Abstract

Background

In addition to the established association between general obesity and breast cancer risk, central obesity and circulating fasting insulin and glucose have been linked to the development of this common malignancy. Findings from previous studies, however, have been inconsistent, and the nature of the associations is unclear.

Methods

We conducted Mendelian randomization analyses to evaluate the association of breast cancer risk, using genetic instruments, with fasting insulin, fasting glucose, 2-h glucose, body mass index (BMI) and BMI-adjusted waist-hip-ratio (WHRadj BMI). We first confirmed the association of these instruments with type 2 diabetes risk in a large diabetes genome-wide association study consortium. We then investigated their associations with breast cancer risk using individual-level data obtained from 98 842 cases and 83 464 controls of European descent in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium.

Results

All sets of instruments were associated with risk of type 2 diabetes. Associations with breast cancer risk were found for genetically predicted fasting insulin [odds ratio (OR) = 1.71 per standard deviation (SD) increase, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.26-2.31, p  = 5.09  ×  10–4], 2-h glucose (OR = 1.80 per SD increase, 95% CI = 1.3 0-2.49, p  = 4.02  ×  10–4), BMI (OR = 0.70 per 5-unit increase, 95% CI = 0.65-0.76, p  = 5.05  ×  10–19) and WHRadj BMI (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.79-0.91, p  = 9.22  ×  10–6). Stratified analyses showed that genetically predicted fasting insulin was more closely related to risk of estrogen-receptor [ER]-positive cancer, whereas the associations with instruments of 2-h glucose, BMI and WHRadj BMI were consistent regardless of age, menopausal status, estrogen receptor status and family history of breast cancer.

Conclusions

We confirmed the previously reported inverse association of genetically predicted BMI with breast cancer risk, and showed a positive association of genetically predicted fasting insulin and 2-h glucose and an inverse association of WHRadj BMI with breast cancer risk. Our study suggests that genetically determined obesity and glucose/insulin-related traits have an important role in the aetiology of breast cancer.

Key Messages

  • Mendelian randomization studies eliminate potential influence of reverse causation on study results and are less susceptible to bias and confounding than conventional observational studies. We used this approach to evaluate the association of obesity and glucose/insulin-related traits with breast cancer risk, using the data of a large consortium.

  • We found genetically predicted fasting insulin and 2-h glucose levels were positively associated with breast cancer risk, whereas genetically predicted body mass index and waist-hip-ratio with adjustment of BMI were inversely associated with the risk.

  • Our study has uncovered complex inter-relations of genetics, obesity, and breast cancer risk, and has provided novel findings regarding roles of circulating glucose and insulin in the risk of this common cancer.

Introduction

General and central obesity have been linked to breast cancer risk in previous studies.1,2 Body mass index (BMI) and waist-hip-ratio (WHR) are commonly used to measure general and central obesity, respectively. Obesity, particularly central obesity, is a major risk factor for insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, which are often characterized by elevated fasting insulin and glucose as well as impaired glucose tolerance (usually measured by blood glucose level 2 h after oral glucose challenge).3 Previous studies have linked fasting insulin and glucose levels to increased risks of multiple cancers.4–6 Proposed mechanisms for these associations include cancer-promoting effects mediated by insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) signalling pathways.7 However, the relationship between these biomarkers and breast cancer remains controversial and findings from epidemiological studies are inconsistent.8,9 Concerns regarding the validity of these observational study findings include potential selection biases, reverse causation, confounding effects, small sample size and differences in assays used to measure the biomarkers of interest.

Mendelian randomization analysis has been used to evaluate potential causal relationships between exposures and disease.10,11 Genetic variants are used as instrumental variables in the analysis. Random assortment of alleles at the time of gamete formation results in a random assignment of exposures that are related to an allele (or a set of alleles). Thus, Mendelian randomization analyses may reduce potential biases that would afflict conventional observational studies. In the current study, we performed Mendelian randomization analyses to assess associations of obesity (i.e. BMI and WHR) and glucose/insulin-related traits (i.e. fasting glucose, 2-h glucose and fasting insulin) with breast cancer risk, using data from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

Methods

Study population

Included in this analysis are 182 306 participants of European ancestry, whose samples were genotyped using custom Illumina iSelect genotyping arrays: OncoArray (56 762 cases and 43 207 controls) or iCOGS array (42 080 cases and 40 257 controls). Institutional review boards of all involved institutions approved the studies. Selected characteristics of the two datasets are presented in Supplementary Table 1, available as Supplementary data at IJE online. Details of the genotyping protocols in the BCAC are described elsewhere (iCOGS: http://ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/research/consortia/icogs/; OncoArray: https://epi.grants.cancer.gov/oncoarray/).12,13 Genotyping data were imputed using the program IMPUTE214 with the 1000 Genomes Project Phase III integrated variant set as the reference panel. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with low imputation quality (imputation r2 < 0.5) were excluded. Top principal components (PCs) were included as covariates in regression analysis to address potential population substructure (iCOGS: top eight PCs; OncoArray: top 15 PCs).

Selection of SNPs associated with glucose/insulin-related traits

In December 2016, we searched the National Human Genome Research Institute-European Bioinformatics Institute Catalog of Published Genome-Wide Association Studies and the literature for SNPs associated with the following traits: levels of 2-h glucose (2hrGlu), fasting glucose (FG), fasting insulin (FI), BMI and waist-hip-ratio with adjustment of BMI (WHRadj BMI).15–19 SNPs associated with any of these traits at the genome-wide significance level (P  < 5  ×  10–8) in populations of European ancestry were included. For each GWAS-identified locus, a representative SNP with the lowest P-value in the original GWAS publication was selected (linkage disequilibrium r2 < 0.1, based on 1000 Genome Phase III CEU data).

