Prospective and Mendelian randomization analyses on the association of circulating fatty acid binding protein 4 (FABP-4) and risk of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fatty acid binding protein 4 (FABP-4) is a lipid-binding adipokine upregulated in obesity, which may facilitate fatty acid supply for tumor growth and promote insulin resistance and inflammation and may thus play a role in colorectal cancer (CRC) development. We aimed to investigate the association between circulating FABP-4 and CRC and to assess potential causality using a Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. METHODS: The association between pre-diagnostic plasma measurements of FABP-4 and CRC risk was investigated in a nested case-control study in 1324 CRC cases and the same number of matched controls within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. A two-sample Mendelian randomization study was conducted based on three genetic variants (1 cis, 2 trans) associated with circulating FABP-4 identified in a published genome-wide association study (discovery n = 20,436) and data from 58,131 CRC cases and 67,347 controls in the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium, Colorectal Cancer Transdisciplinary Study, and Colon Cancer Family Registry. RESULTS: In conditional logistic regression models adjusted for potential confounders including body size, the estimated relative risk, RR (95% confidence interval, CI) per one standard deviation, SD (8.9 ng/mL) higher FABP-4 concentration was 1.01 (0.92, 1.12) overall, 0.95 (0.80, 1.13) in men and 1.09 (0.95, 1.25) in women. Genetically determined higher FABP-4 was not associated with colorectal cancer risk (RR per FABP-4 SD was 1.10 (0.95, 1.27) overall, 1.03 (0.84, 1.26) in men and 1.21 (0.98, 1.48) in women). However, in a cis-MR approach, a statistically significant association was observed in women (RR 1.56, 1.09, 2.23) but not overall (RR 1.23, 0.97, 1.57) or in men (0.99, 0.71, 1.37). CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these analyses provide no support for a causal role of circulating FABP-4 in the development of CRC, although the cis-MR provides some evidence for a positive association in women, which may deserve to be investigated further.

Plant foods, dietary fibre and risk of ischaemic heart disease in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence indicates that diets rich in plant foods are associated with a lower risk of ischaemic heart disease (IHD), but there is sparse information on fruit and vegetable subtypes and sources of dietary fibre. This study examined the associations of major plant foods, their subtypes and dietary fibre with risk of IHD in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). METHODS: We conducted a prospective analysis of 490 311 men and women without a history of myocardial infarction or stroke at recruitment (12.6 years of follow-up, n cases = 8504), in 10 European countries. Dietary intake was assessed using validated questionnaires, calibrated with 24-h recalls. Multivariable Cox regressions were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) of IHD. RESULTS: There was a lower risk of IHD with a higher intake of fruit and vegetables combined [HR per 200 g/day higher intake 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-0.99, P-trend = 0.009], and with total fruits (per 100 g/day 0.97, 0.95-1.00, P-trend = 0.021). There was no evidence for a reduced risk for fruit subtypes, except for bananas. Risk was lower with higher intakes of nuts and seeds (per 10 g/day 0.90, 0.82-0.98, P-trend = 0.020), total fibre (per 10 g/day 0.91, 0.85-0.98, P-trend = 0.015), fruit and vegetable fibre (per 4 g/day 0.95, 0.91-0.99, P-trend = 0.022) and fruit fibre (per 2 g/day 0.97, 0.95-1.00, P-trend = 0.045). No associations were observed between vegetables, vegetables subtypes, legumes, cereals and IHD risk. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective study, we found some small inverse associations between plant foods and IHD risk, with fruit and vegetables combined being the most strongly inversely associated with risk. Whether these small associations are causal remains unclear.