Genetic Variability in Energy Balance and Pancreatic Cancer Risk in a Population-Based Case-Control Study in Minnesota

Abstract

Objectives Accumulating evidence suggests that energy imbalance plays a role in pancreatic carcinogenesis. However, it remains unclear whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes regulating energy homeostasis influence pancreatic cancer risk. We investigated this question in a case-control study conducted from 1994 to 1998. Methods Cases (n=173) were ascertained from hospitals in the Twin Cities and Mayo Clinic, Minnesota. Controls (n=476) were identified from the general population and frequency matched to cases by age and sex. Seven SNPs were evaluated in relation to pancreatic cancer using unconditional logistic regression. Results After adjustment for confounders, the leucine/proline or proline/proline genotype of the neuropeptide Y (NPY) gene rs16139 was associated with a lower risk than the leucine/leucine genotype [odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval) (95% CI): 0.40 (0.15, 0.91)]. Conversely, an increased risk was observed for the glycine/arginine or arginine/arginine genotype of the adrenoceptor beta 2, surface (ADRB2) gene rs1042713 as compared with the glycine/glycine genotype [OR (95% CI): 1.52 (1.01, 2.31)]. Conclusions This study first reveals that SNPs in genes modulating energy intake (NPY) and energy expenditure (ADRB2) altered pancreatic cancer risk. If confirmed by other studies, our findings may shed new light on the etiology and prevention of pancreatic cancer.

<p>Leptin rs7799039 (G2548A) polymorphism is associated with cancer risk: a meta-analysis involving 25,799 subjects</p>

“…A total of 31 case–control studies involving 25,799 subjects were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 19 were conducted in Caucasians,26–44 eight performed in Asians,21,45–50,54 and four were in mixed populations 51–53. Nine were population-based,27,28,30,33,37,38,43,44,50 and 22 case–control were hospital-based studies 21,26,29,31,32,34–36,39–42,45–49,51–54.…”

Is there an effect of ghrelin/ghrelin analogs on cancer? A systematic review

“…(2003) 40 l 35 Total No association NR No association Ekeblad et al . (2007) 26 5 Total No association NR NR Zhang et al . (2014) 173 476 NR NR No association NR Prostate Mungan et al .…”

Soluble MICA is elevated in pancreatic cancer: Results from a population based case‐control study

“…This population‐based case‐control study of pancreatic cancer was conducted by enrolling incident cases diagnosed between 1994 and 1998 in Minnesota. Pancreatic cancer cases were rapidly ascertained and recruited from all hospitals in the seven‐county metropolitan area of the Twin Cities of Minnesota (ie, Minneapolis and St. Paul) and the Mayo Clinic, where cases were restricted to those who lived in the upper Midwest . Patients with pancreatic cancer were eligible for the study if they were 20 years of age or older, English‐speaking, and gave informed consent .…”

“…Pancreatic cancer cases were rapidly ascertained and recruited from all hospitals in the seven-county metropolitan area of the Twin Cities of Minnesota (ie, Minneapolis and St. Paul) and the Mayo Clinic, where cases were restricted to those who lived in the upper Midwest. [26][27][28] Patients with pancreatic cancer were eligible for the study if they were 20 years of age or older, English-speaking, and gave informed consent. [26][27][28] All pancreatic cancer cases in this study were cancers of the exocrine pancreas (International Classification of Disease for Oncology, 3rd ed, code C25) and the diagnoses were confirmed by a pathologist.…”

“…[26][27][28] Patients with pancreatic cancer were eligible for the study if they were 20 years of age or older, English-speaking, and gave informed consent. [26][27][28] All pancreatic cancer cases in this study were cancers of the exocrine pancreas (International Classification of Disease for Oncology, 3rd ed, code C25) and the diagnoses were confirmed by a pathologist. 29,30 Of the 460 eligible cases, 85 cases were excluded due to death before contact or the interview, 79 cases were excluded due to participant refusal, 31 cases were not invited due to physician refusal, and 7 participants could not be contacted.…”