Mendelian randomization study of sleep traits and risk of colorectal cancer
Rattachement africain : gb, us, gr, fr, de, at, es, nl, cz. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract A potential association of endogenous circadian rhythm disruption with risk of cancer development has been suggested, however, epidemiological evidence for the association of sleep traits with colorectal cancer (CRC) is limited and often contradictory. Here we investigated whether genetically predicted chronotype, insomnia and sleep duration are associated with CRC risk in males, females and overall and according to CRC anatomical subsites using Mendelian randomization (MR). The two-sample inverse variance weighted (IVW) method was applied using summary-level data in up to 58,221 CRC cases and 67,694 controls and genome-wide association data of genetic variants for self-reported sleep traits. Secondary analyses using alternative instruments and sensitivity analyses assessing potential violations of MR assumptions were conducted. Genetically predicted morning preference was associated with 13% lower risk of CRC in men (OR IVW = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.78, 0.97, P = 0.01), but not in women or in both sexes combined. Τhis association remained consistent in some, but not all, sensitivity analyses and was very similar for colon and rectal cancer. There was no evidence of an association for any other sleep trait. Overall, this study provides little to no evidence of an association between genetically predicted sleep traits and CRC risk.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Mendelian randomization study of sleep traits and risk of colorectal cancer
- Date Crossref
- 18/04/2025
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.