Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study

Songchen Han,Tao Xu,Yuxuan Song,Xiang Dai,Yiqing Du,Wenbo Yang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4045957
2022-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:Background: Increased risk of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been reported; however, the cause has not been determined yet. Herein, we used Mendelian randomization (MR) to reveal the causal effect of kidney damage on renal cell carcinoma.Methods: Genome-wide association studies summary data of CKD, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) in 480,698 participants from the CKDGen Consortium were used to identify genetically predicted kidney damage. Further, the summary statistics of RCC were also available from public databases (IARC, n = 5219 cases, n = 8011 controls). Inverse-variance weighted was used as the primary estimate whereas MR-Egger and weighted median were used to detect heterogeneity and pleiotropy.Findings: There was a significant relationship between CKD and RCC risk in males(OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01–1.99, p-value 0.042) rather than in females (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81-1.67, p-value 0.428). Though the IVW method did not support the significant association between BUN levels and female RCC (OR 2.20; 95% CI 0.38-12.69; P 0.378) perhaps due to the bias of directional pleiotropic effects, the causal effect of BUN on RCC in females estimated by Causal Analysis using Summary Effect estimates (CAUSE) method was indicated (p = 0.002).Interpretation: These findings reveal an intriguing link between kidney damage and RCC risks for the very first time using Mendelian randomization methods. Without ambiguity, CKD is causatively related to RCC specifically in males, and increases in BUN levels are in relation to RCC in females. Our studies may well provide novel insights for RCC diagnosis, intervention, and therapy.Funding Information: No support from any organisation for the submitted work. Declaration of Interests: No financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Ethics Approval Statement: This study used publicly available de-identified data from participant studies that were approved by an ethical standards committee with respect to human experimentation. No separate ethical approval was required in this study.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?