Advertisement

Tumor Biology

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 1527–1529 | Cite as

Adding Mendelian randomization to a meta-analysis—a burgeoning opportunity

Review

Abstract

Current literature is teeming with tens of thousands of meta-analyses, but only a small fraction made seminal contributions to enriching our understanding of the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, possibly due to chance, bias, confounding, or reverse causality. The incorporation of Mendelian randomization (MR) with a meta-analysis has revolutionized traditional practice and is emerging as a viable technique to strengthen causal unconfounded inferences from observational data. We therefore highlight the importance of integrated MR meta-analysis in cancer epidemiology and provide an overview of three existing instrumental selection strategies in medical literature.

Keywords

Mendelian randomization Meta-analysis Causality 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976;5:3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Salanti G, Sanderson S, Higgins JP. Obstacles and opportunities in meta-analysis of genetic association studies. Genet Med. 2005;7:13–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson JR, Minelli C, Abrams KR, Tobin MD, Riley RD. Meta-analysis of genetic studies using Mendelian randomization—a multivariate approach. Stat Med. 2005;24:2241–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Proitsi P, Lupton MK, Velayudhan L, Newhouse S, Fogh I, Tsolaki M, et al. Genetic predisposition to increased blood cholesterol and triglyceride lipid levels and risk of Alzheimer disease: a Mendelian randomization analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001713.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith GD. Mendelian randomization for strengthening causal inference in observational studies: application to gene x environment interactions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010;5:527–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith GD, Ebrahim S. ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32:1–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Minelli C, Thompson JR, Tobin MD, Abrams KR. An integrated approach to the meta-analysis of genetic association studies using Mendelian randomization. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160:445–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gray R, Wheatley K. How to avoid bias when comparing bone marrow transplantation with chemotherapy. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1991;7 Suppl 3:9–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kivimaki M, Lawlor DA, Eklund C, Smith GD, Hurme M, Lehtimaki T, et al. Mendelian randomization suggests no causal association between C-reactive protein and carotid intima-media thickness in the young Finns study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2007;27:978–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boccia S, Hashibe M, Galli P, De Feo E, Asakage T, Hashimoto T, et al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 and head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis implementing a Mendelian randomization approach. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:248–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis SJ, Smith GD. Alcohol, ALDH2, and esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis which illustrates the potentials and limitations of a Mendelian randomization approach. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:1967–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pei Y, Xu Y, Niu W. Causal relevance of circulating adiponectin with cancer: a meta-analysis implementing Mendelian randomization. Tumour Biol. 2014;36(2):585–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allin KH, Nordestgaard BG, Zacho J, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Bojesen SE. C-reactive protein and the risk of cancer: a Mendelian randomization study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:202–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu X, Gu J, Grossman HB, Amos CI, Etzel C, Huang M, et al. Bladder cancer predisposition: a multigenic approach to DNA-repair and cell-cycle-control genes. Am J Hum Genet. 2006;78:464–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spitz MR, Bondy ML. The evolving discipline of molecular epidemiology of cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31:127–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meng QH, Xu E, Hildebrandt MA, Liang D, Lu K, Ye Y, et al. Genetic variants in the fibroblast growth factor pathway as potential markers of ovarian cancer risk, therapeutic response, and clinical outcome. Clin Chem. 2014;60:222–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klein RJ, Zeiss C, Chew EY, Tsai JY, Sackler RS, Haynes C, et al. Complement factor h polymorphism in age-related macular degeneration. Science. 2005;308:385–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCarthy MI, Abecasis GR, Cardon LR, Goldstein DB, Little J, Ioannidis JP, et al. Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:356–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Voight BF, Peloso GM, Orho-Melander M, Frikke-Schmidt R, Barbalic M, Jensen MK, et al. Plasma HDL cholesterol and risk of myocardial infarction: a Mendelian randomisation study. Lancet. 2012;380:572–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holmes MV, Asselbergs FW, Palmer TM, Drenos F, Lanktree MB, Nelson CP, et al. Mendelian randomization of blood lipids for coronary heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2014.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bonilla C, Gilbert R, Kemp JP, Timpson NJ, Evans DM, Donovan JL, et al. Using genetic proxies for lifecourse sun exposure to assess the causal relationship of sun exposure with circulating vitamin d and prostate cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22:597–606.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thrift AP, Shaheen NJ, Gammon MD, Bernstein L, Reid BJ, Onstad L, et al. Obesity and risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett’s esophagus: a Mendelian randomization study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Conrad DF, Jakobsson M, Coop G, Wen X, Wall JD, Rosenberg NA, et al. A worldwide survey of haplotype variation and linkage disequilibrium in the human genome. Nat Genet. 2006;38:1251–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Katan MB. Apolipoprotein E isoforms, serum cholesterol, and cancer. Lancet. 1986;1:507–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith GD, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:30–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    VanderWeele TJ, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Cornelis M, Kraft P. Methodological challenges in Mendelian randomization. Epidemiology. 2014;25:427–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Rui Jin HospitalShanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineShanghaiChina
  2. 2.CAS Key Laboratory of Genome Sciences and Information, Beijing Institute of GenomicsChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations