Next Article in Journal
Influence of Intravitreal Therapy on Choroidal Thickness in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema
Previous Article in Journal
Characteristics and Challenges of Epilepsy in Children with Cerebral Palsy—A Population-Based Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/jcm12010347
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Causal Effect of Reproductive Factors on Breast Cancer: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study

by
Lijun Jia
,
Wei Lv
,
Liang Liang
,
Yuguang Ma
,
Xingcong Ma
,
Shuqun Zhang
and
Yonglin Zhao
*
Department of Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, No. 157 Xiwu Road, Xi’an 710004, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(1), 347; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010347
Submission received: 29 November 2022 / Revised: 28 December 2022 / Accepted: 28 December 2022 / Published: 1 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Oncology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Several studies have shown that female reproductive factors are associated with breast cancer (BC), but the results differ. We conducted two-sample MR in the present work. The raw data applied in the MR study were all from the Genome-wide association study (GWAS) database. The causal effect of reproductive factors on breast cancer were mainly estimated by the standard inverse variance weighted (IVW) method. Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. The pleiotropy was evaluated by MR-Egger intercept test and MR-PRESSO. Finally, the leave-one-out analysis was performed to evaluate the robustness of the MR results. We found that there was a negative causal effect of the age at last live birth on BC (OR = 0.687, 95%CI = 0.539–0.875, p = 0.002) and positive effect of the age at menopause on BC (OR = 1.054, 95%CI = 1.034–1.075, p = 8.010 × 10−8). Additionally, there were null effects of the age at menarche (OR = 0.977, 95%CI = 0.915–1.043, p = 0.484), the age at first sexual intercourse (OR = 1.053, 95%CI = 0.958–1.157, p = 0.284) and the age at first birth (OR = 0.981, 95%CI = 0.936–1.027, p = 0.404) on BC. All these results were reliable and stable. In conclusion, the present study showed that younger age at last birth and older age at menopause could increase the risk of BC.

1. Introduction

Breast cancer (BC) is a common tumor in women, and it is also the main cause of death in women caused by cancer according to Global Cancer Statistics 2020; it was estimated there were about 2.3 million incident cases and 685,000 deaths [1,2]. In the last decades, there is increasing incidence of breast cancer among most countries due to increased life expectancy and lifestyle changes [3,4,5]. Consequently, it is of great concern for researchers to figure out any risk factors for BC prevention.
Female reproductive factors are heritable traits that vary widely between individuals. They are associated with many chronic diseases and cancers [6]. Previous studies have been widely investigated with regards to the association between reproductive factors and many diseases such as lung cancer, melanoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, Parkinson’s disease and cardiovascular disease [7,8,9,10,11]. In recent years, the role of reproductive factors in the incidence of BC have caught more and more attention, and there were many studies focused on the association between reproductive factors and breast cancer, with different and conflicting results [12,13,14,15,16]. Moreover, many of these studies were case-control or observational studies, in which many confounders and biases could not be eliminated; the reverse causality could not be avoided, either. Thus, the causal relationship between reproductive factors and BC remains controversial and unclear. It is necessary to elucidate this causality for BC prevention. Prospective studies and randomized controlled trials are instructive for causality assessment, but they are time-consuming, laborious, and sometimes, unethical.
Mendelian randomization is a novel epidemiological method for causality investigation, which has gained increasing attention in the last decades and widely used in many studies [17]. To our best knowledge, there are no studies that explored the causal relationship between reproductive factors and BC. Therefore, in this study, we are the first to used MR analysis, which uses genetic variants to identify the causality between female reproductive factors and the risk of BC.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

A two-sample MR was conducted in the present study by Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) obtained from GWAS summary data. Reproductive factors were selected as exposure, while BC was selected as outcome. There are three assumptions that should be met for SNPs selected as instrumental variables (IVs) in MR analysis [18]: firstly, SNPs selected as IVs must be closely related to exposures; secondly, IVs must be free of confounders; finally, IVs have an impact of outcome only via exposure rather than through a direct effect (Figure 1).