Construction of instrumental variables

Weighted polygenic scores for each trait (i.e. wPRS-2hrGlu, wPRS-FG, wPRS-FI, wPRS-BMI and wPRS-WHRadj BMI) were constructed following the formula: wPRS-traitj=iβi,GX*SNPi, where βi, GXis the beta coefficient of the ith SNP for the trait of interest from the published GWAS (Supplementary Table 2, available as Supplementary data at IJE online). SNPi is the imputed dosage of the effect allele in BCAC data (range: 0 to 2). To reduce potential pleiotropic effects, we excluded BMI- and WHRadj BMI-associated SNPs from instruments of 2hrGlu, fasting glucose and insulin (r2 < 0.8), and vice versa. The pleiotropic SNPs associated with more than one trait are presented in Supplementary Table 2, available as Supplementary data at IJE online. The F-statistic was taken to indicate whether an instrumental variable was well-powered for Mendelian randomization analysis, with 10 being a commonly used threshold.20 Variance explained (%) and F statistics for a specific trait were calculated following the formulae: i2*βi,GX2*feffect allele*1-feffect allelevarX*100and R2*(n-1-k)/(1-R2)/k, respectively, where: R2 is percentage of variance explained by used SNPs; f is the frequency of the effect allele reported by GWAS for the trait; var(X) is the variance of trait, see below; n is the sample size of BCAC data; and k is the number of SNPs used in the instrument.21

For 2-h glucose, fasting glucose and insulin, βi, GXwere further transformed to represent 1 standard deviation (SD) increase with the unit in the original GWAS (2-h glucose: 1 SD = 2 mmol/L, variance = 4; fasting glucose: 1 SD = 0.65 mmol/L, variance = 0.42; fasting insulin: 1 SD = 0.60 ln[pmol/L], variance = 0.36)17,22 by the formula: βi,SD = βi,GX [2*f (SNPi)(1-f (SNPi)]  ^0.5/SD. wPRS-BMI and wPRS-WHRadj BMI represented the adjusted 1-SD increase of transformed BMI and WHRadj BMI, as the original GWAS performed the inverse normal transformation for both phenotypes.18,19,23 We further scaled wPRS-BMI to be equivalent to five units of BMI by performing a linear regression among controls in our dataset: observed BMI ∼ wPRS-BMI + error. Then we calculated the transformed BMI as BMIwPRS = β0+ β1* (wPRS-BMI), where β0 and β1 are slope and coefficient from the linear regression model mentioned above, respectively.

Statistical analysis

Given an established association between impaired glucose/insulin traits and type 2 diabetes, an association between constructed instruments and risk of type 2 diabetes is to be expected. We used summary statistics from the DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis (DIAGRAM) Consortium and conducted a Mendelian randomization analysis of our traits using the inverse-variance-weighted two-sample method.10,24 The Mendelian randomization estimate and standard error were calculated as iβi,GX*βi,GY*σi,GY-2/(iβi,GX2*σi,GY-2) and 1/(iβi,GX2*σi,GY-2)0.5, respectively. GY represents the association between a, SNP and type 2 diabetes risk; thus βi, GY and σi, GY are beta coefficient and standard error, respectively. The P-value was based on Student’s t distribution, where the degrees of freedom were determined by the number of SNPs included in the instrument for the trait of interest. We calculated Pearson’s correlations between each pair of wPRSs in the control data before and after removal of pleiotropic SNPs. Egger’s regression, as described in Bowden et al.,25 was performed to detect potential pleiotropy of our instruments. We also included all instruments in the same model to evaluate possible independent associations of each instrument with breast cancer risk.

Associations of wPRSs with breast cancer risk were evaluated separately in the iCOGs and OncoArray datasets by treating these scores as continuous variables. A logistic regression was performed with age at interview/diagnosis, study site/country and PCs as covariates. The results were then combined using meta-analyses in METAL with a fixed-effects model.26 We performed additional analyses adjusting for certain known breast cancer risk factors listed in Supplementary Table 1, available as Supplementary data at IJE online. Finally, we conducted subanalyses by estrogen receptor (ER) status, age at interview/diagnosis (< 50 versus ≥ 50), menopausal status at interview/breast cancer diagnosis and family history of breast cancer. All statistical analyses were conducted using R statistical software (version 3.1.2).

Results

Approximately 90% of cases included in this study were diagnosed at age 40 or above. A total of 278 SNPs were selected to construct the instruments, for which the number of SNPs for each trait ranged from 4 to 166 (Table 1). The variance of each trait explained by its associated variants ranged from 0.23% for 2-h glucose to 2.89% for BMI (Table 1).

Table 1.

Summary of instrument variables for obesity and glucose/insulin-related traits used in the current study

All SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
TraitsNo. of variantsVariance explained (%)F statisticsNo. of variantsVariance explained (%)F statistics
2-h glucose90.56114.94a0.23105.7
Fasting glucose362.42125.731b2.30107.7
Fasting insulin180.5960.410c0.2753.9
BMI1662.8932.6162d2.8432.3
WHRadj BMI541.9667.550d1.7965.2
All SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
TraitsNo. of variantsVariance explained (%)F statisticsNo. of variantsVariance explained (%)F statistics
2-h glucose90.56114.94a0.23105.7
Fasting glucose362.42125.731b2.30107.7
Fasting insulin180.5960.410c0.2753.9
BMI1662.8932.6162d2.8432.3
WHRadj BMI541.9667.550d1.7965.2
a

Excluding SNPs (or their correlated SNPs with r2 > 0.8) associated with fasting glucose, fasting insulin, BMI and WHRadj BMI.

b

Excluding SNPs (or their correlated SNPs with r2 > 0.8) associated with levels of 2-h glucose, fasting insulin, BMI and WHRadj BMI.

c

Excluding SNPs (or their correlated SNPs with r2 > 0.8) associated with levels of 2-h glucose, fasting glucose, BMI and WHRadj BMI.

d

Excluding SNPs (or their correlated SNPs with r2 > 0.8) associated with levels of 2-h glucose, fasting glucose and fasting insulin.

Table 1.

Summary of instrument variables for obesity and glucose/insulin-related traits used in the current study

All SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
TraitsNo. of variantsVariance explained (%)F statisticsNo. of variantsVariance explained (%)F statistics
2-h glucose90.56114.94a0.23105.7
Fasting glucose362.42125.731b2.30107.7
Fasting insulin180.5960.410c0.2753.9
BMI1662.8932.6162d2.8432.3
WHRadj BMI541.9667.550d1.7965.2
All SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
TraitsNo. of variantsVariance explained (%)F statisticsNo. of variantsVariance explained (%)F statistics
2-h glucose90.56114.94a0.23105.7
Fasting glucose362.42125.731b2.30107.7
Fasting insulin180.5960.410c0.2753.9
BMI1662.8932.6162d2.8432.3
WHRadj BMI541.9667.550d1.7965.2
a

Excluding SNPs (or their correlated SNPs with r2 > 0.8) associated with fasting glucose, fasting insulin, BMI and WHRadj BMI.

b

Excluding SNPs (or their correlated SNPs with r2 > 0.8) associated with levels of 2-h glucose, fasting insulin, BMI and WHRadj BMI.

c

Excluding SNPs (or their correlated SNPs with r2 > 0.8) associated with levels of 2-h glucose, fasting glucose, BMI and WHRadj BMI.

d

Excluding SNPs (or their correlated SNPs with r2 > 0.8) associated with levels of 2-h glucose, fasting glucose and fasting insulin.

