METHODS: Collaborating investigators from 15 prospective studies provided individual-participant records (from predominantly men of white European ancestry) on blood or toenail selenium concentrations and prostate cancer risk. Odds ratios of prostate cancer by selenium concentration were estimated using multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Blood selenium was not associated with the risk of total prostate cancer (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [OR] per 80 percentile increase = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 1.23, based on 4527 case patients and 6021 control subjects). However, there was heterogeneity by disease aggressiveness (ie, advanced stage and/or prostate cancer death, Pheterogeneity = .01), with high blood selenium associated with a lower risk of aggressive disease (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.87) but not with nonaggressive disease. Nail selenium was inversely associated with total prostate cancer (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.40, Ptrend < .001, based on 1970 case patients and 2086 control subjects), including both nonaggressive (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.50) and aggressive disease (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.31, Pheterogeneity = .08).
CONCLUSIONS: Nail, but not blood, selenium concentration is inversely associated with risk of total prostate cancer, possibly because nails are a more reliable marker of long-term selenium exposure. Both blood and nail selenium concentrations are associated with a reduced risk of aggressive disease, which warrants further investigation.
METHODS: A total of 4,666 controls were pooled from several studies of cancer and HPV seropositivity, all tested within the same laboratory. HPV16 E6 seropositive controls were classified as having (i) moderate [mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) ≥ 484 and <1,000] or (ii) high seroreactivity (MFI ≥ 1,000). Associations of moderate and high HPV16 E6 seroreactivity with (i) demographic risk factors; and seropositivity for (ii) other HPV16 proteins (E1, E2, E4, E7, and L1), and (iii) E6 proteins from non-HPV16 types (HPV6, 11, 18, 31, 33, 45, and 52) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-two (0.7%) HPV16 E6 seropositive controls were identified; 17 (0.4%) with moderate and 15 (0.3%) with high seroreactivity. High HPV16 E6 seroreactivity was associated with former smoking [odds ratio (OR), 5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-51.8], and seropositivity against HPV16 L1 (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.3-15.4); E2 (OR, 7.7; 95% CI, 1.4-29.1); multiple HPV16 proteins (OR, 25.3; 95% CI, 2.6-119.6 for three HPV16 proteins beside E6) and HPV33 E6 (OR, 17.7; 95% CI, 1.9-81.8). No associations were observed with moderate HPV16 E6 seroreactivity.
CONCLUSIONS: High HPV16 E6 seroreactivity is rare among individuals without diagnosed cancer and was not explained by demographic factors.
IMPACT: Some HPV16 E6 seropositive individuals without diagnosed HPV-driven cancer, especially those with seropositivity against other HPV16 proteins, may harbor a biologically relevant HPV16 infection.
METHODS: We used three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (rs8176746, rs505922, and rs8176704) to determine ABO genotype in 2,774 aggressive prostate cancer cases and 4,443 controls from the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3). Unconditional logistic regression was used to calculate age and study-adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between blood type, genotype, and risk of aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥8 or locally advanced/metastatic disease (stage T3/T4/N1/M1).
RESULTS: We found no association between ABO blood type and risk of aggressive prostate cancer (Type A: OR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.87-1.08; Type B: OR = 0.92, 95%CI =n0.77-1.09; Type AB: OR = 1.25, 95%CI = 0.98-1.59, compared to Type O, respectively). Similarly, there was no association between "dose" of A or B alleles and aggressive prostate cancer risk.
CONCLUSIONS: ABO blood type was not associated with risk of aggressive prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE: We performed an analysis of genetic variants associated with leukocyte telomere length to assess the relationship between telomere length and RCC risk using Mendelian randomization, an approach unaffected by biases from temporal variability and reverse causation that might have affected earlier investigations.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Genotypes from nine telomere length-associated variants for 10 784 cases and 20 406 cancer-free controls from six genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of RCC were aggregated into a weighted genetic risk score (GRS) predictive of leukocyte telomere length.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Odds ratios (ORs) relating the GRS and RCC risk were computed in individual GWAS datasets and combined by meta-analysis.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Longer genetically inferred telomere length was associated with an increased risk of RCC (OR=2.07 per predicted kilobase increase, 95% confidence interval [CI]:=1.70-2.53, p<0.0001). As a sensitivity analysis, we excluded two telomere length variants in linkage disequilibrium (R2>0.5) with GWAS-identified RCC risk variants (rs10936599 and rs9420907) from the telomere length GRS; despite this exclusion, a statistically significant association between the GRS and RCC risk persisted (OR=1.73, 95% CI=1.36-2.21, p<0.0001). Exploratory analyses for individual histologic subtypes suggested comparable associations with the telomere length GRS for clear cell (N=5573, OR=1.93, 95% CI=1.50-2.49, p<0.0001), papillary (N=573, OR=1.96, 95% CI=1.01-3.81, p=0.046), and chromophobe RCC (N=203, OR=2.37, 95% CI=0.78-7.17, p=0.13).
CONCLUSIONS: Our investigation adds to the growing body of evidence indicating some aspect of longer telomere length is important for RCC risk.
PATIENT SUMMARY: Telomeres are segments of DNA at chromosome ends that maintain chromosomal stability. Our study investigated the relationship between genetic variants associated with telomere length and renal cell carcinoma risk. We found evidence suggesting individuals with inherited predisposition to longer telomere length are at increased risk of developing renal cell carcinoma.