PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Bryony Hayes
AU  - Tim Robinson
AU  - Siddhartha Kar
AU  - Katherine S Ruth
AU  - Konstantinos K Tsilidis
AU  - Tim Frayling
AU  - Anna Murray
AU  - Richard M Martin
AU  - Deborah A Lawlor
AU  - Rebecca C Richmond
TI  - Do sex hormones confound or mediate the effect of chronotype on breast and prostate cancer? A Mendelian randomization study
AID  - 10.1101/2021.04.20.21255783
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.04.20.21255783
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/21/2021.04.20.21255783.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/21/2021.04.20.21255783.full
AB  - Background Previous research has demonstrated that a morning-preference chronotype is protective against both breast and prostate cancer. Sex hormones have been implicated in relation to both chronotype and the development of both cancers. This study aims to assess whether sex hormones confound or mediate the effect of chronotype on breast and prostate cancer risk using a Mendelian Randomization (MR) framework.Methods We obtained genetic variants strongly (p<5×10−8) associated with chronotype and sex hormones (total testosterone, bioavailable testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), and oestradiol from previously published genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that had been undertaken in UK Biobank and 23andMe (n≤244,207 females and n≤205,527 males). These variants were used to investigate causal relationships with risk of breast and prostate cancer using summary data from the largest available consortia in breast (nCases/nControls=133,384/ 113,789) and prostate cancer (nCases/nControls=79,148/61,106). This was achieved using a series of MR approaches: univariable, bidirectional and multivariable.Results Overall, we found evidence for a protective effect of genetically predicted tendency towards morning preference on both breast (OR=0.93, 95% CI:0.88, 1.00) and prostate (OR=0.90, 95% CI:0.83, 0.97) cancer risk. There was evidence that an increased tendency to morning preference reduces bioavailable testosterone levels in both females (mean SD difference=-0.08, 95% CI:-0.12, - 0.05) and males (mean SD difference=-0.06, 95% CI:-0.09, -0.03), and reduces total testosterone levels in females (mean SD difference=-0.07, 95% CI:-0.10, -0.03). We also found evidence to support higher total and bioavailable testosterone increasing the risk of breast cancer (OR=1.15, 95% CI:1.07, 1.23, OR=1.10, 95% CI:1.01, 1.19 respectively) and higher bioavailable testosterone increasing prostate cancer risk (OR=1.22, 95% CI:1.08, 1.37). While findings from univariable and bidirectional MR analyses indicated that testosterone may lie on the causal pathway between chronotype and cancer risk, there was evidence for a bidirectional association between chronotype and testosterone in females, implicating testosterone as both a confounder and mediator of the chronotype effect on breast cancer risk. However, the effects of chronotype remained largely unchanged when accounting for testosterone in multivariable MR, suggesting that any confounding or mediating effect is likely to be minimal.Conclusions This study has extended previous findings regarding the protective effect of chronotype on breast cancer and found evidence to suggest that morning preference also reduces prostate cancer risk in men. While testosterone levels were found to be closely linked with both chronotype and cancer risk, there was inconsistent evidence for the role of testosterone in mediating the effect of morning preference chronotype on both breast and prostate cancer. Findings regarding the potential protective effect of chronotype on both breast and prostate cancer risk are clinically interesting. However, this may not serve as a direct target for intervention, since it is difficult to modify someone’s morning/evening preference. Given this, further studies are needed to investigate the mechanisms underlying this effect and to identify other potential modifiable intermediates.Competing Interest StatementDAL has received support from Roche Diagnostics and Medtronic Ltd for research unrelated to that presented here. TR has received grants from Daiichi-Sankyo and Amgen to attend educational workshops. All other authors have no competing interests to declare. The funders had no role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article.Funding StatementBH is funded by an Above & Beyond breast cancer legacy grant from University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. RCR is a de Pass Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow. RMM is supported by a Cancer Research UK (C18281/A19169) programme grant (the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme). SK is supported by the United Kingdom Research and Innovation Future Leaders Fellowship (MR/T043202/1). KR is funded through the Bristol ICEP2 programme (Cancer Research UK C18281/A29019). BH, TR, SK, RMM, DAL and RCR work in in the Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/1 and MC_UU_00011/6) and the University of Bristol. RMM and DAL also supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, which is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and is a partnership between University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the UKB data access committee, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. All participating ELLIPSE, PRACTICAL and BCAC studies were approved by their appropriate ethics or institutional review board and all participants provided informed consent.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesSummary data for the GWAS conducted as part of this study have been made available on the OpenGWAS database (gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk) This research was conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under application number 16391. Summary data for the breast cancer GWAS used in this study is available at: http://bcac.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/bcacdata/oncoarray/oncoarray-and-combined-summary-result/gwas-summary-associations-breast-cancer-risk-2020/ Summary data for the prostate cancer GWAS used in this study is available at: http://practical.icr.ac.uk/blog/?page_id=8164 http://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk http://bcac.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/bcacdata/oncoarray/oncoarray-and-combined-summary-result/gwas-summary-associations-breast-cancer-risk-2020/ http://practical.icr.ac.uk/blog/?page_id=8164