Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medicine
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Exploring causality in the association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D and colorectal cancer risk: a large Mendelian randomisation study

Authors: Yazhou He, Maria Timofeeva, Susan M. Farrington, Peter Vaughan-Shaw, Victoria Svinti, Marion Walker, Lina Zgaga, Xiangrui Meng, Xue Li, Athina Spiliopoulou, Xia Jiang, Elina Hyppönen, Peter Kraft, Douglas P. Kiel, Caroline Hayward, Archie Campbell, David Porteous, Katarina Vucic, Iva Kirac, Masa Filipovic, Sarah E. Harris, Ian J. Deary, Richard Houlston, Ian P. Tomlinson, Harry Campbell, Evropi Theodoratou, Malcolm G. Dunlop, The SUNLIGHT consortium

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Whilst observational studies establish that lower plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) levels are associated with higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), establishing causality has proven challenging. Since vitamin D is modifiable, these observations have substantial clinical and public health implications. Indeed, many health agencies already recommend supplemental vitamin D. Here, we explore causality in a large Mendelian randomisation (MR) study using an improved genetic instrument for circulating 25-OHD.

Methods

We developed a weighted genetic score for circulating 25-OHD using six genetic variants that we recently reported to be associated with circulating 25-OHD in a large genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis. Using this score as instrumental variable in MR analyses, we sought to determine whether circulating 25-OHD is causally linked with CRC risk. We conducted MR analysis using individual-level data from 10,725 CRC cases and 30,794 controls (Scotland, UK Biobank and Croatia). We then applied estimates from meta-analysis of 11 GWAS of CRC risk (18,967 cases; 48,168 controls) in a summary statistics MR approach.

Results

The new genetic score for 25-OHD was strongly associated with measured plasma 25-OHD levels in 2821 healthy Scottish controls (P = 1.47 × 10− 11), improving upon previous genetic instruments (F-statistic 46.0 vs. 13.0). However, individual-level MR revealed no association between 25-OHD score and CRC risk (OR 1.03/unit log-transformed circulating 25-OHD, 95% CI 0.51–2.07, P = 0.93). Similarly, we found no evidence for a causal relationship between 25-OHD and CRC risk using summary statistics MR analysis (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69–1.19, P = 0.48).

Conclusions

Despite the scale of this study and employing an improved score capturing more of the genetic contribution to circulating 25-OHD, we found no evidence for a causal relationship between circulating 25-OHD and CRC risk. Although the magnitude of effect for vitamin D suggested by observational studies can confidently be excluded, smaller effects sizes and non-linear relationships remain plausible. Circulating vitamin D may be a CRC biomarker, but a causal effect on CRC risk remains unproven.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Cross HS. Vitamin D: synthesis and catabolism- considerations for Cancer causation and therapy. In: Trump DL, Johnson CS, editors. Vitamin D and Cancer. New York: Springer New York; 2011. p. 1–24.
4.
Feldman D, Krishnan AV, Swami S, Giovannucci E, Feldman BJ. The role of vitamin D in reducing cancer risk and progression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2014;14:342–57.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ma Y, Zhang P, Wang F, Yang J, Liu Z, Qin H. Association between vitamin D and risk of colorectal cancer: a systematic review of prospective studies. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3775–82.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Theodoratou E, Tzoulaki I, Zgaga L, Ioannidis JP. Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised trials. BMJ. 2014;348:g2035.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
8.
Zgaga L, Theodoratou E, Farrington SM, Agakov F, Tenesa A, Walker M, et al. Diet, environmental factors, and lifestyle underlie the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in healthy adults in Scotland, and supplementation reduces the proportion that are severely deficient. J Nutr. 2011;141:1535–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Vimaleswaran KS, Berry DJ, Lu C, Tikkanen E, Pilz S, Hiraki LT, et al. Causal relationship between obesity and vitamin D status: bi-directional Mendelian randomization analysis of multiple cohorts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001383.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Giovannucci E. Epidemiology of vitamin D and colorectal cancer. Anti Cancer Agents Med Chem. 2013;13:11–9.CrossRef
11.
Manson JE, Bassuk SS, Lee IM, Cook NR, Albert MA, Gordon D, et al. The VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL): rationale and design of a large randomized controlled trial of vitamin D and marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements for the primary prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33:159–71.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Didelez V, Sheehan N. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007;16:309–30.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Gupta V, Walia GK, Sachdeva MP. ‘Mendelian randomization’: an approach for exploring causal relations in epidemiology. Public Health. 2017;145:113–9.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zheng J, Baird D, Borges MC, Bowden J, Hemani G, Haycock P, et al. Recent developments in Mendelian randomization studies. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2017;4:330–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Theodoratou E, Palmer T, Zgaga L, Farrington SM, McKeigue P, Din FV, et al. Instrumental variable estimation of the causal effect of plasma 25-hydroxy-vitamin D on colorectal cancer risk: a mendelian randomization analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7:e37662.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Hiraki LT, Qu C, Hutter CM, Baron JA, Berndt SI, Bezieau S, et al. Genetic predictors of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin d and risk of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22:2037–46.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Dimitrakopoulou VI, Tsilidis KK, Haycock PC, Dimou NL, Al-Dabhani K, Martin RM, et al. Circulating vitamin D concentration and risk of seven cancers: Mendelian randomisation study. BMJ. 2017;359:j4761.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zgaga L, Agakov F, Theodoratou E, Farrington SM, Tenesa A, Dunlop MG, et al. Model selection approach suggests causal association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and colorectal cancer. PLoS One. 2013;8:e63475.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Wang TJ, Zhang F, Richards JB, Kestenbaum B, van Meurs JB, Berry D, et al. Common genetic determinants of vitamin D insufficiency: a genome-wide association study. Lancet. 2010;376:180–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Jiang X, O'Reilly PF, Aschard H, Hsu YH, Richards JB, Dupuis J, et al. Genome-wide association study in 79,366 European-ancestry individuals informs the genetic architecture of 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Nat Commun. 2018;9:260.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Pierce BL, Ahsan H, Vanderweele TJ. Power and instrument strength requirements for Mendelian randomization studies using multiple genetic variants. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:740–52.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Palmer TM, Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Sheehan NA, Tobias JH, Timpson NJ, et al. Using multiple genetic variants as instrumental variables for modifiable risk factors. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012;21:223–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Study C, Houlston RS, Webb E, Broderick P, Pittman AM, Di Bernardo MC, et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association data identifies four new susceptibility loci for colorectal cancer. Nat Genet. 2008;40:1426–35.CrossRef
24.
Houlston RS, Cheadle J, Dobbins SE, Tenesa A, Jones AM, Howarth K, et al. Meta-analysis of three genome-wide association studies identifies susceptibility loci for colorectal cancer at 1q41, 3q26.2, 12q13.13 and 20q13.33. Nat Genet. 2010;42:973–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Theodoratou E, Farrington SM, Tenesa A, McNeill G, Cetnarskyj R, Barnetson RA, et al. Dietary vitamin B6 intake and the risk of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:171–82.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Deary IJ, Gow AJ, Pattie A, Starr JM. Cohort profile: the Lothian birth cohorts of 1921 and 1936. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:1576–84.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Smith BH, Campbell A, Linksted P, Fitzpatrick B, Jackson C, Kerr SM, et al. Cohort profile: generation Scotland: Scottish family health study (GS:SFHS). The study, its participants and their potential for genetic research on health and illness. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:689–700.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Timofeeva MN, Kinnersley B, Farrington SM, Whiffin N, Palles C, Svinti V, et al. Recurrent coding sequence variation explains only a small fraction of the genetic architecture of colorectal Cancer. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16286.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Allen N, Sudlow C, Downey P, Peakman T, Danesh J, Elliott P, et al. UK biobank: current status and what it means for epidemiology. Health Policy Technol. 2012;1:123–6.CrossRef
30.
Orlando G, Law PJ, Palin K, Tuupanen S, Gylfe A, Hanninen UA, et al. Variation at 2q35 (PNKD and TMBIM1) influences colorectal cancer risk and identifies a pleiotropic effect with inflammatory bowel disease. Hum Mol Genet. 2016;25:2349–59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Rodriguez-Broadbent H, Law PJ, Sud A, Palin K, Tuupanen S, Gylfe A, et al. Mendelian randomisation implicates hyperlipidaemia as a risk factor for colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2017;140:2701–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Wald A. The fitting of straight lines if both variables are subject to error. Ann Math Stat. 1940;11:284–300.CrossRef
33.
Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Sterne JA, Timpson N, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med. 2008;27:1133–63.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
36.
