article · International Journal of TROPICAL DISEASE & Health
Aims: This research aimed at determining the causal relationship between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and ovarian cancer using two-sample Mendelian randomization technique. This is because there is an assumption that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has a causal relationship with ovarian cancer due to the alarming rising incidence statistics.
 Study design: This study used a two-sample Mendelian Randomization (MR) design to undertake the causal relationship investigation. Mendelian randomization technique uses genetic variants as instrumental variables, which undergo random allocation at conception and are non-modifiable. This makes it not to be affected by confounding factors and reverse causation. The MR techniques employed are MR-Egger and Inverse Variance Weighted (IVW.)
 Data sources: The outcome (ovarian cancer) summary statistics was retrieved from Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC), which has 66,450 samples (number of cases=25,509, number of controls=40,941) of European population. The exposure (T2DM) summary genetic data came from DIAGRAM plus Metabochip consortium which involved approximately 149,821 samples (number of cases=34,840, number of controls=114,981) of mixed population.
 Results: The study indicated that there was no evidence of causal relationship between T2DM and ovarian cancer (MR-Egger: b= -0.0476, se = 0.0619, p-value = 0.4479, IVW: b = -0.0165, se = 0.0257, p-value = 0.5217). The odds ratios indicated that the two-sample Mendelian randomization had the power to detect 0.0464 and 0.0164 decrease in variability per 1 SD for MR-Egger and IVW respectively (MR-Egger: OR = 0.9536, CI: 0.8447, 1.0765, IVW: OR = 0.9836, CI: 0.9352, 1.0345).
 Conclusion: This approach alleviated the usual problem of reverse causation and confounding factors hence depicting clearly that there is no causal relationship between T2DM and Ovarian cancer.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.9734/ijtdh/2021/v42i930480
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.