Back

Ethnic differences of genetic risk and smoking in lung cancer: two prospective cohort studies

Zhu, M.; Lv, J.; Huang, Y.; Ma, H.; Li, N.; Wei, X.; Ji, M.; Ma, Z.; Song, C.; Wang, C.; Dai, J.; Tan, F.; Guo, Y.; Walters, R.; Millwood, I.; Hung, R. J.; Christiani, D. C.; Yu, C.; Jin, G.; Chen, Z.; Wei, Q.; Amos, C. I.; Hu, Z.; Li, L.; Shen, H.

2023-02-10 epidemiology
10.1101/2023.02.09.23285130 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe relative risk of smoking on lung cancer have been reported to be much higher in white population than that in East Asians. However, its unknown whether genetic background underlies this disparity between ethnic groups. To assess the role of ethnic differences in genetic factors associated with this phenomenon. MethodsWe first constructed ethnic-specific polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to quantify individual genetic risk of lung cancer in Chinese and white populations. Then, we compared genetic risk and smoking as well as their interactions on lung cancer between two cohorts, including the China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB) and the UK Biobank (UKB). We also evaluated the absolute risk reduction over a 5-year period. Results19 SNPs and 23 SNPs were identified to construct the PRSs in Chinese and white populations, and smoking-related loci were only included in white populations. The PRSs were consistently associated with lung cancer risk respectively, but stronger associations were observed in smokers of the UKB (HR 1.26 versus 1.15, P=0.028). A significant interaction between genetic risk and smoking on lung cancer was observed in the UKB (RERI, 11.39 [95% CI, 7.01-17.94]), but not in the CKB. By comparing heavy smokers with nonsmokers, a greater absolute risk reduction was found in the UKB (10.95 versus 7.12 per 1000 person-years, P<0.001), especially for those at high genetic risk. ConclusionsIn China, tobacco control alone is not enough to reduce the burden of lung cancer, and comprehensive policies should be made to lower its high incidence.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.4%
2
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
3
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
5
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
6
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.9%
8
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
10
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
11
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
12
Allergy
23 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.1%
14
Respiratory Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
15
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
16
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
17
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
18
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.8%
20
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
Epigenetics
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
23
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
26
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.7%
27
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
28
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
29
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
30
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%