Using data from DIAGRAM, we demonstrated that all genetic instruments were associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in the direction that would be expected (Table 2). The strongest association was observed for the genetic instrument for fasting glucose (OR = 6.37, P  = 5.77  ×  10–16 and OR = 4.32, P  = 1.12  ×  10–11 before and after the exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs, respectively).

Table 2.

Associations of obesity and glucose/insulin-related traits with type 2 diabetes using data from DIAGRAM: results from Mendelian randomization analysis

TraitsAll SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
IVOR (95% CI)PIVOR (95% CI)P
2-h glucosea912.0 (6.90–21.0)2.11 × 10−5421.5 (5.76–80.3)0.005
Fasting glucosea366.37 (4.87–8.32)5.77 × 10−16314.32 (3.26–5.73)1.12 × 10−11
Fasting insulina181.92 (1.10–3.35)0.024104.62 (1.82–11.7)0.005
BMI1321.92 (1.64–2.25)2.86 × 10−131282.37 (1.99–2.82)2.40 × 10−17
WHRadj BMI531.87 (1.53–2.29)5.93 × 10−8491.99 (1.61–2.46)3.52 × 10−8
TraitsAll SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
IVOR (95% CI)PIVOR (95% CI)P
2-h glucosea912.0 (6.90–21.0)2.11 × 10−5421.5 (5.76–80.3)0.005
Fasting glucosea366.37 (4.87–8.32)5.77 × 10−16314.32 (3.26–5.73)1.12 × 10−11
Fasting insulina181.92 (1.10–3.35)0.024104.62 (1.82–11.7)0.005
BMI1321.92 (1.64–2.25)2.86 × 10−131282.37 (1.99–2.82)2.40 × 10−17
WHRadj BMI531.87 (1.53–2.29)5.93 × 10−8491.99 (1.61–2.46)3.52 × 10−8
a

ORs calculated based on 1-SD increase in levels of genetically predicted 2-h glucose (2 mmol/L,22), fasting glucose (0.65 mmol/L,17) and fasting insulin (0.60 ln[pmol/L]17).

Table 2.

Associations of obesity and glucose/insulin-related traits with type 2 diabetes using data from DIAGRAM: results from Mendelian randomization analysis

TraitsAll SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
IVOR (95% CI)PIVOR (95% CI)P
2-h glucosea912.0 (6.90–21.0)2.11 × 10−5421.5 (5.76–80.3)0.005
Fasting glucosea366.37 (4.87–8.32)5.77 × 10−16314.32 (3.26–5.73)1.12 × 10−11
Fasting insulina181.92 (1.10–3.35)0.024104.62 (1.82–11.7)0.005
BMI1321.92 (1.64–2.25)2.86 × 10−131282.37 (1.99–2.82)2.40 × 10−17
WHRadj BMI531.87 (1.53–2.29)5.93 × 10−8491.99 (1.61–2.46)3.52 × 10−8
TraitsAll SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
IVOR (95% CI)PIVOR (95% CI)P
2-h glucosea912.0 (6.90–21.0)2.11 × 10−5421.5 (5.76–80.3)0.005
Fasting glucosea366.37 (4.87–8.32)5.77 × 10−16314.32 (3.26–5.73)1.12 × 10−11
Fasting insulina181.92 (1.10–3.35)0.024104.62 (1.82–11.7)0.005
BMI1321.92 (1.64–2.25)2.86 × 10−131282.37 (1.99–2.82)2.40 × 10−17
WHRadj BMI531.87 (1.53–2.29)5.93 × 10−8491.99 (1.61–2.46)3.52 × 10−8
a

ORs calculated based on 1-SD increase in levels of genetically predicted 2-h glucose (2 mmol/L,22), fasting glucose (0.65 mmol/L,17) and fasting insulin (0.60 ln[pmol/L]17).

Table 3.

Associations of genetically predicted obesity and glucose/insulin-related traits with breast cancer risk: results from Mendelian randomization analysis

All SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
TraitsOR95% CIPPhetOR95% CIPPhet
2-h glucosea1.501.21–1.862.13 10−40.6081.801.30–2.494.02 × 10−40.566
Fasting glucosea1.060.95–1.170.2910.5431.020.91–1.140.7490.357
Fasting insulina1.160.96–1.410.1280.9391.711.26–2.315.09 × 10−40.442
BMI
 per five-unitb0.700.65–0.765.25 × 10−220.0420.700.66–0.775.05 × 10−190.086
 per SDa0.760.72–0.805.25 × 10−220.0420.770.73–0.825.05 × 10−190.086
WHRadj BMIa0.850.79–0.914.48  ×  10−60.1320.850.79–0.919.22 × 10−60.152
All SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
TraitsOR95% CIPPhetOR95% CIPPhet
2-h glucosea1.501.21–1.862.13 10−40.6081.801.30–2.494.02 × 10−40.566
Fasting glucosea1.060.95–1.170.2910.5431.020.91–1.140.7490.357
Fasting insulina1.160.96–1.410.1280.9391.711.26–2.315.09 × 10−40.442
BMI
 per five-unitb0.700.65–0.765.25 × 10−220.0420.700.66–0.775.05 × 10−190.086
 per SDa0.760.72–0.805.25 × 10−220.0420.770.73–0.825.05 × 10−190.086
WHRadj BMIa0.850.79–0.914.48  ×  10−60.1320.850.79–0.919.22 × 10−60.152
a

ORs calculated based on 1-SD increase in levels of genetically predicted 2-h glucose (2 mmol/L,22), fasting glucose (0.65 mmol/L,17), fasting insulin (0.60 ln[pmol/L],17), BMI and WHRadj BMI.

b

ORs calculated based on 5-unit increase of genetically predicted BMI (see Methods).

Table 3.

Associations of genetically predicted obesity and glucose/insulin-related traits with breast cancer risk: results from Mendelian randomization analysis

All SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
TraitsOR95% CIPPhetOR95% CIPPhet
2-h glucosea1.501.21–1.862.13 10−40.6081.801.30–2.494.02 × 10−40.566
Fasting glucosea1.060.95–1.170.2910.5431.020.91–1.140.7490.357
Fasting insulina1.160.96–1.410.1280.9391.711.26–2.315.09 × 10−40.442
BMI
 per five-unitb0.700.65–0.765.25 × 10−220.0420.700.66–0.775.05 × 10−190.086
 per SDa0.760.72–0.805.25 × 10−220.0420.770.73–0.825.05 × 10−190.086
WHRadj BMIa0.850.79–0.914.48  ×  10−60.1320.850.79–0.919.22 × 10−60.152
All SNPs
After exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs
TraitsOR95% CIPPhetOR95% CIPPhet
2-h glucosea1.501.21–1.862.13 10−40.6081.801.30–2.494.02 × 10−40.566
Fasting glucosea1.060.95–1.170.2910.5431.020.91–1.140.7490.357
Fasting insulina1.160.96–1.410.1280.9391.711.26–2.315.09 × 10−40.442
BMI
 per five-unitb0.700.65–0.765.25 × 10−220.0420.700.66–0.775.05 × 10−190.086
 per SDa0.760.72–0.805.25 × 10−220.0420.770.73–0.825.05 × 10−190.086
WHRadj BMIa0.850.79–0.914.48  ×  10−60.1320.850.79–0.919.22 × 10−60.152
a

ORs calculated based on 1-SD increase in levels of genetically predicted 2-h glucose (2 mmol/L,22), fasting glucose (0.65 mmol/L,17), fasting insulin (0.60 ln[pmol/L],17), BMI and WHRadj BMI.

b

ORs calculated based on 5-unit increase of genetically predicted BMI (see Methods).

