ArticleCancer medicine2024
Causal effects of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy on future gynecologic tumors: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mendelian randomization analysis of modifiable risk factors for breast cancer.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Causal effects of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy on future gynecologic tumors: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNumerous observational studies have investigated the potential link between hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDPs) and the subsequent risks of gynecologic tumors, yet the findings have been inconsistent. In this study, we utilized Mendelian randomization (MR) approach to assess the influence of HDPs on the future risks of ovarian, cervical, endometrial, and breast cancer and uterine fibroids, controlling for confounding factors.
methodsThe genome-wide association studies (GWAS) summary data relevant to HDPs was obtained from the FinnGen databases (10,736 cases and 136,325 controls). Gynecologic tumor outcomes were extracted from the IEU Open GWAS project and UK Biobank (47,690 cases and 1, 092,073 controls). The inverse variance weighted (IVW) approach was selected as the principal method for MR analysis, supplemented by MR-Egger, weighted median, weighted model, simple model methods, MR pleiotropy residual sum and outlier (MR-PRESSO) test, and leave-one-out method. Multivariate MR (MVMR) analysis was conducted after adjusting systolic blood pressure (SBP), body mass index (BMI) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
resultsOur univariate MR analysis (UVMR) results revealed no significant relationship between HDPs and the risks of ovarian cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 0.924, p = 0.360), cervical cancer (OR = 1.230, p = 0.738), endometrial cancer (OR = 1.006, p = 0.949), uterine fibroids (OR = 1.155, p = 0.158), and breast cancer (OR = 0.792, p = 0.241) by IVW test. Similar results were observed in gestational hypertension and preeclampsia/eclampsia. Additionally, our study detected neither heterogeneity nor pleiotropy. MVMR analysis also provided no evidence of a causal association between HDPs and common gynecologic tumors after adjusting SBP, BMI, and T2DM.
conclusionWe discovered no causal relationship between HDPs and ovarian, cervical, endometrial, breast cancer, and uterine fibroids in European populations. However, present analysis did not explore the effect of HDPs on the subtypes of gynecologic tumors across varied ethnic populations, which may require additional research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.