Whiffin N, Hosking FJ, Farrington SM, Palles C, Dobbins SE, Zgaga L, et al. Identification of susceptibility loci for colorectal cancer in a genome-wide meta-analysis. Hum Mol Genet. 2014;23:4729–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Al-Tassan NA, Whiffin N, Hosking FJ, Palles C, Farrington SM, Dobbins SE, et al. A new GWAS and meta-analysis with 1000Genomes imputation identifies novel risk variants for colorectal cancer. Sci Rep. 2015;5:10442.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Burgess S, Scott RA, Timpson NJ, Davey Smith G, Thompson SG, Consortium E-I. Using published data in Mendelian randomization: a blueprint for efficient identification of causal risk factors. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30:543–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40:304–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through egger regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:512–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Burgess S, Bowden J, Dudbridge F, Thompson SG. Robust instrumental variable methods using multiple candidate instruments with application to Mendelian randomization. arXiv preprint. 2016;arXiv:160603729. https://​arxiv.​org/​abs/​1606.​03729. Accessed 23 July 2018.
42.
Brion MJ, Shakhbazov K, Visscher PM. Calculating statistical power in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:1497–501.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Yavorska OO, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization: an R package for performing Mendelian randomization analyses using summarized data. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(6):1734–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Wactawski-Wende J, Kotchen JM, Anderson GL, Assaf AR, Brunner RL, O'Sullivan MJ, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and the risk of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:684–96.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Baron JA, Barry EL, Mott LA, Rees JR, Sandler RS, Snover DC, et al. A trial of calcium and vitamin D for the prevention of colorectal adenomas. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1519–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Forman MR, Levin B. Calcium plus vitamin D3 supplementation and colorectal cancer in women. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:752–4.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Newmark HL, Wargovich MJ, Bruce WR. Colon cancer and dietary fat, phosphate, and calcium: a hypothesis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1984;72:1323–5.PubMed
48.
Zhang X, Giovannucci E. Calcium and vitamin D for the prevention of colorectal adenomas. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:791.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Barry EL, Peacock JL, Rees JR, Bostick RM, Robertson DJ, Bresalier RS, et al. Vitamin D receptor genotype, vitamin D3 supplementation, and risk of colorectal adenomas: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:628–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Meeker S, Seamons A, Paik J, Treuting PM, Brabb T, Grady WM, et al. Increased dietary vitamin D suppresses MAPK signaling, colitis, and colon cancer. Cancer Res. 2014;74:4398–408.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Newmark HL, Yang K, Kurihara N, Fan K, Augenlicht LH, Lipkin M. Western-style diet-induced colonic tumors and their modulation by calcium and vitamin D in C57Bl/6 mice: a preclinical model for human sporadic colon cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30:88–92.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Irving AA, Plum LA, Blaser WJ, Ford MR, Weng C, Clipson L, et al. Cholecalciferol or 25-hydroxycholecalciferol neither prevents nor treats adenomas in a rat model of familial colon cancer. J Nutr. 2015;145:291–8.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Ye Z, Sharp SJ, Burgess S, Scott RA, Imamura F, InterAct Consortium, et al. Association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D and incident type 2 diabetes: a mendelian randomisation study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;3:35–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Hiraki LT, Major JM, Chen C, Cornelis MC, Hunter DJ, Rimm EB, et al. Exploring the genetic architecture of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Genet Epidemiol. 2013;37:92–8.CrossRefPubMed
55.
MacArthur J, Bowler E, Cerezo M, Gil L, Hall P, Hastings E, et al. The new NHGRI-EBI catalog of published genome-wide association studies (GWAS catalog). Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D896–901.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Pierce BL, Burgess S. Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: subsample and 2-sample instrumental variable estimators. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;178:1177–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Burgess S, Thompson SG. Bias in causal estimates from Mendelian randomization studies with weak instruments. Stat Med. 2011;30:1312–23.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Munafo MR, Tilling K, Taylor AE, Evans DM, Davey Smith G. Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47:226–35.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Ganna A, Ingelsson E. 5 year mortality predictors in 498,103 UK biobank participants: a prospective population-based study. Lancet. 2015;386:533–40.CrossRefPubMed
60.
61.
Garland CF, Gorham ED. Dose-response of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D in association with risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2017;168:1–8.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Jenab M, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Ferrari P, van Duijnhoven FJ, Norat T, Pischon T, et al. Association between pre-diagnostic circulating vitamin D concentration and risk of colorectal cancer in European populations:a nested case-control study. BMJ. 2010;340:b5500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Silverwood RJ, Holmes MV, Dale CE, Lawlor DA, Whittaker JC, Smith GD, et al. Testing for non-linear causal effects using a binary genotype in a Mendelian randomization study: application to alcohol and cardiovascular traits. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43:1781–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
64.
Burgess S, Davies NM, Thompson SG, EPIC-InterAct Consortium. Instrumental variable analysis with a nonlinear exposure-outcome relationship. Epidemiology. 2014;25:877–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
65.
Timpson NJ, Wade KH, Smith GD. Mendelian randomization: application to cardiovascular disease. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2012;14:29–37.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Exploring causality in the association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D and colorectal cancer risk: a large Mendelian randomisation study
Authors
Yazhou He
Maria Timofeeva
Susan M. Farrington
Peter Vaughan-Shaw
Victoria Svinti
Marion Walker
Lina Zgaga
Xiangrui Meng
Xue Li
Athina Spiliopoulou
Xia Jiang
Elina Hyppönen
Peter Kraft
Douglas P. Kiel
Caroline Hayward
Archie Campbell
David Porteous
Katarina Vucic
Iva Kirac
Masa Filipovic
Sarah E. Harris
Ian J. Deary
Richard Houlston
Ian P. Tomlinson
Harry Campbell
Evropi Theodoratou
Malcolm G. Dunlop
The SUNLIGHT consortium
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1119-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medicine 1/2018 Go to the issue

Correspondence

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them

Opinion

Using flawed, uncertain, proximate and sparse (FUPS) data in the context of complexity: learning from the case of child mental health

Research article

Musculoskeletal conditions may increase the risk of chronic disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

Commentary

The heart of the matter: in search of causal effects of depression on somatic diseases

Commentary

Balancing feasibility and comprehensiveness: examining medications for reducing emergency hospital admissions

Research article

Global variation in bacterial strains that cause tuberculosis disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis