Assessing the causal role of epigenetic clocks in the development of multiple cancers: a Mendelian randomization study

Background: Epigenetic clocks have been associated with cancer risk in several observational studies. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether they play a causal role in cancer risk or if they act as a non-causal biomarker. Methods: We conducted a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to examine the genetically predicted effects of epigenetic age acceleration as measured by HannumAge (nine single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)), Horvath Intrinsic Age (24 SNPs), PhenoAge (11 SNPs), and GrimAge (4 SNPs) on multiple cancers (i.e. breast, prostate, colorectal, ovarian and lung cancer). We obtained genome-wide association data for biological ageing from a meta-analysis (N = 34,710), and for cancer from the UK Biobank (N cases = 2671–13,879; N controls = 173,493–372,016), FinnGen (N cases = 719–8401; N controls = 74,685–174,006) and several international cancer genetic consortia (N cases = 11,348–122,977; N controls = 15,861–105,974). Main analyses were performed using multiplicative random effects inverse variance weighted (IVW) MR. Individual study estimates were pooled using fixed effect meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses included MR-Egger, weighted median, weighted mode and Causal Analysis using Summary Effect Estimates (CAUSE) methods, which are robust to some of the assumptions of the IVW approach. Results: Meta-analysed IVW MR findings suggested that higher GrimAge acceleration increased the risk of colorectal cancer (OR = 1.12 per year increase in GrimAge acceleration, 95% CI 1.04–1.20, p = 0.002). The direction of the genetically predicted effects was consistent across main and sensitivity MR analyses. Among subtypes, the genetically predicted effect of GrimAge acceleration was greater for colon cancer (IVW OR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.09–1.21, p = 0.006), than rectal cancer (IVW OR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.97–1.13, p = 0.24). Results were less consistent for associations between other epigenetic clocks and cancers. Conclusions: GrimAge acceleration may increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Findings for other clocks and cancers were inconsistent. Further work is required to investigate the potential mechanisms underlying the results. Funding: FMB was supported by a Wellcome Trust PhD studentship in Molecular, Genetic and Lifecourse Epidemiology (224982/Z/22/Z which is part of grant 218495/Z/19/Z). KKT was supported by a Cancer Research UK (C18281/A29019) programme grant (the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme) and by the Hellenic Republic’s Operational Programme ‘Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship & Innovation’ (OΠΣ 5047228). PH was supported by Cancer Research UK (C18281/A29019). RMM was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol and by a Cancer Research UK (C18281/A29019) programme grant (the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme). RMM is a National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator (NIHR202411). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. GDS and CLR were supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/1 and MC_UU_00011/5, respectively) and by a Cancer Research UK (C18281/A29019) programme grant (the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme). REM was supported by an Alzheimer’s Society project grant (AS-PG-19b-010) and NIH grant (U01 AG-18-018, PI: Steve Horvath). RCR is a de Pass Vice Chancellor’s Research Fellow at the University of Bristol.

INTRODUCTION 53 54 DNA methylation (DNAm) is an epigenetic biomarker that can be used as an estimator of 55 chronological age. Biological age, as predicted by DNAm patterns at specific cytosine-56 phosphate-guanine (CpG) sites, may differ from chronological age on an individual basis. 57 Observational evidence suggests that epigenetic age acceleration (i.e., when an individual's 58 biological age is greater than their chronological age) may be associated with an increased 59 risk of mortality and age-related diseases, including cancer 1 . 60 6 15, and plasminogen activation inhibitor 1 (PAI-1)) 6 . Due to differences in their composition, 77 HannumAge and Intrinsic HorvathAge are better predictors of chronological age 3 4 , while 78 PhenoAge and GrimAge stand out for their ability to predict health and lifespan [5][6][7] . 79 80 Several studies suggest that HannumAge, Intrinsic HorvathAge, PhenoAge and GrimAge 81 acceleration are associated with cancer risk 5 8-13 . In contrast, others indicate that evidence in 82 support of this claim is weak or non existent [14][15][16][17] . This lack of consensus could be explained 83 by biases that often affect observational research, such as reverse causation (e.g., cancer 84 influencing the epigenome and not the other way around) and residual confounding (e.g., 85 unmeasured, or imprecisely measured confounders of the association between epigenetic 86 age acceleration and cancer) 18 . 87

88
The strength of the associations between epigenetic age acceleration and different cancers 89 has also been found to vary across epigenetic clocks. For instance, positive associations 90 between epigenetic age acceleration and colorectal cancer seem to be much stronger when 91 biological age is estimated using second-generation clocks (i.e., PhenoAge and GrimAge) 10 92 rather than first-generation clocks (i.e., HannumAge and Intrinsic HorvathAge) 14 16 . Lack of 93 consensus across epigenetic clocks could be explained by differences in their algorithms 94 (which may reflect different mechanisms of biological ageing), as well as heterogeneity in 95 study designs 1 . Furthermore, even if there were a consensus, it would still be unclear 96 whether age-related DNA methylation plays a causal role in cancer risk or if it merely acts as 97 a non-causal prognostic biomarker. 98 99 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint version 1.1.2 was used to find proxies for cancer data that were not included in the MR-Base 169 platform. The exposure and outcome datasets were then harmonised to ensure the genetic 170 associations reflect the same effect allele. Palindromic SNPs with minor allele frequencies 171 (MAF) <0. 3  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint Main analyses were performed using multiplicative random effects inverse variance 193 weighted (IVW) MR, a method that combines the genetically predicted effect of epigenetic 194 age acceleration on cancer across genetic variants 24 . We used fixed effect meta-analysis to 195 pool results across studies (i.e., UK Biobank, FinnGen and international consortia). For 196 colorectal cancer, we only pooled FinnGen and GECCO estimates, since UK Biobank 197 participants were already included in GECCO. I 2 statistics and their corresponding 198 confidence intervals were used to estimate heterogeneity across study estimates 25  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint

217
Where associations between genetically predicted epigenetic age acceleration and cancer 218 were identified, we additionally performed single-SNP two-sample MR analysis to assess 219 whether the effects were likely to be driven by a single SNP. We also used Causal Analysis 220 using Summary Effect Estimates (CAUSE) 33  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint All MR analyses were performed using R software version 4.0.2. Two sample MR analyses 264 were conducted using the "TwoSampleMR" package version 0.5.5. Meta-analyses of IVW 265 results were performed using the "meta" package version 4.18. CAUSE analyses were 266 conducted using the "cause" package version 1.2.0. Forest plots were created using the 267 "ggforestplot" package version 0.1.0. LD Scores were computed using the "ldsc" command 268 is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint study estimates (I 2 =0%, 95%CI 0-41%, p=0.84) and the direction of the genetically predicted 307 effect was consistent across main and sensitivity MR analyses (i.e., MR-Egger, weighted 308 median and weighted mode) (Figure 3, Supplementary Tables 3-6). 309

310
We further explored the genetically predicted effect of GrimAge on prostate cancer using 311 PRACTICAL data only. Single-SNP analysis revealed that the effect was not driven by a single 312    is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint  (Figure 2, Supplementary Figures 1 and 5 is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

SNP (Supplementary
The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021.  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint stratified results suggest that GrimAge acceleration may influence colorectal cancer in both 378 males (IVW OR=1.12, 95%CI 1.00-1.25, p=0.05) and females (IVW OR=1.14, 95%CI 1.04-379 1.26, p=0.008) (Figure 4, Supplementary Table 9). is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint    is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021.

405
Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are reported per 1 year increase in GrimAge acceleration. GrimAge acceleration was 406 instrumented by four genetic variants. Results were obtained using inverse variance weighted MR (dark blue), weighted median (sky blue) 407 and weighted mode (turquoise) methods. All meta-analysis estimates were calculated using data from UK Biobank, FinnGen and 408 international consortia, except for colorectal cancer estimates, which exclude UK Biobank data to avoid double counting.

409
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint 410 411  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021.   is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint cancer cases (0.66%). More importantly, the direction of the reported estimate is consistent 446 with our findings and those presented in Dugue et al. 10 . 447 448 As in our study, Dugue et al. 10  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint Observational evidence for the association between other measures of epigenetic ageing 469 and cancer is inconclusive (the pre-existing evidence has been summarised in 470 Supplementary Table 12). For instance, epigenetic clock acceleration has been positively 471 associated with breast 8 11 12 and lung cancer 5 9 10 in some studies. However, Durso et al. 16 , 472 Hillary et al. 15 and Dugue et al. 14 did not find strong evidence to support this. In some cases, 473 observational evidence is stronger for some clocks than it is for others. For example, for 474 colorectal cancer, evidence of a positive association was much stronger for second-475 generation clocks 10 than for first-generation clocks 14 16 . For prostate cancer, evidence of an 476 association was only found for GrimAge 10 14 , as in our study. To date, the association 477 between epigenetic age acceleration and ovarian cancer has not been explored 478 observationally. Although our findings were less susceptible to biases that often influence is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint interventions on epigenetic ageing. This is especially relevant while attempts to develop 492 interventions which reverse epigenetic ageing are still in early stages [40][41][42][43] . 493

494
The findings from this study should be interpreted in light of its limitations. We only 495 identified four genetic instruments for GrimAge acceleration, which explained 0.47% of the 496 variance in the trait. This could lead to two issues: low statistical power and horizontal 497 pleiotropy. First, our GrimAge analyses were underpowered to detect ORs <1.20 for 498 colorectal cancer and >0.84 for prostate cancer. Therefore, it is possible that our findings do 499 not reflect a true effect (we identified ORs=1.12 and 0.93 for colorectal and prostate cancer, 500 respectively). Similarly, our study was underpowered to detect genetically predicted effects 501 of GrimAge acceleration on cancer subtypes and cancers with smaller sample sizes (i.e., 502 ovarian and lung cancer). Some of our sensitivity analyses, such as the MR-Egger intercept 503 test used to detect uncorrelated horizontal pleiotropy, also had low power, resulting in 504 imprecise estimates. The weighted mode method may also be misleading in this context, as 505 its use is limited in the presence of very few SNPs. Although these limitations potentially 506 undermine the validity of our results, it is reassuring that point estimates for the genetically 507 predicted effect of GrimAge acceleration on prostate and colorectal cancer were consistent 508 across MR methods and study populations. However, since CAUSE analyses did not provide 509 evidence against confounding by correlated horizontal pleiotropy, it is possible that the 510 genetically predicted effects identified are attributed to correlated pleiotropy (whereby 511 SNPs are associated with epigenetic age acceleration and cancer through a shared heritable 512 factor) rather than a causal effect of GrimAge on cancer risk. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint Although promising in terms of consistency and biological plausibility, further research is 530 required to confirm our findings. For example, multivariable MR 48 49 could be used to 531 disentangle the causal effects of GrimAge acceleration on cancer from shared heritable 532 factors such as and blood cell composition. Additionally, our analyses could be replicated 533 using other large independent cancer datasets to increase power. It would also be useful to 534 replicate our analyses once a larger GWAS of epigenetic ageing with more genetic 535 instruments for GrimAge acceleration is available. This would allow for a more rigorous 536 assessment of horizontal pleiotropy and may be used to assess clustering of genetic variants 537 to reveal distinct biological mechanisms underlying the effects 50 . 538 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint

539
The selection of "super controls" (e.g., in UK Biobank, FinnGen and GECCO), with no other 540 cancers, related lesions (i.e., benign, in situ, uncertain or unspecified behaviour neoplasms) 541 or reported family history of cancer, could have inflated cancer GWAS effect sizes (and our 542 MR estimates), because "super controls" are healthier than the general population and are 543 less likely to be genetically predisposed to develop cancer. 544 545 Another limitation is that we did not have access to individual level data. Therefore, we 546 were unable to stratify the analyses by potential effect modifiers, such as sex, smoking and 547 menopausal status. Moreover, we did not have sex-specific instruments for sex-specific 548 cancers. However, it is unlikely that the genetic architecture of epigenetic clock acceleration 549 differs across sexes, as DNAm levels at individual clock CpGs are highly correlated between 550 males and females 51 52 . 551 552 Finally, to reduce bias due to population stratification, this study was conducted using data 553 from participants of European ancestry only. The GWAS data used for the analyses had been 554 adjusted for the top genetic principal components for the same reason. Assortative mating 555 is unlikely to be a problem in the context of this study because we would not expect people 556 to select partners based on their epigenetic age acceleration. Despite this, confounding due 557 to population stratification and assortative mating cannot be ruled out completely, as it is 558 not possible to test the second MR assumption (i.e., independence assumption). 559 is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint   is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint whether the same covariate set was used for adjustment in the two samples. (d) Explain how missing data were addressed. (e) If applicable, say how multiple testing was addressed. Assessment of assumptions 7 Describe any methods or prior knowledge used to assess the assumptions or justify their validity.
Pages 11-13, Supplementary methods Sensitivity analyses 8 Describe any sensitivity analyses or additional analyses performed (e.g. comparison of effect estimates from different approaches, independent replication, bias analytic techniques, validation of instruments, simulations). Not applicable, as we used summary statistics from previously published genome-wide association studies. We cite these accordingly. Furthermore, there is no sample overlap between the exposure and outcome studies.
Main results 11 (a) Report the associations between genetic variant and exposure, and between genetic variant and outcome, preferably on an interpretable scale. (b) Report MR estimates of the relationship between exposure and outcome, and the measures of uncertainty from the MR analysis on an interpretable scale, such as odds ratio or relative risk per SD difference. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint (c) Report any assessment of direction of causal relationship (e.g., bidirectional MR). (d) When relevant, report and compare with estimates from non-MR analyses. (e) Consider any additional plots to visualize results (e.g., leave-one-out analyses). is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

UK Biobank
The UK Biobank is a large cohort study including around 500,000 individuals aged 40 to 69 years at the time of recruitment (2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010). The cohort has been described in detail in previous publications 1 2 . In short, all participants provided written informed consent, after which baseline data were collected using sociodemographic, lifestyle and health-related questionnaires, physical and cognitive assessments, and biological samples. Participants' data were linked to their health records for longitudinal follow-up. The study obtained ethical approval from the National Information Governance Board for Health and Social Care and the North-West Multicenter Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 11/NW/0382).
Sample-level quality control (QC) involved removing any individuals who had non-white British genetic ancestry, sex chromosome aneuploidies, who withdrew consent from the UK Biobank study and who were closely related to other participants. Variant-level QC consisted in imputing SNPs using the Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC) and restricting SNPs to a minor allele frequency (MAF) >0.1%, a genotyping rate > 0.015 and a Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) p >1x10 -4 . LD pruning was performed to an r 2 cutoff of 0.1 using PLINK v2 3 . In order to reduce false positive signals, SNPs were removed when MAF was below our expectations (we would expect at least 25 minor alleles in cases), as recommended in http://www.nealelab.is/blog/2017/9/11/details-and-considerations-ofthe-uk-biobank-gwas.
The GWAS analysis in the UK Biobank consisted of 13,879 cases and 198,523 controls for breast cancer, 1,218 cases and 198,523 controls for ovarian cancer, 9,132 cases and 173,493 controls for prostate cancer, 2,671 cases and 372,016 controls for lung cancer and 5,657 cases and 372,016 controls for colorectal cancer. It was performed using BOLT-LMM v2.3.5 4 5 , adjusting for sex and genotyping chip. BOLT-LMM uses a linear mixed model to account for population stratification and cryptic relatedness in the UK Biobank. Lung cancer associations were estimated twice, once adjusting for genotyping chip and once without. For sex-specific cancers, analyses were limited to individuals of the pertinent sex (only females were used for breast and ovarian cancers, whereas only males were used for prostate cancer). Beta coefficients and their corresponding standard errors were finally transformed to log odds ratios (ORs) 5 . is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; We also performed a GWAS analysis of parental history of cancer reported by UK Biobank participants (i.e., breast, prostate, lung and bowel cancer) using BOLT-LMM software v2.3.5 4 . Age and sex were included as covariates in the model as before. For sex-specific cancers, analyses were restricted to individuals of the relevant sex (i.e., maternal history only for breast cancer and paternal history only for prostate cancer). We obtained 35,356 breast cancer cases and 206,992 controls, in addition to 31,527 prostate cancer cases and 160,579 controls. For other cancers, we combined maternal and paternal history of cancer, thus obtaining a total of 51,073 lung cancer cases and 404,606 controls, as well as 45,213 bowel cancer cases and 412,429 controls. GWAS of these outcomes have previously provided strong concordance with those based on hospital records 6 . They have also provided consistent results in MR 7 .

FinnGen
The FinnGen R5 release includes data on 218,792 individuals of Finnish ancestry, obtained from Finnish biobanks and digital health registry records 8 . Complete study details are available elsewhere (https://www.finngen.fi/en). In brief, samples were excluded for the following reasons: ambiguous gender, genotype missingness >5%, heterozygosity +-4 s.d. and non-Finnish ancestry. SNPs were genotyped using Illumina and Affymetrix arrays. Variants were excluded for the following reasons: missingness >2%, HWE p <1x10-6 and minor allele count <3. Genotypes were imputed using the Finnish SISu v3 reference panel. The GWAS analysis was conducted using SAIGE v0.36.3.2, a mixed model logistic regression R/C++ package. Sex, age, genotyping batch and the first 10 genetically derived principal components were included as covariates in the analysis. We used FinnGen R5 release data on breast (8,401 cases and 99,321 controls), ovarian (719 cases and 99,321 controls), prostate (6,311 cases and 74,685 controls), lung (1,681 cases and 173,933 controls) and colorectal cancer (3,022 cases and 174,006 controls). We used the "EXALLC" cancer variables, which excluded other cancers from controls.

Breast Cancer Association Consortium
The GWAS summary data for breast cancer were obtained from a Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) meta-analysis performed by Michailidou et al. 9 . This included 122,977 cases and 105,974 controls (69,501 cases of ER+ and 21,468 of ER-breast cancer). All studies that contributed to this meta-analysis have been fully detailed in previous publications [9][10][11] . In sum, samples were excluded if they had a low call rate (<95%), abnormally high or low heterozygosity (4.89 s.d. from the mean), <80% European ancestry, probable duplicates and/or close relatives within and across studies. Genetic variants were genotyped using the Illumina OncoArray and iCOGS arrays and genotypes were imputed using the 1000 Genomes Project Phase 3 reference panel.
We also obtained summary data for breast cancer subtypes from a BCAC GWAS metaanalysis by Zhang et al. 12 . The study comprised data on luminal A-like (7,325 cases), luminal B-like (1,682 cases), luminal B/HER2-negative-like (1,779 cases), HER2-enriched-like (718 cases) and triple-negative (2,006 cases) invasive breast cancer subtypes and 20,815 controls. The details of the study can be found in the publication. In brief, the analyses excluded cases of carcinoma in situ, cases missing data on tumour characteristics and cases for which there . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint were no controls available in their respective countries. Participants were also excluded if age at diagnosis/enrolment was missing. Genotypes were obtained using OncoArray and iCOGS arrays. Imputation was performed using the 1000 Genomes Project Phase 3 reference panel. OncoArray and iCOGS datasets were analysed separately and pooled using fixed-effect meta-analysis.

Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium
We used ovarian cancer genetic summary statistics from an Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) study by Phelan et al. 13 . This comprised 25,509 cases and 40,941 controls. Subtypes included high grade serous (13,037 cases), low grade serous (1,012 cases), invasive mucinous (1,417 cases), clear cell (1,366 cases) and endometrioid (2,810 cases) ovarian cancers. This study combined genotype data from OCAC and Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) genotyping projects. These have been fully described in the publication. In short, samples with >27% non-European ancestry were excluded, as were those with a genotyping call rate <95%, excessively low or high heterozygosity. Non-females and duplicates were also removed. SNPs were genotyped using several Illumina arrays (OncoArray, iSelect iCOGS, 550k, HumanOmni 2.5M, 610 Quad and 317k). Imputations were performed separately for each genotyping project using the 1000 Genomes Project v3 reference panel.

Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2
We also used CIMBA GWAS data for breast and ovarian cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers 13 14 . The genotyping and imputation procedures that were used have been described elsewhere 13 14 . In brief, samples were excluded if they were non-female, had discordant genotypes in known sample duplicates, had >19% non-European ancestry, a genotyping call rate <95% or extremely low or high heterozygosity (p<1x10 −6 ). SNPs were genotyped using Illumina's Oncoarray and iSelect Collaborative Oncological Gene-Environment Study (iCOGS) arrays. Imputation was performed using the 1000 Genomes Project Phase 3 reference panel.

Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome
Prostate cancer GWAS summary data were acquired from a Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome (PRACTICAL) study by Schumacher et al. 15  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.29.21266984 doi: medRxiv preprint -Rectal cancer: any primary tumour starting in the rectum or rectosigmoid junction (ICD-9 codes: 154.1, or 154.0, respectively) Controls excluded individuals with known history of cancer or reported family history of colorectal cancer. QC procedures have been explained in the publications 21 22 . In brief, the studies excluded samples with evidence of DNA contamination, high missing genotype rates, unintentional duplicate pairs and sex discrepancies. Closely related individuals and those of non-European ancestry were also excluded. Genotyping was conducted using Illumina (300k, Oncoarray, 1M, 550k, 610k, OmniExpress, OmniExpressExome, 300/240S and custom iSelect) and Affymetrix (Axiom and 500k) arrays. Imputation was performed to the HRC reference panel.

Sensitivity analyses
MR-Egger assumes that the association between SNPs and epigenetic age acceleration is not correlated with SNPs that affect cancer via pleiotropic pathways (Instrument Strength Independent of Direct Effect-InSIDE assumption) 23 . The weighted median method assumes that at least half of the SNPs in the analysis are valid instruments. The weighted mode approach presupposes that the most frequent association estimate is not affected by pleiotropy, meaning it must correspond to the true causal effect (ZEro Modal Pleiotropy Assumption-ZEMPA) 24 .

Data availability
Summary statistics for epigenetic age acceleration measures of HannumAge, Intrinsic HorvathAge, PhenoAge and GrimAge were downloaded from: https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/handle/10283/3645. Summary statistics for international cancer genetic consortiums were obtained from their respective data repositories. Colorectal cancer data were obtained following the submission of a written request to the GECCO committee, which may be contacted by email at kafdem@fredhutch.org/upeters@fredhutch.org. Breast, ovarian, prostate and lung cancer data were accessed via MR-Base (http://app.mrbase.org/), which holds complete GWAS summary data from BCAC, OCAC, PRACTICAL and ILCCO. Breast cancer subtype data were obtained from BCAC and can be downloaded from: http://bcac.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/bcacdata/oncoarray/oncoarray-and-combinedsummary-result/gwas-summary-associations-breast-cancer-risk-2020/. Data on breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers were obtained from CIMBA and can be downloaded from: http://cimba.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/oncoarray-complete-summaryresults/. Prostate cancer subtype data are not publicly available through MR-Base but can be accessed upon request. These data are managed by the PRACTICAL committee, which may be contacted by email at practical@icr.ac.uk. FinnGen data is publicly available and can be accessed here: https://www.finngen.fi/en/access_results. UK Biobank data can be accessed through the MR-Base platform. Parental history of cancer data were obtained from the UK Biobank study under application #15825 and can be accessed via an approved application to the UK Biobank (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/applyfor-access).
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted December 7, 2021. ;