Removing pleiotropic SNPs did not appreciably change the associations of instruments with breast cancer risk (Table 3). A 1-SD increase in genetically predicted 2-h glucose levels was associated with an 80% increased risk of breast cancer (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.30-2.49, p  = 4.02  ×  10–4). An inverse association was observed for both genetically predicted BMI and WHRadj BMI (per five units of BMI increase: OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.66–0.77, P  = 5.05  ×  10–19; per unit increase of genetic risk score for WHRadj BMI: OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.79-0.91, P  = 9.22  ×  10–6). The association of breast cancer risk with genetically predicted fasting insulin became significant after excluding pleiotropic SNPs (OR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.26-2.31, P  = 5.09  ×  10–4). No association was observed for genetically predicted fasting glucose. Results of iCOGS and OncoArray are shown separately in Supplementary Table 3, available as Supplementary data at IJE online.

Genetically predicted fasting insulin was correlated with both genetically predicted 2-h glucose and WHRadj BMI (Supplementary Table 4, available as Supplementary data at IJE online). Exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs attenuated these correlations. Mutual adjustment of all instruments did not materially change the observed associations with breast cancer risk described above (Supplementary Table 5, available as Supplementary data at IJE online). We evaluated the associations of genetically predicted obesity and glucose/insulin-related traits with traditional risk factors for breast cancer and found that genetically predicted fasting insulin and WHRadj BMI were associated with BMI in controls. Further, genetically predicted BMI was correlated with age at menarche, age at first live birth and breastfeeding history (Supplementary Table 6, available as Supplementary data at IJE online). Adjusting for these covariates did not materially change the observed associations of genetically predicted fasting insulin, BMI and WHRadjBMI with breast cancer risk (Supplementary Table 7, available as Supplementary data at IJE online). Finally, using Egger’s regression, we found that the intercept in the model was noticeable for genetically predicted 2-h glucose, BMI and WHRadj BMI, indicating a strong pleiotropic effect for these instruments (P  < 0.005 for β0, Supplementary Table 8, available as Supplementary data at IJE online).25 No apparent pleiotropy was found for genetically predicted fasting insulin. The Mendelian randomization estimates from Egger’s regression remained significant after accounting for detected pleiotropy for genetically predicted BMI and WHRadj BMI (Supplementary Table 8, available as Supplementary data at IJE online).

Stratified analysis was performed by age, menopausal status, ER status and family history of breast cancer. Genetically predicted 2-h glucose, BMI and WHRadj BMI were consistently associated with breast cancer across all strata (Figure 1A, C andD, Phet > 0.05, exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs). The association with genetically predicted fasting insulin was restricted to ER(+) cancer (Figure 1B, Phet 0.007, exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs). The results of stratified analysis are shown for other sets of instrumental variables in Supplementary Figures 1 (inclusion of pleiotropic SNPs) and 2 (fasting glucose, exclusion of pleiotropic SNPs), available as Supplementary data at IJE online.

Associations of genetically predicted obesity and levels of circulating glucose and insulin with overall breast cancer risk: stratified analysis. The Pheterogeneity was obtained from heterogeneity test across strata.
Figure 1.

Associations of genetically predicted obesity and levels of circulating glucose and insulin with overall breast cancer risk: stratified analysis. The Pheterogeneity was obtained from heterogeneity test across strata.

Discussion

In this large study, we found that genetically predicted obesity, 2-h glucose and fasting insulin were associated with breast cancer risk. Measured BMI has been well established to be positively associated with breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women but inversely related to the risk in premenopausal women. Results from epidemiological studies investigating the association of breast cancer risk with WHR, fasting insulin and glucose have been inconsistent. Traditional epidemiological studies are prone to biases, including confounding, selection biases, recall biases and reverse causality. Mendelian randomization analyses take advantage of the random assignment of genetic alleles during gamete formation to minimize the biases commonly encountered in traditional epidemiological studies. When instrumental variables are not associated with any potential confounders and are not linked to the outcome via any alternative pathway, Mendelian randomization analysis using such instrumental variables resemble randomized clinical trials, and thus could provide strong results for causal inference for the exposure of interest.10

We found that the risk of breast cancer increased approximately 70% for each 1-SD increase of genetically predicted fasting insulin levels. Previous epidemiological studies were unable to reach a conclusion regarding the association between fasting insulin and breast cancer risk. A meta-analysis reported a null association for fasting insulin.8 However the I2, an indicator of heterogeneity across studies, was considerable. Our results provide strong evidence to support a positive association. Insulin is an important growth factor with cancer-promoting features such as stimulating cell mitosis and migration and inhibiting apoptosis. Its mitogenic effects involve the activation of Ras and the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway,27 of which the role in cancer development has been recognized.28 Further, insulin may inhibit the production of sex hormone-binding globulin and lead to elevated bioavailable estrogen levels.29 It also has been shown that knockdown of insulin and IGF-1 receptors inhibits hormone-dependent growth of ER(+) breast cancer cells.30 This may explain the association of fasting insulin with ER(+) breast cancer observed in this study.

Previous epidemiological studies have suggested that fasting glucose may be a risk factor for breast cancer, but few have assessed 2-h glucose levels, as the latter are difficult to investigate in large prospective cohort studies. Overall, a meta-analysis of prospective studies showed no strong evidence to support an association of fasting glucose levels and risk of breast cancer in non-diabetic women.9 In the current study, we found a positive association with breast cancer for genetically predicted 2-h glucose levels but not for fasting glucose. Although fasting glucose and 2-h glucose are closely correlated,31 they represent different biological processes. The genetically determined fasting glucose levels primarily reflect the glycogenolysis activity in liver and hepatic insulin sensitivity.32 On the other hand, the levels of post-challenge glucose are mainly determined by the amount and pace of insulin released into blood stream in response to the challenge as well as by the glucose uptake in skeletal muscle cells (in other words, it primarily reflects beta cell function and skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity33). The reasons why genetically predicted 2-h glucose, but not fasting glucose, is associated with increased risk of breast cancer are not clear. One animal study has provided evidence that transgenic mice with inactivated insulin and IGF-1 receptors in skeletal muscles (impaired skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity) can manifest hyperinsulinaemia and an accelerated development of breast cancer.34 Since genetically predicted 2-h glucose is correlated with instruments for other traits, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that the association of 2-h glucose may be mediated by other insulin-related traits; even these traits were carefully adjusted, and pleiotropic SNPs were excluded in our analyses.

We reported previously that genetically predicted BMI was inversely associated with breast cancer risk in both pre- and postmenopausal women.35 We have now confirmed this finding with a much larger sample size and more BMI-associated SNPs. Whereas our finding for premenopausal breast cancer is consistent with previous observational studies, the inverse association observed in our study between genetically predicted BMI and postmenopausal breast cancer risk contradicts previous findings based on measured BMI. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that early life body size may be inversely associated with both premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer risk.36,37 It has been speculated that reduced serum estradiol and progesterone levels, due to an increased frequency of anovulation, play a role. In addition, the association is further supported by the observation that early life fatness was inversely correlated with IGF-1 levels measured in later adulthood.38 We hypothesize that genetically predicted BMI may be more closely correlated to early life body weight, and obesity determined using measured BMI later in life may be more closely related to environmental and lifestyle factors that are associated with breast cancer risk. Indeed, one previous study found that a BMI-genetic score was positively associated with weight gain before reaching middle age but inversely associated with weight gain after reaching middle age.39 If the hypothesis is correct, our study may provide additional support for preventing weight gain later in life to reduce the risk of breast cancer.

Results from previous studies regarding the association of WHR with breast cancer risk have been inconsistent. Although several previous studies reported that measured WHR was associated with breast cancer risk,40 we recently found that this association was substantially attenuated after adjusting for BMI using data from a large prospective cohort study conducted among Chinese women.41 In the current study, we observed an inverse association between genetically predicted WHRadj BMI and breast cancer risk in both pre- and postmenopausal women. This finding was unexpected, given the close association of measured WHR with type 2 diabetes.42 As discussed previously for the BMI findings, we hypothesize that genetically predicted WHRadj BMI may reflect visceral adipose tissue level in early life, whereas measured WHR in late adulthood may reflect accumulation of visceral fats later in life. Additional research is needed to understand the inter-relationship of genetically predicted WHR, measured WHR and breast cancer risk.

We showed that genetically predicted obesity and circulating insulin and glucose levels were positively correlated with risk of type 2 diabetes. Epidemiological studies have shown that a previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes was related to an elevated risk of breast cancer risk, although the association was weak to moderate.43 However, in a previous study, we found a null association between a polygenetic risk score for type 2 diabetes and breast cancer risk.44 It is possible that lifestyle changes after diabetes diagnosis and/or diabetes treatment may have confounded this association. Given the significant association we found in this study for breast cancer risk with genetically predicted fasting insulin and 2-h glucose, two factors that are strongly associated with type 2 diabetes risk, we suggest that type 2 diabetes may be associated with breast cancer risk.

The sample size of our study is very large, providing us sufficient statistical power for Mendelian randomization analyses of multiple obesity, glucose/insulin-related traits and breast cancer risk. Our ability to perform Mendelian randomization analysis is limited by the genetic variants identified to date in GWAS, and the variance explained by these genetic variants for some traits is small. We used 10 instruments in our main analysis, which could lead to false-positive findings due to multiple comparisons. However, the associations reported in this study for 2-h glucose, fasting insulin, BMI and WHRadj BMI were robust, reaching the stringent Bonferroni corrected significance level (P  < 0.05/10 = 0.005). Pleiotropy was found for the associations of obesity, but it is not likely that the observed associations can be primarily explained by pleiotropic effects.

In summary, this study provided new evidence that genetically predicted fasting insulin, 2-h glucose, BMI and WHRadj BMI are associated with breast cancer risk in women. Further research into the complex association of genetics, obesity, glucose/insulin-related traits and breast cancer risk will help to improve the understanding of underlying biological mechanisms for the associations observed in this study and may provide tools to reduce breast cancer risk.

Funding

This work at Vanderbilt University Medical Center was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health [grant numbers R01CA158473, R01CA148677], as well as funds from Anne Potter Wilson endowment to W.Z. Genotyping of the OncoArray was principally funded from three sources: the PERSPECTIVE project, funded from the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministère de l’Économie, de la Science et de l’Innovation du Québec through Genome Québec, and the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation; the National Cancer Institute Genetic Associations and Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON) initiative and Discovery, Biology and Risk of Inherited Variants in Breast Cancer (DRIVE) project [grant numbers U19CA148065, X01HG007492); and Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563]. BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK [grant number C1287/A16563], the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme [grant number 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009–223175) (COGS)] and by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme [grant agreements 633784 (B-CAST) and 634935 (BRIDGES)]. Genotyping of the iCOGS array was funded by the European Union [HEALTH-F2-2009–223175], Cancer Research UK [C1287/A10710], the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the ‘CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer’ program, and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade of Quebec [PSR-SIIRI-701]. Combining the GWAS data was supported in part by the National Institute of Health (NIH) Cancer Post-Cancer GWAS initiative [grant number U19CA148065; DRIVE, part of the GAME-ON initiative]. For a full description of funding and acknowledgments, see Supplementary Note, available as Supplementary data at IJE online. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jirong Long, Wanqing Wen, Yingchang Lu and Kim Kreth of Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center for their help with this study. The authors also wish to thank all the individuals who took part in these studies and all the researchers, clinicians, technicians and administrative staff who have enabled this work to be carried out.

Other authors from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium: Beeghly-Fadiel J Alicia,1 Hoda Anton-Culver,15 Natalia N Antonenkova,16 Volker Arndt,17 Kristan J Aronson,18 Paul L Auer,2,190 Myrto Barrdahl,21 Caroline Baynes,9 Laura E Beane Freeman,22 Matthias W Beckmann,23 Sabine Behrens,21 Javier Benitez,2,245 Marina Bermisheva,26 Carl Blomqvist,27 Natalia V Bogdanova,2,16,289 Stig E Bojesen,30–32 Hiltrud Brauch,33-35 Hermann Brenner,3,17,356 Louise Brinton,37 Per Broberg,38 Sara Y Brucker,39 Thomas Brüning,40 Barbara Burwinkel,4,412 Qiuyin Cai,1 Trinidad Caldés,43 Federico Canzian,44 Brian D Carter,45 Jose E Castelao,46 Jenny Chang-Claude,21, 47 Georgia Chenevix-Trench,48 Ting-Yuan David Cheng,49 Christine L Clarke,50 NBCS Collaborators,51–65 Don M Conroy,9 Fergus J Couch,66 David G Cox,67, 68 Angela Cox,69 Simon S Cross,70 Julie M Cunningham,66 Kamila Czene,71 Mary B Daly,72 Kimberly F Doheny,73 Thilo Dörk,29 Isabel dos-Santos-Silva,74 Martine Dumont,14 Alison M Dunning,9 Miriam Dwek,75 H Shelton Earp,76 Diana M Eccles,77 A Heather Eliassen,13, 78 Christoph Engel,79,80 Mikael Eriksson,71 D Gareth Evans,81,82 Laura Fachal,9 Peter A Fasching,23,83 Jonine Figueroa,37,84, 85 Olivia Fletcher,86 Henrik Flyger,87 Lin Fritschi,88 Marike Gabrielson,71 Manuela Gago-Dominguez,89,90 Susan M Gapstur,45 Montserrat García-Closas,37 Mia M Gaudet,45 Maya Ghoussaini,9 Graham G Giles,5,6 Mark S Goldberg,91,92 David E Goldgar,93 Anna González-Neira,24 Pascal Guénel,94 Eric Hahnen,95–97 Christopher A Haiman,98 Niclas Håkansson,99 Per Hall,71 Emily Hallberg,100 Ute Hamann,101 Patricia Harrington,9 Wei He,71 Alexander Hein,23 Belynda Hicks,102 Peter Hillemanns,29 Frans B Hogervorst,103 Antoinette Hollestelle,104 Robert N Hoover,37 John L Hopper,6 Anthony Howell,105 Guanmengqian Huang,101 Anna Jakubowska,106 Wolfgang Janni,107 Esther M John,108–110 Nichola Johnson,86 Kristine Jones,102 Audrey Jung,21 Rudolf Kaaks,21 Maria Kabisch,101 Michael J Kerin,111 Elza Khusnutdinova,26,112 Cari M Kitahara,37 Veli-Matti Kosma,113–115 Stella Koutros,22 Peter Kraft,12,13 Vessela N Kristensen,55,59,60 Diether Lambrechts,116,117 Loic Le Marchand,118 Sara Lindström,12,119 Martha S Linet,37 Jolanta Lissowska,120 Sibylle Loibl,121 Jan Lubinski,106 Craig Luccarini,9 Michael P Lux,23 Tom Maishman,77,122 Ivana Maleva Kostovska,123 Arto Mannermaa,113–115 Siranoush Manoukian,124 JoAnn E Manson,13,125 Sara Margolin,126 Dimitrios Mavroudis,127 Hanne Meijers-Heijboer,128 Alfons Meindl,129 Usha Menon,130 Jeffery Meyer,66 Anna Marie Mulligan,131,132 Susan L Neuhausen,133 Heli Nevanlinna,134 Patrick Neven,135 William T Newman,81,82 Sune F Nielsen,3,301 Børge G Nordestgaard,30–32 Olufunmilayo I Olopade,136 Andrew F Olshan,137 Janet E Olson,100 Håkan Olsson,38 Curtis Olswold,100 Nick Orr,86 Charles M Perou,138 Julian Peto,74 Dijana Plaseska-Karanfilska,123 Ross Prentice,19 Nadege Presneau,75 Katri Pylkäs,139,140 Brigitte Rack,141 Paolo Radice,142 Nazneen Rahman,143 Gadi Rennert,144 Hedy S Rennert,144 Atocha Romero,43,145 Jane Romm,73 Emmanouil Saloustros,146 Dale P Sandler,147 Elinor J Sawyer,148 Rita K Schmutzler,95–97 Andreas Schneeweiss,41,149 Rodney J Scott,150,151 Christopher Scott,100 Sheila Seal,143 Caroline Seynaeve,104 Ann Smeets,135 Melissa C Southey,152 John J Spinelli,153,154 Jennifer Stone,6,155 Harald Surowy,4,412 Anthony J Swerdlow,143,156 Rulla Tamimi,12,13,78 William Tapper,77 Jack A Taylor,147,157 Mary Beth Terry,158 Daniel C Tessier,159 Kathrin Thöne,160 Rob AEM Tollenaar,161 Diana Torres,101,162 Melissa A Troester,137 Thérèse Truong,94 Michael Untch,163 Celine Vachon,100 David Van Den Berg,98 Ans MW van den Ouweland,164 Elke M van Veen,81,82 Daniel Vincent,159 Quinten Waisfisz,128 Clarice R Weinberg,165 Camilla Wendt,126 Alice S Whittemore,109,110 Hans Wildiers,135 Robert Winqvist,139,140 Alicja Wolk,99 Lucy Xia,98 Xiaohong R Yang,37 Argyrios Ziogas15 and Elad Ziv.166 Member affiliations:

1Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA, 2Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA, 3Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 4Department of Electron Microscopy/Molecular Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus, 5Cancer Epidemiology & Intelligence Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 6Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 7Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 9Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 10Fred A, Litwin Center for Cancer Genetics, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada, 11Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 12Department of Epidemiology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA, 13N,N, Alexandrov Research Institute of Oncology and Medical Radiology, Minsk, Belarus, 14Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, 15Department of Public Health Sciences, and Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada, 16Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA, 17Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 18Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, 19Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA, 20Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany, 21Human Cancer Genetics Program, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain, 22Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER), Valencia, Spain, 23Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa Scientific Center of Russian Academy of Sciences, Ufa, Russia, 24Department of Oncology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 25Department of Radiation Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany, 26Gynaecology Research Unit, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany, 27Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark, 28Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark, 29Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 30Dr Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany, 31University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, 32German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, 33Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany, 34Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA, 35Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 36Department of Women’s Health, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, 37Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany, 38Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, 39Molecular Epidemiology Group, C080, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, 40Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria San Carlos (IdISSC), Centro Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain, 41Genomic Epidemiology Group, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, ermany, 42Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA, 43Oncology and Genetics Unit, Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica (IBI) Galicia Sur, Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Vigo-SERGAS, Vigo, Spain, 44Research Group Genetic Cancer Epidemiology, University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, 45Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 46Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA, 47Westmead Institute for Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 48Department of Oncology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, 49Section of Oncology, Institute of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, 50Department of Pathology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway, 51Department of Breast-Endocrine Surgery, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway, 52Department of Cancer Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway, 53Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway, 54Department of Research, Vestre Viken Hospital, Drammen, Norway, 55Department of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway, 56Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 57Department of Clinical Molecular Biology, Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 58National Advisory Unit on Late Effects after Cancer Treatment, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway, 59Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway, 60Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway, 61Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway, 62Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål, Oslo, Norway, 63Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA, 64Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK, 65INSERM U1052, Cancer Research Center of Lyon, Lyon, France, 66Sheffield Institute for Nucleic Acids (SInFoNiA), Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, 67Academic Unit of Pathology, Department of Neuroscience, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, 68Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, 69Department of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 70Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA, 71Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK, 72Genomics Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec Research Center, Laval University, Québec City, QC, Canada, 73Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Westminster, London, UK, 74Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 75Cancer Sciences Academic Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, 76Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA, 77Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA, 78Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, 79LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, 80Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK, 81Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St, Mary’s Hospital, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK, 82David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Medicine Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 83Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, UK, 84,Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Edinburgh, UK, 85The Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK, 86Department of Breast Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark, 87School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 88Genomic Medicine Group, Galician Foundation of Genomic Medicine, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, SERGAS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 89Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA, 90Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada, 91Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada, 92Department of Dermatology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 93Cancer & Environment Group, Center for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), INSERM, University Paris-Sud, University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France, 94Center for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, 95Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, 96Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne (CMMC), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, 97Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 98Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, 99Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA, 100Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, 101Cancer Genomics Research Laboratory (CGR), Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Rockville, MD, USA, 102Family Cancer Clinic, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 103Department of Medical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 104Institute of Cancer studies, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 105Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland, 106Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany, 107Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA, USA, 108Department of Health Research and Policy - Epidemiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA, 109Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA, 110School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland, 111Department of Genetics and Fundamental Medicine, Bashkir State University, Ufa, Russia, 112Translational Cancer Research Area, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland, 113Institute of Clinical Medicine, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland, 114Imaging Center, Department of Clinical Pathology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland, 115Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Harvard T,H, Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA, 116VIB Center for Cancer Biology, VIB, Leuven, Belgium, 117Laboratory for Translational Genetics, Department of Human Genetics, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 118Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, USA, 119Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, USA, 120Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, M Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center & Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland, 121German Breast Group, GmbH, Neu Isenburg, Germany, 122Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, 123Research Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology “Georgi D, Efremov”, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, 124Unit of Medical Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Fondazione IRCCS (Istituto Di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico) Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (INT), Milan, Italy, 125Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA, 126Department of Oncology - Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, 127Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Greece, 128Radiation Oncology, Hospital Meixoeiro-XXI de Vigo, Vigo, Spain, 129Division of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany, 130Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Women’s Cancer, Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK, 131Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 132Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada, 133Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA, 134Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 135Leuven Multidisciplinary Breast Center, Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 136Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics and Global Health, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 137Department of Epidemiology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 138Department of Genetics, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 139Laboratory of Cancer Genetics and Tumor Biology, Cancer and Translational Medicine Research Unit, Biocenter Oulu, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, 140Laboratory of Cancer Genetics and Tumor Biology, Northern Finland Laboratory Centre Oulu, Oulu, Finland, 141Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 142Unit of Molecular Bases of Genetic Risk and Genetic Testing, Department of Research, Fondazione IRCCS (Istituto Di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico) Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (INT), Milan, Italy, 143Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK, 144Clalit National Cancer Control Center, Carmel Medical Center and Technion Faculty of Medicine, Haifa, Israel, 145Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain, 146Hereditary Cancer Clinic, University Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Greece, 147Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 148Research Oncology, Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London, London, UK, 149National Center for Tumor Diseases, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, 150Division of Molecular Medicine, Pathology North, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, 151Discipline of Medical Genetics, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia, 152Department of Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 153Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 154School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 155The Curtin UWA Centre for Genetic Origins of Health and Disease, Curtin University and University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 156Division of Breast Cancer Research, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK, 157Epigenetic and Stem Cell Biology Laboratory, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 158Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA, 159McGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada, 160Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Clinical Cancer Registry, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, 161Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands, 162Institute of Human Genetics, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota, Colombia, 163Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Helios Clinics Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany, 164Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 165Biostatistics Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA and 166Department of Medicine, Institute for Human Genetics, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Conflict of interest: None declared.

References

1

Bhaskaran
K
,
Douglas
I
,
Forbes
H
,
dos-Santos-Silva
I
,
Leon
DA
,
Smeeth
L.
Body-mass index and risk of 22 specific cancers: a population-based cohort study of 5·24 million UK adults
.
Lancet
2014
;
384
:
755
65
.

2

Harvie
M
,
Hooper
L
,
Howell
AH.
Central obesity and breast cancer risk: a systematic review
.
Obes Rev
2003
;
4
:
157
73
.

3

Kahn
BB
,
Flier
JS.
Obesity and insulin resistance
.
J Clin Invest
2000
;
106
:
473
81
.

4

Stolzenberg-Solomon
RZ
,
Graubard
BI
,
Chari
S
et al. .
Insulin, glucose, insulin resistance, and pancreatic cancer in male smokers
.
JAMA
2005
;
294
:
2872
78
.

5

Albanes
D
,
Weinstein
SJ
,
Wright
ME
et al. .
Serum insulin, glucose, indices of insulin resistance, and risk of prostate cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2009
;
101
:
1272
79
.

6

Giovannucci
E.
Metabolic syndrome, hyperinsulinemia, and colon cancer: a review
.
Am J Clin Nutr
2007
;
86
:
s836
42
.

7

Pollak
M.
Insulin and insulin-like growth factor signalling in neoplasia
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2008
;
8
:
915
28
.

8

Hernandez
AV
,
Guarnizo
M
,
Miranda
Y
et al. .
Association between insulin resistance and breast carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
PLoS One
2014
;
9
:
e99317.

9

Boyle
P
,
Koechlin
A
,
Pizot
C
et al. .
Blood glucose concentrations and breast cancer risk in women without diabetes: a meta-analysis
.
Eur J Nutr
2013
;
52
:
1533
40
.

10

Burgess
S
,
Butterworth
A
,
Thompson
SG.
Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data
.
Genet Epidemiol
2013
;
37
:
658
65
.

11

Burgess
S
,
Small
DS
,
Thompson
SG.
A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization
.
Stat Methods Med Res
2017
;
26
:
2333
55
.

12

Michailidou
K
,
Hall
P
,
Gonzalez-Neira
A
et al. .
Large-scale genotyping identifies 41 new loci associated with breast cancer risk
.
Nat Genet
2013
;
45
:
353
61
, 361e1-2.

13

Michailidou
K
,
Lindström
S
,
Dennis
J
et al. .
Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci
.
Nature
2017
;
551
:
92
94
.

14

Howie
B
,
Fuchsberger
C
,
Stephens
M
,
Marchini
J
,
Abecasis
GR.
Fast and accurate genotype imputation in genome-wide association studies through pre-phasing
.
Nat Genet
2012
;
44
:
955
59
.