2.2. Data Sources

Five reproductive factors demonstrated by previous studies were involved in the present study. The IV with regard to the age at menarche was extracted from a GWAS study, which consisted of 182,416 women of European descent from 57 studies and 2,441,816 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were included [19]. IVs on age at first sexual intercourse (AFS) and age at first birth (AFB) were extracted from a GWAS study conducted by Mills MC [20], in which 16,359,424 and 9,702,772 SNPs were identified, respectively. The data of age at last live birth (ALB) were obtained from recent, publicly available GWAS data published by Ben Elsworth involving 170,248 individuals of European descent “https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/datasets/” (accessed on 1 November 2022). The GWAS summary data for age at menopause were derived from a large-scale genomic analysis including 69,360 women of European ancestry and 2,418,696 associated SNPs were identified [21]. The summary-level data related to breast cancer were obtained from a GWAS study consisting of 76,192 cases and 63,082 controls of European ancestry [22].

2.3. IVs Extraction

Firstly, significant SNPs (p < 5 × 10−8) were extracted as the potential instrumental variables (IVs). Then, to avoid biases caused by linkage disequilibrium (LD) [23], a linkage disequilibrium correlation coefficient r2 (r2 < 0.001), and a number of bases between two SNPs (kb > 5000) were set. The MR-PRESSO was performed to identify any potential outliers. The Steiger filtering test was also performed to avoid the reverse causality. Finally, weak IVs with an F-statistic < 10 were excluded and then the remaining SNPs were selected as IVs for further MR analysis.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The causal effect of reproductive factors on BC were mainly estimated by the standard inverse variance weighted (IVW) method [24], while the MR-Egger, weighted median, simple mode and weight mode methods were also performed as supplementary analysis. Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics were used to assess heterogeneity [25]. The pleiotropy was evaluated by the MR-Egger intercept test. Finally, the robustness of MR analysis results were assessed by the leave-one-out test [26]. All data analyses were conducted in TwoSampleMR packages in R version 4.1.2. The differences were considered to be statistically significant when P-value < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Genetics Variants Selection

After removing the SNPs which were palindromic with intermediate allele frequencies, weak IVs and IVs that explain more of the variance in the outcome than in the exposure, there were 64,173,57,41,6 SNPs with regards to age at menarche, AFS, AFB, age at last live birth and age at menopause that were extracted for further MR. The F-statistic of these SNPs are all greater than 10, fulfilling the assumption of strong relevance for MR studies. Detailed information about all SNPs is shown in Supplementary Files S1–S5.

3.2. Causal Effect of Age at Menarche and Menopause on BC

We firstly assessed the causal effect of age at menarche on BC. The results are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 2. The causal association evaluated by IVW showed that there was null causal effect of age at menarche on BC (OR = 0.977, 95%CI: 0.915 to 1.043; p = 0.484). The MR Egger (OR = 0.832, 95%CI: 0.648 to 1.069; p = 0.156), simple mode (OR = 0.934, 95%CI: 0.822 to 1.061; p = 0.298) and weighted mode (OR = 0.914, 95%CI: 0.829 to 1.008; p = 0.076) also verified this result, indicating that the age at menarche has no causal association with BC.
Furthermore, we assessed the causal effect of age at menopause on BC. Interestingly, the causal relationship assessed by IVW suggested there was a negative causal effect of age at menopause on BC (OR = 1.054, 95%CI: 1.034 to 1.075; p = 8.010 × 10−8) (Table 1 and Figure 2), and this causality was further verified by MR Egger (OR = 1.080, 95%CI: 1.034 to 1.129; p = 1.404 × 10−3), weighted median (OR = 1.054, 95%CI: 1.034 to 1.074; p = 7.270 × 10−8), simple mode (OR = 1.043, 95%CI:1.005 to 1.082; p = 3.359 × 10−2) and weighted mode (OR = 1.064, 95%CI: 1.039 to 1.090; p = 1.050 × 10−5) methods. The heterogeneity tested by Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics showed that heterogeneity existed (Q = 122.72; p = 2.468 × 10−8; I2 = 67.406), but no pleiotropy (MR-Egger intercept = −5.324 × 10−3; SE = 0.00438; p = 0.232), and the leave-one-out test showed that the results were reliable and stable (Figure 3A). Based on a previous study [27], when there was heterogeneity presence but pleiotropy absence, weighted median methods were recommended to be applied, which indicates that the older the age at menopause, the higher the risk of BC.

