers in the UK Biobank and large international consortia: A mendelian randomisation study.

Mathew Vithayathil, Paul Carter, Siddhartha Kar, Amy M Mason, Stephen Burgess, Susanna C Larsson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Causal Effects of Breast Cancer Risk Factors across Hormone Receptor Breast Cancer Subtypes: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mathew VithayathilMRC Cancer Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1457-4385
Paul CarterDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9146-7540
Siddhartha KarDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2314-1426
Amy M MasonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8019-0777
Stephen BurgessDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Susanna C LarssonUnit of Cardiovascular and Nutritional Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0118-0341
University of Cambridge · GBUppsala University · SE

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/12/2/29428British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194British Heart Foundation RG/18/13/33946Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/7Wellcome Trust 204623/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence for the impact of body size and composition on cancer risk is limited. This mendelian randomisation (MR) study investigates evidence supporting causal relationships of body mass index (BMI), fat mass index (FMI), fat-free mass index (FFMI), and height with cancer risk. METHODS AND

findingsSingle nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were used as instrumental variables for BMI (312 SNPs), FMI (577 SNPs), FFMI (577 SNPs), and height (293 SNPs). Associations of the genetic variants with 22 site-specific cancers and overall cancer were estimated in 367,561 individuals from the UK Biobank (UKBB) and with lung, breast, ovarian, uterine, and prostate cancer in large international consortia. In the UKBB, genetically predicted BMI was positively associated with overall cancer (odds ratio [OR] per 1 kg/m2 increase 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.02; p = 0.043); several digestive system cancers: stomach (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.21; p < 0.001), esophagus (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03, 1.17; p = 0.003), liver (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.25; p = 0.012), and pancreas (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.12; p = 0.016); and lung cancer (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12; p < 0.001). For sex-specific cancers, genetically predicted elevated BMI was associated with an increased risk of uterine cancer (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15; p < 0.001) and with a lower risk of prostate cancer (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-0.99; p = 0.009). When dividing cancers into digestive system versus non-digestive system, genetically predicted BMI was positively associated with digestive system cancers (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06; p < 0.001) but not with non-digestive system cancers (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.02; p = 0.369). Genetically predicted FMI was positively associated with liver, pancreatic, and lung cancer and inversely associated with melanoma and prostate cancer. Genetically predicted FFMI was positively associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and melanoma. Genetically predicted height was associated with increased risk of overall cancer (OR per 1 standard deviation increase 1.09; 95% CI 1.05-1.12; p < 0.001) and multiple site-specific cancers. Similar results were observed in analyses using the weighted median and MR-Egger methods. Results based on consortium data confirmed the positive associations between BMI and lung and uterine cancer risk as well as the inverse association between BMI and prostate cancer, and, additionally, showed an inverse association between genetically predicted BMI and breast cancer. The main limitations are the assumption that genetic associations with cancer outcomes are mediated via the proposed risk factors and that estimates for some lower frequency cancer types are subject to low precision.

conclusionsOur results show that the evidence for BMI as a causal risk factor for cancer is mixed. We find that BMI has a consistent causal role in increasing risk of digestive system cancers and a role for sex-specific cancers with inconsistent directions of effect. In contrast, increased height appears to have a consistent risk-increasing effect on overall and site-specific cancers.

Indexed as

Body CompositionBody SizeAgedBody Mass IndexFemaleHumansMaleMendelian Randomization AnalysisMiddle AgedNeoplasmsObesityUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34324486
PMCPMC8320991
OpenAlexW3183508038

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.