The relationship between lipoprotein A and other lipids with prostate cancer risk: A multivariable Mendelian randomisation study

Abstract

Background: Numerous epidemiological studies have investigated the role of blood lipids in prostate cancer (PCa) risk, though findings remain inconclusive to date. The ongoing research has mainly involved observational studies, which are often prone to confounding. This study aimed to identify the relationship between genetically predicted blood lipid concentrations and PCa.

Methods and findings: Data for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein A (apoA) and B (apoB), lipoprotein A (Lp(a)), and PCa were acquired from genome-wide association studies in UK Biobank and the PRACTICAL consortium, respectively. We used a two-sample summary-level Mendelian randomisation (MR) approach with both univariable and multivariable (MVMR) models and utilised a variety of robust methods and sensitivity analyses to assess the possibility of MR assumptions violation. No association was observed between genetically predicted concentrations of HDL, TG, apoA and apoB, and PCa risk. Genetically predicted LDL concentration was positively associated with total PCa in the univariable analysis, but adjustment for HDL, TG, and Lp(a) led to a null association. Genetically predicted concentration of Lp(a) was associated with higher total PCa risk in the univariable (ORweighted median per standard deviation (SD) = 1.091; 95% CI 1.028 to 1.157; P = 0.004) and MVMR analyses after adjustment for the other lipid traits (ORIVW per SD = 1.068; 95% CI 1.005 to 1.134; P = 0.034). Genetically predicted Lp(a) was also associated with advanced (MVMR ORIVW per SD = 1.078; 95% CI 0.999 to 1.163; P = 0.055) and early age onset PCa (MVMR ORIVW per SD = 1.150; 95% CI 1.015,1.303; P = 0.028). Although multiple estimation methods were utilised to minimise the effect of pleiotropy, the presence of any unmeasured pleiotropy cannot be excluded and may limit our findings.

Conclusions: We observed that genetically predicted Lp(a) concentrations were associated with an increased PCa risk. Future studies are required to understand the underlying biological pathways of this finding, as it may inform PCa prevention through Lp(a)-lowering strategies.

Fig 1. Forest plots of the Lp(a) effects observed in different analyses based on each PCa type.

The main and sensitivity analyses estimates are based on the weighted median approach, whereas MVMR includes the IVW estimates. Sensitivity analyses 1–3 refer to the univariable models. Sensitivity analysis 1 is based on an eased clumping threshold of 0.01, Sensitivity analysis 2 includes an IV set based on another paper, and, finally, Sensitivity analysis 3 is based upon variants located in the LPA gene. Each square represents the OR for each PCa outcome, reported per SD increase in the biomarker, with the 95% CI represented by the error bars. IV, instrumental variable; IVW, inverse variance weighting; Lp(a), lipoprotein A; MVMR, multivariable MR; OR, odds ratio; PCa, prostate cancer; SD, standard deviation.