3.3. Causal Effect of AFS on BC

We next evaluated the causal association between AFS and BC. The results are also summarized in Table 1 and Figure 2. There was null causal association between AFS and BC analyzed by IVW (OR = 1.053, 95%CI: 0.958 to 1.157; p = 0.284), and this is confirmed by other MR analysis methods, including MR Egger (OR = 1.398, 95%CI: 0.934 to 2.093; p = 0.105), weighted median (OR = 0.966, 95%CI: 0.862 to 1.082; p = 0.546), simple mode (OR = 0.784, 95%CI: 0.512 to 1.201; p = 0.265) and weighted mode (OR = 0.800, 95%CI: 0.523 to 1.224; p = 0.305), which also indicates that there was null causal effect of AFS on BC.

3.4. Causal Effect of Age at First Birth and Last Live Birth on BC

Finally, we assessed the causal association of age at birth on BC. The causal relationship assessed by IVW showed there was null causal effect of AFB on BC (OR = 0.981, 95%CI: 0.936 to 1.027; p = 0.404), and similar results were analyzed by other MR methods including MR Egger (OR = 0.994, 95%CI: 0.818 to 1.209; p = 0.956) and simple mode (OR = 0.923, 95%CI: 0.837 to 1.017; p = 0.111) (Figure 2). Interestingly, the causal association assessed by IVW showed that with 1SD decrease in AFB, the risk of BC could reduce by about 31.3% (OR = 0.687, 95%CI: 0.539 to 0.875; p = 0.002); weighted median also verified the results (OR = 0.690, 95%CI: 0.504 to 0.944; p = 0.020) (Table 1, Figure 2), indicating that the younger the age at first birth, the lower the risk of BC. The Cochran’s Q test showed that there was no heterogeneity (Q = 2.553; p = 0.768), and the MR-Egger intercept (MR-Egger intercept = −1.564 × 10−3; SE = 0.0112; p = 0.896) and MR-PRESSO [27] both showed that there was no pleiotropy, and the results were reliable and stable revealed by the leave-one-out test (Figure 3B).

4. Discussion

Multiple studies have investigated the association between female reproductive factors and BC, but discrepancies existed in the reported results. Some findings suggest that early menarche increases the risk of breast cancer [13,14,16,28]. However, other studies have different results. Khincha [12] drew a conclusion that age at menarche and oral contraceptive use do not affect breast cancer risk in a retrospective observational study consisting of questionnaire data from 152 women. Arthur also found no association between early menarche and breast cancer risk in a case-controlled study [29]. Our findings are consistent with Arthur’s, indicating that there was no causal relationship between age at menarche and BC.
Numerous studies demonstrated that the older the age at first birth, the higher the risk of BC, particularly for ER-positive tumors [30,31,32]. However, we did not observe this association in our study. The inconsistency of the results may be due to the fact that BC data we included did not stratify according to hormone receptor or histology. The association between age at first birth and BC risk was weakened by other types of tumors. Another view, that the duration of the interval from menarche to first birth, rather than isolated age at menarche or age at first birth impacts BC risk, would also explain the difference [33,34]. The undifferentiated breast tissue is susceptible to carcinogens in the duration from menarche to first birth.
It is well established that younger age at first sexual intercourse is a risk factor for cervical cancer [35,36]. However, the relationship between age at first sexual intercourse and BC was rarely studied. The present work does not suggest a causal association between age at first sexual intercourse and BC.
ALB and the risk of BC are not fully elucidated. Some studies found a positive association between ALB and BC [37,38]. Others found no association between ALB and BC [39,40]. However, our Mendelian randomization study results suggest ALB was negatively associated with the risk of BC. This is a result worthy of further investigation and discussion.
Menopause marks the end of a woman’s reproductive life span and the cessation of endogenous hormone production. Previous studies have consistently suggested that late age at menopause is a risk factor for BC [41,42,43,44]. Our study similarly confirmed a positive causal association between age at menopause and BC risk. According to our study, women who are younger at last birth and older at menopause are recommended to perform breast cancer screening tests earlier on account of a higher risk of BC.
Compared to previous studies, our study included several notable advantages. First, the study broadens the scope of the existing literature by including multiple large-scale GWAS summary statistics. Moreover, a key strength of this study was that the MR analysis method we conducted is not vulnerable to confounding factors, ensuring the reliability of the causal association between reproductive factors and BC risk.
However, we acknowledge some limitations to our study. First, the data we included were derived from questionnaires and have recall bias. Second, our data was not stratified by age and BC type, so the effect of reproductive factors on different types of BC risk in women of different ages could not be obtained. Third, the genetic instruments comprising SNPs significantly associated with age at first sexual intercourse consisted of both genders; however, the outcome GWAS data of BC were made up of female data only. The MR analyses could have been improved if gender composition of exposure and outcome are the same.