15

Welter
D
,
MacArthur
J
,
Morales
J
et al. .
The NHGRI GWAS Catalog, a curated resource of SNP-trait associations
.
Nucleic Acids Res
2014
;
42
:
D1001
06
.

16

Scott
RA
,
Lagou
V
,
Welch
RP
et al. .
Large-scale association analyses identify new loci influencing glycemic traits and provide insight into the underlying biological pathways
.
Nat Genet
2012
;
44
:
991
1005
.

17

Nead
KT
,
Sharp
SJ
,
Thompson
DJ
et al. .
Evidence of a causal association between insulinemia and endometrial cancer: a Mendelian randomization analysis
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2015
;
107
. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv178. [Epub ahead of print.]

18

Locke
AE
,
Kahali
B
,
Berndt
SI
et al. .
Genetic studies of body mass index yield new insights for obesity biology
.
Nature
2015
;
518
:
197
206
.

19

Turcot
V
,
Lu
Y
,
Highland
HM
et al. .
Protein-altering variants associated with body mass index implicate pathways that control energy intake and expenditure in obesity
.
Nat Genet
2018
;
50
:
26
41
.

20

Staiger
D
,
Stock
JH.
Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments
.
Econometrica
1997
;
65
:
557
86
.

21

Burgess
S
,
Thompson
SG
; CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration.
Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies
.
Int J Epidemiol
2011
;
40
:
755
64
.

22

Wareham
NJ
,
Wong
MY
,
Day
NE.
Glucose intolerance and physical inactivity: the relative importance of low habitual energy expenditure and cardiorespiratory fitness
.
Am J Epidemiol
2000
;
152
:
132
39
.

23

Shungin
D
,
Winkler
TW
,
Croteau-Chonka
DC
et al. .
New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution
.
Nature
2015
;
518
:
187
96
.

24

Morris
AP
,
Voight
BF
,
Teslovich
TM
et al. .
Large-scale association analysis provides insights into the genetic architecture and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes
.
Nat Genet
2012
;
44
:
981
90
.

25

Bowden
J
,
Davey Smith
G
,
Burgess
S.
Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression
.
Int J Epidemiol
2015
;
44
:
512
25
.

26

Willer
CJ
,
Li
Y
,
Abecasis
GR.
METAL: fast and efficient meta-analysis of genomewide association scans
.
Bioinformatics
2010
;
26
:
2190
91
.

27

Draznin
B.
Mitogenic action of insulin: friend, foe or ‘frenemy’?
Diabetologia
2010
;
53
:
229
33
.

28

Dhillon
AS
,
Hagan
S
,
Rath
O
,
Kolch
W.
MAP kinase signalling pathways in cancer
.
Oncogene
2007
;
26
:
3279
90
.

29

Daka
B
,
Rosen
T
,
Jansson
PA
,
Råstam
L
,
Larsson
CA
,
Lindblad
U.
Inverse association between serum insulin and sex hormone-binding globulin in a population survey in Sweden
.
Endocr Connect
2013
;
2
:
18
22
.

30

Fox
EM
,
Miller
TW
,
Balko
JM
et al. .
A kinome-wide screen identifies the insulin/IGF-I receptor pathway as a mechanism of escape from hormone dependence in breast cancer
.
Cancer Res
2011
;
71
:
6773
84
.

31

Ito
C
,
Maeda
R
,
Ishida
S
,
Sasaki
H
,
Harada
H.
Correlation among fasting plasma glucose, two-hour plasma glucose levels in OGTT and HbA1c
.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract
2000
;
50
:
225
30
.

32

Matthews
DR
,
Hosker
JP
,
Rudenski
AS
,
Naylor
BA
,
Treacher
DF
,
Turner
RC.
Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man
.
Diabetologia
1985
;
28
:
412
19
.

33

DeFronzo
RA
,
Tripathy
D.
Skeletal muscle insulin resistance is the primary defect in type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2009
;
32(Suppl 2)
:
S157
63
.

34

Novosyadlyy
R
,
Lann
DE
,
Vijayakumar
A
et al. .
Insulin-mediated acceleration of breast cancer development and progression in a nonobese model of type 2 diabetes. Cancer
Res
2010
;
70
:
741
51
.

35

Guo
Y
,
Warren Andersen
S
,
Shu
X-O
et al. .
Genetically predicted body mass index and breast cancer risk: Mendelian randomization analyses of data from 145, 000 women of European descent
.
PLoS Med
2016
;
13
:
e1002105
.

36

Baer
HJ
,
Tworoger
SS
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Willett
WC.
Body fatness at young ages and risk of breast cancer throughout life
.
Am J Epidemiol
2010
;
171
:
1183
94
.

37

Baer
HJ
,
Colditz
GA
,
Rosner
B
et al. .
Body fatness during childhood and adolescence and incidence of breast cancer in premenopausal women: a prospective cohort study
.
Breast Cancer Res
2005
;
7
:
R314
25
.

38

Poole
EM
,
Tworoger
SS
,
Hankinson
SE
,
Schernhammer
ES
,
Pollak
MN
,
Baer
HJ.
Body size in early life and adult levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3
.
Am J Epidemiol
2011
;
174
:
642
51
.

39

Rukh
G
,
Ahmad
S
,
Ericson
U
et al. .
Inverse relationship between a genetic risk score of 31 BMI loci and weight change before and after reaching middle age
.
Int J Obes
2016
;
40
:
252
59
.

40

Kyrgiou
M
,
Kalliala
I
,
Markozannes
G
et al. .
Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature
.
BMJ
2017
;
356
:
j477.

41

Liu
Y
,
Warren Andersen
S
,
Wen
W
et al. .
Prospective cohort study of general and central obesity, weight change trajectory and risk of major cancers among Chinese women
.
Int J Cancer
2016
;
139
:
1461
70
.

42

Kodama
S
,
Horikawa
C
,
Fujihara
K
et al. .
Comparisons of the strength of associations with future type 2 diabetes risk among anthropometric obesity indicators, including waist-to-height ratio: a meta-analysis
.
Am J Epidemiol
2012
;
176
:
959
69
.

43

Boyle
P
,
Boniol
M
,
Koechlin
A
et al. .
Diabetes and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis
.
Br J Cancer
2012
;
107
:
1608
17
.

44

Zhao
Z
,
Wen
W
,
Michailidou
K
et al. .
Association of genetic susceptibility variants for type 2 diabetes with breast cancer risk in women of European ancestry
.
Cancer Causes Control
2016
;
27
:
679
93
.

This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

Supplementary data