5. Conclusions

According to our study, young age at last birth and older age at menopause could increase the risk of BC, while age at menarche, age at first sexual intercourse and age at first birth are not causally associated to breast cancer. These conclusions can provide a reference for family planning.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12010347/s1, The Supplementary Material for this article contains the calculation processes of Mendelian randomization and detailed information of SNPs.

Author Contributions

This study was designed by L.J. All authors contributed to the data collection and analysis. L.L., W.L. and Y.M. visualized the data. L.J., X.M. and S.Z. wrote the first draft of the paper, Y.Z. revised the article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 82001327 allocated to Yonglin Zhao).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, and further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all genetics consortiums for sharing the GWAS summary data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cao, W.; Chen, H.D.; Yu, Y.W.; Li, N.; Chen, W.Q. Changing profiles of cancer burden worldwide and in China: A secondary analysis of the global cancer statistics 2020. Chin. Med. J. 2021, 134, 783–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kyu, H.H.; Abate, D.; Abate, K.H.; Abay, S.M.; Abbafati, C.; Abbasi, N.; Abbastabar, H.; Abd-Allah, F.; Abdela, J.; Abdelalim, A.; et al. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018, 392, 1859–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration; Fitzmaurice, C.; Akinyemiju, T.F.; Al Lami, F.H.; Alam, T.; Alizadeh-Navaei, R.; Allen, C.; Alsharif, U.; Alvis-Guzman, N.; Amini, E.; et al. Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2016: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Oncol. 2018, 4, 1553–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Rich-Edwards, J.W. Reproductive health as a sentinel of chronic disease in women. Women’s Health 2009, 5, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Schwartz, A.G.; Ray, R.M.; Cote, M.L.; Abrams, J.; Sokol, R.J.; Hendrix, S.L.; Chen, C.; Chlebowski, R.T.; Hubbell, F.A.; Kooperberg, C.; et al. Hormone Use, Reproductive History, and Risk of Lung Cancer: The Women’s Health Initiative Studies. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2015, 10, 1004–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Stoer, N.C.; Botteri, E.; Ghiasvand, R.; Busund, M.; Vangen, S.; Lund, E.; Veierod, M.B.; Weiderpass, E. Reproductive factors and risk of melanoma: A population-based cohort study. Br. J. Dermatol. 2019, 181, 282–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Yu, M.W.; Chang, H.C.; Chang, S.C.; Liaw, Y.F.; Lin, S.M.; Liu, C.J.; Lee, S.D.; Lin, C.L.; Chen, P.J.; Lin, S.C.; et al. Role of reproductive factors in hepatocellular carcinoma: Impact on hepatitis B- and C-related risk. Hepatology 2003, 38, 1393–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yoo, J.E.; Shin, D.W.; Jang, W.; Han, K.; Kim, D.; Won, H.S.; Park, H.S. Female reproductive factors and the risk of Parkinson’s disease: A nationwide cohort study. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2020, 35, 871–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ardissino, M.; Slob, E.; Rogne, T.; Burgess, S.; Ng, F.S. Impact of reproductive factors on major cardiovascular disease risk in women: A Mendelian randomization study. Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 26–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Khincha, P.P.; Best, A.F.; Fraumeni, J.F., Jr.; Loud, J.T.; Savage, S.A.; Achatz, M.I. Reproductive factors associated with breast cancer risk in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Eur. J. Cancer 2019, 116, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khalis, M.; Charbotel, B.; Chajes, V.; Rinaldi, S.; Moskal, A.; Biessy, C.; Dossus, L.; Huybrechts, I.; Fort, E.; Mellas, N.; et al. Menstrual and reproductive factors and risk of breast cancer: A case-control study in the Fez region, Morocco. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0191333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Liu, R.; Kitamura, Y.; Kitamura, T.; Sobue, T.; Sado, J.; Sugawara, Y.; Matsuo, K.; Nakayama, T.; Tsuji, I.; Ito, H.; et al. Reproductive and lifestyle factors related to breast cancer among Japanese women: An observational cohort study. Medicine 2019, 98, e18315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Vishwakarma, G.; Ndetan, H.; Das, D.N.; Gupta, G.; Suryavanshi, M.; Mehta, A.; Singh, K.P. Reproductive factors and breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis of case-control studies in Indian women. South Asian J. Cancer 2019, 8, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Menarche, menopause, and breast cancer risk: Individual participant meta-analysis, including 118 964 women with breast cancer from 117 epidemiological studies. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13, 1141–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Emdin, C.A.; Khera, A.V.; Kathiresan, S. Mendelian Randomization. JAMA 2017, 318, 1925–1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sekula, P.; Del Greco, M.F.; Pattaro, C.; Kottgen, A. Mendelian Randomization as an Approach to Assess Causality Using Observational Data. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2016, 27, 3253–3265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Perry, J.R.; Day, F.; Elks, C.E.; Sulem, P.; Thompson, D.J.; Ferreira, T.; He, C.; Chasman, D.I.; Esko, T.; Thorleifsson, G.; et al. Parent-of-origin-specific allelic associations among 106 genomic loci for age at menarche. Nature 2014, 514, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Mills, M.C.; Tropf, F.C.; Brazel, D.M.; van Zuydam, N.; Vaez, A.; eQTLGen Consortium; BIOS Consortium; Human Reproductive Behaviour Consortium; Pers, T.H.; Snieder, H.; et al. Identification of 371 genetic variants for age at first sex and birth linked to externalising behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021, 5, 1717–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Day, F.R.; Ruth, K.S.; Thompson, D.J.; Lunetta, K.L.; Pervjakova, N.; Chasman, D.I.; Stolk, L.; Finucane, H.K.; Sulem, P.; Bulik-Sullivan, B.; et al. Large-scale genomic analyses link reproductive aging to hypothalamic signaling, breast cancer susceptibility and BRCA1-mediated DNA repair. Nat. Genet. 2015, 47, 1294–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Michailidou, K.; Lindstrom, S.; Dennis, J.; Beesley, J.; Hui, S.; Kar, S.; Lemacon, A.; Soucy, P.; Glubb, D.; Rostamianfar, A.; et al. Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci. Nature 2017, 551, 92–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Myers, T.A.; Chanock, S.J.; Machiela, M.J. LDlinkR: An R Package for Rapidly Calculating Linkage Disequilibrium Statistics in Diverse Populations. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Burgess, S.; Scott, R.A.; Timpson, N.J.; Davey Smith, G.; Thompson, S.G.; Consortium, E.-I. Using published data in Mendelian randomization: A blueprint for efficient identification of causal risk factors. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2015, 30, 543–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Cohen, J.F.; Chalumeau, M.; Cohen, R.; Korevaar, D.A.; Khoshnood, B.; Bossuyt, P.M. Cochran’s Q test was useful to assess heterogeneity in likelihood ratios in studies of diagnostic accuracy. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2015, 68, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Verbanck, M.; Chen, C.Y.; Neale, B.; Do, R. Detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases. Nat. Genet. 2018, 50, 693–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nazarzadeh, M.; Pinho-Gomes, A.C.; Bidel, Z.; Dehghan, A.; Canoy, D.; Hassaine, A.; Ayala Solares, J.R.; Salimi-Khorshidi, G.; Smith, G.D.; Otto, C.M.; et al. Plasma lipids and risk of aortic valve stenosis: A Mendelian randomization study. Eur. Heart J. 2020, 41, 3913–3920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Bustamante-Montes, L.P.; Flores-Meza, B.; Hernandez-Valero, M.A.; Cardenas-Lopez, A.; Dolores-Velazquez, R.; Borja-Bustamante, P.; Borja-Aburto, V.H. Night Shift Work and Risk of Breast Cancer in Women. Arch. Med. Res. 2019, 50, 393–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Arthur, R.; Wang, Y.; Ye, K.; Glass, A.G.; Ginsberg, M.; Loudig, O.; Rohan, T. Association between lifestyle, menstrual/reproductive history, and histological factors and risk of breast cancer in women biopsied for benign breast disease. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2017, 165, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Figueroa, J.D.; Davis Lynn, B.C.; Edusei, L.; Titiloye, N.; Adjei, E.; Clegg-Lamptey, J.N.; Yarney, J.; Wiafe-Addai, B.; Awuah, B.; Duggan, M.A.; et al. Reproductive factors and risk of breast cancer by tumor subtypes among Ghanaian women: A population-based case-control study. Int. J. Cancer 2020, 147, 1535–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Takeuchi, T.; Kitamura, Y.; Sobue, T.; Utada, M.; Ozasa, K.; Sugawara, Y.; Tsuji, I.; Hori, M.; Sawada, N.; Tsugane, S.; et al. Impact of reproductive factors on breast cancer incidence: Pooled analysis of nine cohort studies in Japan. Cancer Med. 2021, 10, 2153–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lambertini, M.; Santoro, L.; Del Mastro, L.; Nguyen, B.; Livraghi, L.; Ugolini, D.; Peccatori, F.A.; Azim, H.A., Jr. Reproductive behaviors and risk of developing breast cancer according to tumor subtype: A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2016, 49, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Liu, Y.; Tobias, D.K.; Sturgeon, K.M.; Rosner, B.; Malik, V.; Cespedes, E.; Joshi, A.D.; Eliassen, A.H.; Colditz, G.A. Physical activity from menarche to first pregnancy and risk of breast cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2016, 139, 1223–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Li, C.I.; Malone, K.E.; Daling, J.R.; Potter, J.D.; Bernstein, L.; Marchbanks, P.A.; Strom, B.L.; Simon, M.S.; Press, M.F.; Ursin, G.; et al. Timing of menarche and first full-term birth in relation to breast cancer risk. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2008, 167, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Biswas, L.N.; Manna, B.; Maiti, P.K.; Sengupta, S. Sexual Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer among Rural Indian Women: A Case-Control Study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1997, 26, 491–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Sull, J.W.; Jee, S.H.; Yi, S.; Lee, J.E.; Park, J.S.; Kim, S.; Ohrr, H. The effect of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphism C677T on cervical cancer in Korean women. Gynecol. Oncol. 2004, 95, 557–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Troisi, R.; Gulbech Ording, A.; Grotmol, T.; Glimelius, I.; Engeland, A.; Gissler, M.; Trabert, B.; Ekbom, A.; Madanat-Harjuoja, L.; Sorensen, H.T.; et al. Pregnancy complications and subsequent breast cancer risk in the mother: A Nordic population-based case-control study. Int. J. Cancer 2018, 143, 1904–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Romieu, I.; Biessy, C.; Carayol, M.; His, M.; Torres-Mejia, G.; Angeles-Llerenas, A.; Sanchez, G.I.; Jaramillo, R.; Navarro, E.; Porras, C.; et al. Reproductive factors and molecular subtypes of breast cancer among premenopausal women in Latin America: The PRECAMA study. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 13109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Grabrick, D.M.; Vierkant, R.A.; Anderson, K.E.; Cerhan, J.R.; Anderson, V.E.; Seller, T.A. Association of correlates of endogenous hormonal exposure with breast cancer risk in 426 families (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2002, 13, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shantakumar, S.; Terry, M.B.; Teitelbaum, S.L.; Britton, J.A.; Millikan, R.C.; Moorman, P.G.; Neugut, A.I.; Gammon, M.D. Reproductive factors and breast cancer risk among older women. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2007, 102, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jung, A.Y.; Ahearn, T.U.; Behrens, S.; Middha, P.; Bolla, M.K.; Wang, Q.; Arndt, V.; Aronson, K.J.; Augustinsson, A.; Beane Freeman, L.E.; et al. Distinct reproductive risk profiles for intrinsic-like breast cancer subtypes: Pooled analysis of population-based studies. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2022, 114, 1706–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Magnus, M.C.; Borges, M.C.; Fraser, A.; Lawlor, D.A. Identifying potential causal effects of age at menopause: A Mendelian randomization phenome-wide association study. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2022, 37, 971–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Moron, F.J.; Ruiz, A.; Galan, J.J. Genetic and genomic insights into age at natural menopause. Genome Med. 2009, 1, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Hsieh, C.C.; Trichopoulos, D.; Katsouyanni, K.; Yuasa, S. Age at menarche, age at menopause, height and obesity as risk factors for breast cancer: Associations and interactions in an international case-control study. Int. J. Cancer 1990, 46, 796–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 12 00347 g001 550
Figure 1. Diagram for Mendelian randomization (MR). MR is based on three hypotheses. First, SNPs selected as IVs should be closely related with exposure; second, selected SNPs must be independent of confounders; third, IVs are associated with BC (outcome) only via reproductive factors (exposure) rather than through a direct association.
Figure 1. Diagram for Mendelian randomization (MR). MR is based on three hypotheses. First, SNPs selected as IVs should be closely related with exposure; second, selected SNPs must be independent of confounders; third, IVs are associated with BC (outcome) only via reproductive factors (exposure) rather than through a direct association.
Jcm 12 00347 g001
Jcm 12 00347 g002 550
Figure 2. Forrest plot of the causal effects of five reproductive factors on BC. BC: breast cancer.
Figure 2. Forrest plot of the causal effects of five reproductive factors on BC. BC: breast cancer.
Jcm 12 00347 g002
Jcm 12 00347 g003 550
Figure 3. (A) Leave-one-out analysis plots for age at menopause on BC. (B) Leave-one-out analysis plots for age at last live birth on BC. BC: breast cancer.
Figure 3. (A) Leave-one-out analysis plots for age at menopause on BC. (B) Leave-one-out analysis plots for age at last live birth on BC. BC: breast cancer.
Jcm 12 00347 g003
Table
Table 1. Association of Reproductive factors with BC using various methods.
Table 1. Association of Reproductive factors with BC using various methods.
ExposureMethodp-ValueOR95%LCI95%UCI
Age at menarcheMR Egger0.1560.8320.6481.069
WM0.0300.9330.8760.993
IVW0.4840.9770.9151.043
Simple mode0.2980.9340.8221.061
Weighted mode0.0760.9140.8291.008
Age at first sexual intercourseMR Egger0.1051.3980.9342.093
WM0.5460.9660.8621.082
IVW0.2841.0530.9581.157
Simple mode0.2650.7840.5121.201
Weighted mode0.3050.8000.5231.224
Age at first birthMR Egger0.9560.9940.8181.209
WM0.0090.9390.8960.984
IVW0.4040.9810.9361.027
Simple mode0.1110.9230.8371.017
Weighted mode0.0190.9060.8370.982
Age at last live birthMR Egger0.5410.7310.2921.832
WM0.0200.6900.5040.944
IVW0.0020.6870.5390.875
Simple mode0.1790.690.4341.098
Weighted mode0.1000.6760.4620.990
Age at menopauseMR Egger1.404 × 10−31.0801.0341.129
WM7.270 × 10−81.0541.0341.074
IVW8.010 × 10−81.0541.0341.075
Simple mode3.359 × 10−21.0431.0051.082
Weighted mode1.050 × 10−51.0641.0391.090
WM: weighted median; IVW: inverse-variance weighted; OR: odds ratio; LCI: lower confidence interval; UCI: upper confidence interval; BC: breast cancer.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jia, L.; Lv, W.; Liang, L.; Ma, Y.; Ma, X.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, Y. The Causal Effect of Reproductive Factors on Breast Cancer: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 347. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010347

AMA Style

Jia L, Lv W, Liang L, Ma Y, Ma X, Zhang S, Zhao Y. The Causal Effect of Reproductive Factors on Breast Cancer: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(1):347. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010347

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jia, Lijun, Wei Lv, Liang Liang, Yuguang Ma, Xingcong Ma, Shuqun Zhang, and Yonglin Zhao. 2023. "The Causal Effect of Reproductive Factors on Breast Cancer: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 1: 347. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010347

APA Style

Jia, L., Lv, W., Liang, L., Ma, Y., Ma, X., Zhang, S., & Zhao, Y. (2023). The Causal Effect of Reproductive Factors on Breast Cancer: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(1), 347. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010347

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop