Abstract
Background:
The association between circulating cholesterol and triglyceride levels and ovarian cancer risk remains unclear.
Methods:
We prospectively evaluated the association between cholesterol (total, low density lipoprotein (LDL-C), and high density lipoprotein (HDL-C)) and triglycerides and ovarian cancer incidence in a case-control study nested in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and NHSII cohorts and a longitudinal analysis in the UK Biobank.
Results:
A total of 290 epithelial ovarian cancer cases in the NHS/NHSII and 551 cases in UK Biobank were diagnosed after blood collection. We observed a reduced ovarian cancer risk comparing the top to bottom quartile of total cholesterol (meta-analysis RR [95%CI]: 0.81 [0.65–1.01], p-trend 0.06), with no heterogeneity across studies (p-heterogeneity=0.74). Overall, no clear patterns were observed for HDL-C, LDL-C, or triglycerides and ovarian cancer risk. Comparing triglyceride levels at clinically relevant cutpoints (>200 vs. ≤200 mg/dL) for cases diagnosed more than 2 years after blood draw saw a positive relationship with risk (1.57 [1.03–2.42]; p-heterogeneity=0.003). Results were similar by serous/non-serous histotype, menopausal status/hormone use, and body mass index.
Conclusions:
Data from two large cohorts in the US and UK suggest that total cholesterol levels may be inversely associated with ovarian cancer risk, while triglycerides may be positively associated with risk when assessed at least 2 years before diagnosis; albeit both associations were modest.
Impact:
This analysis of two large prospective studies suggests that circulating lipid levels are not strongly associated with ovarian cancer risk. The positive triglyceride-ovarian cancer association warrants further evaluation.
Keywords: ovarian cancer, cholesterol, triglyceride, risk, prospective
INTRODUCTION
High total cholesterol is a well-established risk factor for coronary heart disease and stroke (1,2). However, the relationship between total cholesterol and cancer risk remains uncertain. Cholesterol is a precursor to several biochemical pathways, including the synthesis of vitamin D and steroid hormones, and is thought to be involved in the etiology of certain cancers (3,4). The associations of blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels with cancer outcomes (including ovarian cancer) vary considerably across different studies (5).
In prospective studies, associations with ovarian cancer across extreme quantiles of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides were generally null, although effect estimates differed across United States (US) and European populations (6–10). Notably, there was some support for an association between higher total cholesterol with increased risk of serous and mucinous tumors in a study conducted in northern Europe, but no evidence of an association with endometrioid tumors (8). Using an alternate approach of evaluating cutpoints for hyperlipidemia, a small study in Taiwan, reported null ovarian cancer associations with high cholesterol (>200 mg/dL) and high triglycerides (>150 mg/dL), while a larger study in China reported an approximately 50% lower risk for those with high HDL-C (>1.0 vs. ≤1.0 mmol/L) and a nearly three-fold higher risk with high triglycerides (>1.7 vs. ≤1.7 mmol/L) (11).
Further, there is conflicting evidence evaluating various aspects of metabolic risk profiles based on medical record report of dyslipidemia or hyperlipidemia. Results of these studies range from a 36% reduction in ovarian cancer risk with a hyperlipidemia diagnosis in Italy (12) to no association in studies evaluating dyslipidemia in the United Kingdom (UK) (13) to an increased risk of high-grade serous and endometrioid ovarian cancer with high triglycerides in a SEER-Medicare linkage analysis with 16,580 cases in the US (14).
Given the inconsistent associations in the studies published to date, the goal of the current study was to evaluate circulating levels of cholesterol (total, LDL-C, HDL-C) and triglycerides with ovarian cancer risk across two study populations, the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII) cohorts in the US and the UK Biobank.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study populations
This analysis was based on data from case-control studies nested in the NHS and NHSII and a prospective cohort study in the UK Biobank. As previously described, the NHS was established in 1976 among 121,700 US female nurses aged 30–55 years, and NHSII was established in 1989 among 116,429 female nurses aged 25–42 years (15,16). Participants have been followed every other year by questionnaire to update information on exposures, including putative ovarian cancer risk factors, and disease diagnoses in both cohorts. Between 1989 and 1990, 32,826 NHS participants donated blood samples and completed a short questionnaire, including age, fasting status, menopausal status, medication use, and time and date of blood draw. Briefly, participants arranged to have their blood drawn and shipped on ice to a central laboratory via courier where it was processed and separated into plasma, red blood cell, and white blood cell components. In 2010, follow-up of the NHS blood study cohort was 87.5%. Similarly, between 1996 and 1999, 29,611 NHSII participants donated blood samples and completed a short questionnaire. Premenopausal participants (n = 18,521) who had not taken exogenous hormones, been pregnant, or lactated within the 6 months prior to blood draw provided a timed blood sample drawn 7–9 days before the anticipated start of their next menstrual cycle (luteal phase). Other women (n = 11,090) provided a single untimed blood sample. Following the same protocols as the NHS samples, NHSII samples were shipped to a central laboratory and processed. In 2009, follow-up of the NHSII blood study cohort was 95%.
As previously described, the UK Biobank is a population-based cohort study that invited more than 9 million individuals from across the UK to participate (17,18). Under an approved protocol, we accessed baseline demographic, lifestyle, and biomarker data from the cohort. Briefly, the study mailed invitations to individuals aged 40–69 years old in the National Health Service who resided within 40 km of 22 assessment centers across the UK. In total, 503,317 individuals visited assessment centers between 2006 and 2010; answered comprehensive questionnaires via touchscreen providing information on known ovarian cancer risk factors; received physical examinations; and provided biological samples. Blood samples were collected at the assessment centers, minimally processed and shipped within 24 hours of collection for additional processing and storage at UK Biobank’s centralized automated laboratory (19). Information about blood draw characteristics (e.g., date and time of collection) were recorded. Data from 502,528 participants were available for our study. We excluded participants identifying as male (n=229,134), who withdrew consent or emigrated from the UK (n=688 (22 withdrew after enrolling)), with prevalent cancer (n=17,777), bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) at least a year before cancer diagnosis (n=31), missing/implausible follow-up (n=38,269), or missing information on serum cholesterol and/or triglyceride measurements (n=35,989), leaving an analytic cohort of 180,640 female participants. Follow-up time was counted from the date of assessment center visit in 2006 until the date of cancer diagnosis, death, or the end of follow-up (i.e., March 31, 2015, for England and Wales and August 31, 2014, for Scotland), whichever came first.
Case ascertainment
Eligible cases had no history of cancer, except non-melanoma skin cancer, before blood collection and were diagnosed with ovarian or peritoneal cancer between blood draw and June 1, 2010 (NHS), or June 1, 2009 (NHSII). 290 epithelial ovarian or peritoneal cancers (240 in NHS and 50 in NHSII) with plasma were confirmed by medical record review. Cases were matched to one control who was alive and had no history of oophorectomy at the time of the case diagnosis separately for each cohort. Matching factors included menopausal status at blood draw and diagnosis (premenopausal, postmenopausal, or unknown) and hormone therapy use among postmenopausal women (yes/no) at blood draw, age (±1 year), time of day of blood draw (2AM-7AM, 8AM-1PM, 2PM-1AM), and fasting status (>8 hours (fasting) or ≤8 hours (non-fasting)). NHSII cases were additionally matched on timing of the blood draw within the menstrual cycle (date of next menstrual cycle minus date of blood draw, ±1 day) as applicable. In the UK Biobank, cancer cases during follow-up were identified via Health and Social Care Information Centre for participants residing in England and Wales and through the National Health Service for those residing in Scotland. Cancers were classified using the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD-10), and included ovary (C569) and fallopian tube (C570) tumors.
Ethical approval
The NHS/NHSII studies were approved by the Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts). Participant return of a baseline questionnaire and subsequent blood sample was considered to imply informed consent. The NHS study protocol was approved by the institutional review boards of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and those of participating registries as required. The UK Biobank study was approved by the National Information Governance Board for Health and Social Care and the NHS North West Multicenter Research Ethics Committee. Written consent was obtained from all participants, which was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Laboratory assays
The NHS and NHSII heparinized plasma samples were assayed for total cholesterol, HDL-C, direct LDL-C, and triglycerides using an ARCHITECT ci8200 analyzer (Abbott Diagnostics, Chicago IL). High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were measured via a validated immunoturbidometric method (Denka Seiken, Tokyo, Japan) (20). Matched case-control sets were assayed together in the same batch. Coefficients of variation (CVs) calculated from blinded replicate samples randomly interspersed with participant samples were ≤2% across all assay batches. These biomarkers are stable within person over time, with intraclass correlations over 1 year of 0.60–0.84 (21). In the UK Biobank, assays were performed at a dedicated central laboratory between 2014 and 2017, including measurement of serum total cholesterol, HDL-C, direct LDL-C, and triglycerides (Beckman Coulter AU5800). High-sensitivity CRP was measured by immunoturbidimetric analysis (Beckman Coulter AU5800). CVs for the UK Biobank assays were ≤3% across all assay batches (https://biobank.ndph.ox.ac.uk/showcase/showcase/docs/serum_biochemistry.pdf).
Statistical analysis
Quartile cutpoints (in controls in NHS/NHSII and in the full population in UK Biobank) largely overlapped, thus we used the cutpoints derived from NHS/NHSII controls to enhance comparability across populations. For comparison with other studies, we also utilized clinical cutpoints for each marker representing hyperlipidemia as follows: total cholesterol>240 mg/dL, LDL-C>160 mg/dL, HDL-C<40 mg/dL, and triglycerides>200 mg/dL. In the NHS/NHSII, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were determined using unconditional logistic regression comparing quartiles of biomarker concentrations. In the UK Biobank, hazard ratios (HR) and 95%CI were determined using Cox proportional hazards models. Models in both populations were adjusted for age (continuous), blood draw time (2AM-7AM, 8AM-1PM, 2PM-1AM), menopausal status/ hormone therapy (HT) use (premenopausal, postmenopausal/no HT use, postmenopausal/HT use, unknown), fasting status (no, yes), and a priori selected potential confounding factors, including oral contraceptive use (never, <1, 1–<5, 5+ years), parity (nulliparous, 1, 2, 3, 4+ births), body mass index (BMI; <25, 25–<30, 30–<35, ≥35 kg/m2), tubal ligation (no, yes), hysterectomy (no, yes), and unilateral oophorectomy (no, yes). NHS/NHSII analyses were additionally adjusted for cohort (NHS, NHSII). We further evaluated models mutually adjusting for quartiles of HDL-C, LDL-C, and triglycerides and models adjusted for circulating CRP, a known inflammatory risk marker for ovarian cancer (22). Trend tests were assessed using a Wald test of the ordinal quartile variable. Relative risk (RR) estimates across studies were estimated using fixed-effects meta-analysis.
In secondary analyses, we stratified cases by time between blood draw and diagnosis (≤2 [n=34 NHS/NHSII; 118 UK Biobank] versus >2 years [n=256 NHS/NHSII; 433 UK Biobank]) to evaluate the potential influence of undiagnosed cancers on associations (23). We further evaluated associations stratified by serous (n=224 NHS/NHSII; 401 UK Biobank) and non-serous cases (n= 84 NHS/NHSII; 150 UK Biobank); cases with other histotypes (i.e., mucinous, clear cell, endometrioid) were too few to evaluate separately. Effect estimates by case characteristics (time between blood draw and diagnosis and serous/non-serous histotype) were estimated using multivariable adjusted polytomous logistic regression in NHS/NHSII and competing risk Cox models in the UK Biobank (24). We examined effect modification by categories of menopausal status/HT use and overweight/non-overweight BMI in stratified models. An alpha=0.05 was used for all statistical tests and statistical analyses were conducted in SAS (V9.4, Cary, North Carolina) and meta-analyses in Stata (V16, College Station, Texas).
RESULTS
A total of 290 epithelial ovarian cancer cases were diagnosed in the NHS/NHSII after blood collection (median time between blood draw and diagnosis 10.9 years (interquartile range 5.3–15.7)). Of the 180,640 women in the UK Biobank with lipid measurements at baseline, 551 developed invasive ovarian cancer during a median 6.8 (interquartile range 6.1–7.4) years of follow-up (Table 1). On average, cases in NHS/NHSII were 66.2 (range 36–87) years old at diagnosis and in UK Biobank were 63.1 (range 40–77) years old at diagnosis.
Table 1.
Study population characteristics by ovarian cancer status, including data from a case-control study nested in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII) populations and a cohort study from the UK Biobank.
| NHS/NHSII (nested case-control study) | UK Biobank | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ovarian cancers (n=290) | Controls (n=290) | Ovarian cancers (n=551) | Non-cases (n=180,089) | |||||
| Mean | Std Dev | Mean | Std Dev | Mean | Std Dev | Mean | Std Dev | |
| Age at blood draw | 55.6 | 7.9 | 55.7 | 7.5 | 59.0 | 7.4 | 56.1 | 8.0 |
| Time between blood draw and diagnosis (years) | 10.6 | 6.3 | 4.1 | 2.2 | ||||
| High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) | 2.9 | 4.3 | 2.5 | 4.4 | 2.9 | 4.8 | 2.6 | 4.3 |
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| BMI | ||||||||
| <25 | 177 | 61.0 | 170 | 58.6 | 201 | 36.5 | 72518 | 40.3 |
| 25–29.9 | 67 | 23.1 | 92 | 31.7 | 215 | 39.0 | 66299 | 36.8 |
| 30+ | 46 | 15.9 | 28 | 9.7 | 101 | 18.3 | 27506 | 15.3 |
| Unknown/missing | 0 | 0 | 34 | 6.2 | 13766 | 7.6 | ||
| Cohort | ||||||||
| NHS | 240 | 82.8 | 240 | 82.8 | ||||
| NHSII | 50 | 17.2 | 50 | 17.2 | ||||
| UK Biobank | 551 | 100.0 | 180089 | 100.0 | ||||
| Time of blood draw | ||||||||
| 2am–7am | 30 | 10.3 | 27 | 9.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |
| 8am-1pm | 228 | 78.6 | 242 | 83.5 | 245 | 44.5 | 82456 | 45.8 |
| 2pm-1am | 32 | 11.0 | 21 | 7.2 | 306 | 55.5 | 97633 | 54.2 |
| Fasting status | ||||||||
| Yes | 181 | 62.4 | 195 | 67.2 | 16 | 2.9 | 5726 | 3.2 |
| No | 109 | 37.6 | 95 | 32.8 | 535 | 97.1 | 174363 | 96.8 |
| Menopausal status/hormone therapy (HT) usage | ||||||||
| Premenopausal | 91 | 31.4 | 91 | 31.4 | 85 | 15.4 | 49406 | 27.4 |
| Postmenopausal/No HT | 81 | 27.9 | 86 | 29.7 | 221 | 40.1 | 62925 | 34.9 |
| Postmenopausal/HT | 79 | 27.2 | 73 | 25.2 | 224 | 40.7 | 58262 | 32.4 |
| Unknown/missing | 39 | 13.5 | 40 | 13.8 | 21 | 3.8 | 9496 | 5.3 |
| Duration of oral contraceptive (OC) use | ||||||||
| Never | 137 | 47.2 | 133 | 45.9 | 22 | 4.0 | 5939 | 3.3 |
| <1 yr | 34 | 11.7 | 32 | 11.0 | 30 | 5.4 | 7827 | 4.4 |
| 1–<5 yr | 67 | 23.1 | 51 | 17.6 | 67 | 12.2 | 19463 | 10.8 |
| 5+ yr | 51 | 17.6 | 62 | 21.4 | 226 | 41.0 | 95554 | 53.1 |
| Unknown/missing | 1 | 0.3 | 12 | 4.1 | 206 | 37.4 | 51306 | 28.5 |
| Parity | ||||||||
| 0 | 31 | 10.7 | 17 | 5.9 | 123 | 22.3 | 33575 | 18.6 |
| 1 | 17 | 5.9 | 11 | 3.8 | 87 | 15.8 | 23796 | 13.2 |
| 2 | 95 | 32.8 | 85 | 29.3 | 219 | 39.8 | 80327 | 44.6 |
| 3 | 78 | 26.9 | 88 | 30.3 | 91 | 16.5 | 31881 | 17.7 |
| 4+ | 69 | 23.8 | 89 | 30.7 | 31 | 5.6 | 10510 | 5.8 |
| Tubal ligation | ||||||||
| No | 245 | 84.5 | 234 | 80.7 | 516 | 93.7 | 165502 | 91.9 |
| Yes | 45 | 15.5 | 56 | 19.3 | 35 | 6.4 | 14587 | 8.1 |
| Hysterectomy | ||||||||
| No | 209 | 72.1 | 215 | 74.1 | 471 | 85.5 | 158601 | 88.1 |
| Yes | 81 | 27.9 | 75 | 25.9 | 80 | 14.5 | 21488 | 11.9 |
| Unilateral oophorectomy | ||||||||
| No | 275 | 94.8 | 275 | 94.8 | 547 | 99.3 | 178230 | 99.0 |
| Yes | 15 | 5.2 | 15 | 5.2 | 4 | 0.7 | 1859 | 1.0 |
Total cholesterol and LDL-C were highly correlated (rho=0.92 in plasma, rho=0.95 in serum) (Supplemental Table 1). Total cholesterol was modestly correlated with HDL-C (rho=0.18 in plasma, rho=0.29 in serum) and triglycerides (rho=0.47 in plasma, rho=0.29 in serum), as was LDL-C with triglycerides (rho=0.37 in plasma, rho=0.31 in serum). No correlation was noted between HDL-C and LDL-C (rho=−0.09 in plasma, rho=0.03 in serum) while there was an inverse correlation between HDL-C and triglycerides (rho=−0.37 in plasma, rho=−0.41 in serum). The measured lipids were not highly correlated with previously measured CRP levels (rho<0.20 for all comparisons). The measured triglycerides were correlated (median rho=0.62, IQR=0.45–0.72) with metabolomics measures of triglyceride species (saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated [up to 12 double bonds] with 42 to 60 Carbon atoms in the fatty acid chains) among controls (25).
There was a suggestion of a reduced ovarian cancer risk comparing the top to bottom quartile of total cholesterol (meta-analysis RR [95%CI]: 0.81 [0.65–1.01], p-trend 0.06), with no heterogeneity across studies (p-heterogeneity=0.60) (Table 2). Effect estimates for HDL-C and LDL-C were also less than one; however, there were no clear patterns of reduced risk with increased levels for these lipids. There was no association between circulating triglycerides and ovarian cancer risk overall. HDL-C, LDL-C, and triglyceride-ovarian cancer associations were similar in models mutually adjusting for circulating lipid levels (Table 2) or CRP. Case/control counts for the quartile and clinical-cutpoint analyses are reported in Supplemental Table 2.
Table 2.
Circulating lipid measurements and ovarian cancer risk by study (Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), NHSII, and UK Biobank) and summarized via meta-analysis.
| Fully adjusted models (model 1) | Mutually & fully adjusted models (model 2) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UKB | NHS/NHSII | Meta-analysis | UKB | NHS/NHSII | Meta-analysis | |||||||||
| RR | (95% CI) | RR | (95% CI) | RR | (95% CI) | p-het | RR | (95% CI) | RR | (95% CI) | RR | (95% CI) | p-het | |
| Q1: <196 | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | ||||||||
| Q2: 196–222 | 0.76 | (0.59–0.98) | 1.06 | (0.65–1.73) | 0.82 | (0.65–1.02) | 0.24 | |||||||
| Q3: 223–255 | 0.91 | (0.72–1.14) | 1.34 | (0.82–2.17) | 0.98 | (0.79–1.20) | 0.16 | |||||||
| Q4: >255 | 0.83 | (0.65–1.07) | 0.72 | (0.43–1.21) | 0.81 | (0.65–1.01) | 0.60 | |||||||
| p-trend | 0.08 | 0.41 | 0.06 | |||||||||||
| >240 vs ≤240 | 0.98 | (0.82–1.17) | 0.79 | (0.54–1.16) | 0.94 | (0.80–1.11) | 0.31 | |||||||
| HDL Cholesterol (mg/dL) | ||||||||||||||
| Q1: <52 | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | ||||
| Q2: 52–59 | 1.01 | (0.79–1.28) | 0.91 | (0.53–1.52) | 0.99 | (0.80–1.23) | 0.74 | 1.01 | (0.79–1.28) | 0.98 | (0.58–1.66) | 1.00 | (0.80–1.25) | 0.94 |
| Q3: 60–69 | 0.88 | (0.69–1.12) | 1.00 | (0.62–1.62) | 0.90 | (0.73–1.12) | 0.64 | 0.88 | (0.69–1.13) | 1.10 | (0.66–1.81) | 0.92 | (0.74–1.15) | 0.44 |
| Q4:>69 | 0.83 | (0.65–1.05) | 1.06 | (0.64–1.74) | 0.87 | (0.70–1.07) | 0.39 | 0.83 | (0.64–1.08) | 1.19 | (0.70–2.02) | 0.89 | (0.71–1.12) | 0.24 |
| p-trend | 0.10 | 0.71 | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.30 | 0.26 | ||||||||
| <40 vs ≥40 | 1.25 | (0.85–1.84) | 1.07 | (0.36–3.23) | 1.23 | (0.85–1.77) | 0.80 | 1.31 | (0.89–1.95) | 0.77 | (0.26–2.31) | 1.24 | (0.85–1.79) | 0.37 |
| LDL Cholesterol (mg/dL) | ||||||||||||||
| Q1: <109 | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | ||||
| Q2: 109–131 | 0.92 | (0.71–1.20) | 0.96 | (0.59–1.55) | 0.93 | (0.74–1.17) | 0.88 | 0.93 | (0.71–1.20) | 0.91 | (0.56–1.49) | 0.92 | (0.73–1.16) | 0.96 |
| Q3: 132–156 | 0.87 | (0.67–1.12) | 1.06 | (0.65–1.72) | 0.91 | (0.72–1.14) | 0.48 | 0.87 | (0.68–1.13) | 1.00 | (0.61–1.63) | 0.90 | (0.72–1.13) | 0.64 |
| Q4: >156 | 0.93 | (0.72–1.20) | 0.71 | (0.42–1.19) | 0.89 | (0.70–1.11) | 0.36 | 0.94 | (0.72–1.23) | 0.62 | (0.36–1.06) | 0.87 | (0.68–1.10) | 0.17 |
| p-trend | 0.23 | 0.29 | 0.12 | 0.40 | 0.10 | 0.14 | ||||||||
| >160 vs ≤160 | 0.94 | (0.78–1.14) | 0.61 | (0.39–0.95) | 0.88 | (0.74–1.05) | 0.08 | 0.97 | (0.80–1.18) | 0.59 | (0.37–0.92) | 0.90 | (0.75–1.07) | 0.04 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | ||||||||||||||
| Q1: <79 | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | 1 | (ref) | ||||
| Q2: 79–108 | 1.04 | (0.79–1.36) | 1.03 | (0.62–1.70) | 1.04 | (0.82–1.31) | 0.97 | 1.03 | (0.79–1.35) | 1.12 | (0.67–1.87) | 1.05 | (0.83–1.34) | 0.79 |
| Q3: 109–158 | 1.08 | (0.83–1.41) | 1.47 | (0.88–2.43) | 1.16 | (0.92–1.46) | 0.30 | 1.05 | (0.80–1.39) | 1.78 | (1.03–3.07) | 1.17 | (0.92–1.50) | 0.09 |
| Q4: >158 | 1.08 | (0.82–1.41) | 1.30 | (0.76–2.22) | 1.12 | (0.88–1.43) | 0.55 | 1.01 | (0.74–1.37) | 1.72 | (0.93–3.19) | 1.12 | (0.85–1.48) | 0.13 |
| p-trend | 0.67 | 0.22 | 0.87 | 0.45 | 0.06 | 0.85 | ||||||||
| >200 vs ≤200 | 0.84 | (0.66–1.07) | 1.19 | (0.71–1.99) | 0.89 | (0.72–1.11) | 0.23 | 0.82 | (0.64–1.05) | 1.42 | (0.83–2.43) | 0.90 | (0.72–1.13) | 0.07 |
Model 1: Adjusted for age (continuous), blood draw time (2am-7am, 8am-1pm, 2pm-1am), menopausal status/HT use (premenopausal, postmenopausal/no HT use, postmenopausal/HT use, unknown), and fasting status (no, yes) and OC use (never, <1, 1–<5, 5+ years), parity (nulliparous, 1, 2, 3, 4+ children), BMI (<25, 25–<30, 30–<35, ≥35), tubal ligation (no, yes), hysterectomy (no, yes), and unilateral oophorectomy (no, yes); NHS - additionally adjusted for cohort (NHS, NHSII).
Model 2: Adjusted for variables in Model 1 plus the other circulating measures (e.g., LDL model was additionally adjusted for HDL and triglyceride levels).
p-het=p-value testing heterogeneity of association across study. Case-control counts by lipid category provided in Supplemental Table 2.
In analyses evaluating associations among cases diagnosed more than 2 years after blood draw (n=689 cases), women in the fourth versus first quartile of total cholesterol had a 24% lower risk of ovarian cancer (meta-analysis RR=0.76, 95%CI: 0.59–0.97) (Table 3, study specific results are reported in Supplemental Table 3). Patterns were similar for HDL-C and LDL-C, albeit not statistically significant. For these three markers (i.e., cholesterol, HDL-C, and LDL-C), the effect estimates were similar among cases diagnosed ≤2 years after blood draw (n=152 cases; p-values for heterogeneity>0.09 across all strata), suggesting limited influence of preclinical cancer on circulating levels. In contrast, the association comparing extreme quartiles of triglycerides was heterogeneous across categories of time between blood draw and diagnosis (RR [95%CI], Q4 vs Q1: ≤2 years between diagnosis and blood draw 0.51 [0.29–0.89] and >2 years 1.17 [0.90–1.52]; p-heterogeneity=0.01), this difference was more extreme evaluating clinical cutpoints for triglycerides (RR [95% CI], >200 vs. ≤200 mg/dL: ≤2 years between diagnosis and blood draw 0.50 [0.27–0.93], n=15 exposed vs 137 unexposed cases; and >2 years 1.57 [1.03–2.42], n=112 exposed vs 577 unexposed; p-heterogeneity=0.003).
Table 3.
Lipid-ovarian cancer associations stratified by time between blood draw and diagnosis, meta-analysis of data from prospective studies in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), NHSII, and UK Biobank.
| Meta-analysis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤2 years (n=152 cases) | >2 years (n=689 cases) | ||||||
| n cases | RR | (95% CI) | n cases | RR | (95% CI) | p-het | |
| Q1: <196 | 38 | 1 | (ref) | 175 | 1 | (ref) | |
| Q2: 196–222 | 35 | 0.92 | (0.57–1.48) | 142 | 0.80 | (0.63–1.03) | 0.62 |
| Q3: 223–255 | 43 | 0.89 | (0.57–1.40) | 214 | 0.94 | (0.75–1.19) | 0.84 |
| Q4: >255 | 46 | 0.74 | (0.46–1.19) | 158 | 0.76 | (0.59–0.97) | 0.94 |
| >240 vs ≤240 | 55 vs 97 | 0.62 | (0.23–1.68) | 257 vs 432 | 0.93 | (0.70–1.24) | 0.76 |
| HDL Cholesterol (mg/dL) | |||||||
| Q1: <52 | 44 | 1 | (ref) | 179 | 1 | (ref) | |
| Q2: 52–59 | 22 | 0.67 | (0.40–1.12) | 154 | 1.09 | (0.86–1.38) | 0.09 |
| Q3: 60–69 | 47 | 1.13 | (0.73–1.73) | 170 | 0.87 | (0.68–1.10) | 0.30 |
| Q4:>69 | 39 | 0.88 | (0.55–1.39) | 186 | 0.90 | (0.71–1.13) | 0.92 |
| <40 vs ≥40 | 5 vs 147 | 0.62 | (0.23–1.68) | 30 vs 659 | 1.35 | (0.62–2.93) | 0.23 |
| LDL Cholesterol (mg/dL) | |||||||
| Q1: <109 | 29 | 1 | (ref) | 147 | 1 | (ref) | |
| Q2: 109–131 | 35 | 0.91 | (0.54–1.51) | 162 | 0.91 | (0.70–1.17) | 0.99 |
| Q3: 132–156 | 48 | 1.05 | (0.65–1.68) | 182 | 0.85 | (0.66–1.09) | 0.45 |
| Q4: >156 | 40 | 0.72 | (0.44–1.18) | 198 | 0.84 | (0.65–1.08) | 0.58 |
| >160 vs ≤160 | 36 vs 116 | 0.78 | (0.51–1.20) | 168 vs 521 | 0.84 | (0.61–1.17) | 0.78 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | |||||||
| Q1: <79 | 28 | 1 | (ref) | 127 | 1 | (ref) | |
| Q2: 79–108 | 38 | 1.00 | (0.61–1.65) | 154 | 1.01 | (0.78–1.32) | 0.96 |
| Q3: 109–158 | 58 | 1.19 | (0.74–1.90) | 192 | 1.07 | (0.82–1.39) | 0.70 |
| Q4: >158 | 28 | 0.51 | (0.29–0.89) | 216 | 1.17 | (0.90–1.52) | 0.01 |
| >200 vs ≤200 | 15 vs 137 | 0.50 | (0.27–0.93) | 112 vs 577 | 1.57 | (1.03–2.42) | 0.003 |
Adjusted for age (continuous), blood draw time (2am-7am, 8am-1pm, 2pm-1am), menopausal status/HT use (premenopausal, postmenopausal/no HT use, postmenopausal/HT use, unknown), and fasting status (no, yes) and OC use (never, <1, 1–<5, 5+ years), parity (nulliparous, 1, 2, 3, 4+ children), BMI (<25, 25–<30, 30–<35, ≥35), tubal ligation (no, yes), hysterectomy (no, yes), and unilateral oophorectomy (no, yes); NHS - additionally adjusted for cohort (NHS, NHSII).
p-het=p-value testing heterogeneity of association across time between blood draw and diagnosis (≤2 and >2 years).
Associations across serous/non-serous subtype were remarkably consistent for total, HDL-C, and LDL-C. However, the association across serous/non-serous subtype for triglycerides was suggestive of an differential risk for triglycerides (RR [95%CI], Q4 vs Q1: serous 1.26 [0.96–1.66]; non-serous 0.92 [0.62–1.37]; p-het=0.207) (Figure 1, Supplemental Table 4).
Figure 1.
Lipid-ovarian cancer associations (quartile 4 vs quartile 1) by serous/non-serous subtype, menopausal status/hormone therapy use, and non-overweight/overweight BMI. Box represents relative risk, error bars 95% confidence intervals.
Although we did not observe statistically significant effect modification of the lipid-ovarian cancer associations by menopausal status/HT use and overweight/non-overweight BMI, some patterns emerged (Figure 1, Supplemental Table 4). The inverse association of ovarian cancer with high cholesterol and triglycerides generally was stronger among postmenopausal women not using hormone therapy at blood draw or among women who were overweight or obese. For example, among postmenopausal women not using hormone therapy, we observed lower ovarian cancer risk with high levels of total cholesterol (RR [95%CI] Q4 vs Q1: 0.58 [0.40–0.85], p-intx 0.08) and LDL-C (RR [95%CI] Q4 vs Q1: 0.64 [0.44–0.93], p-intx 0.13) and elevated ovarian cancer risk with high levels of triglycerides (RR [95%CI] Q4 vs Q1: 1.20 [0.81–1.78], p-intx 0.38). We observed similar patterns of ovarian cancer risk among overweight/obese women (RR [95%CI] Q4 vs Q1, total cholesterol: 0.69 [0.52–0.91], p-intx 0.09; HDL-C: 0.72 [0.53–0.98], p-intx 0.21; triglycerides: 1.31 [0.91–1.89], p-intx 0.33). In contrast, associations were largely null when evaluating the lipid-ovarian cancer associations among premenopausal women, postmenopausal women using hormone therapy at blood draw, and women with BMI less than 25 kg/m2.
DISCUSSION
Data from two large cohorts in the US and UK suggest that lipid levels may be modestly association with ovarian cancer risk, although the direction of association varied by biomarker. Total cholesterol levels were inversely associated with overall ovarian cancer risk, associations were stronger for postmenopausal women not using HT and women with overweight/obese BMI. Consistent inverse associations with total cholesterol were observed for both serous and non-serous tumors. The pattern of association observed for total cholesterol was also observed when evaluating HDL-C and LDL-C; however, most associations did not reach statistical significance and require further exploration. Conversely, there was a suggestion of a possible increased ovarian cancer risk with high vs low triglyceride levels, that was apparent when evaluating associations with ovarian cancers diagnosed more than 2 years after blood draw.
Our finding of modest reductions in risk across extreme quartiles of circulating cholesterol levels are in contrast to the mostly null associations observed in prior prospective studies (6–9) with effect estimates across extreme quantiles ranging from 1.07 to 2.17 for total cholesterol. Prior studies evaluating triglycerides have also varied, with effect estimates across extreme quantiles ranging from 0.93 to 1.36 (7–9). Inconsistent relationships between blood lipids and ovarian cancer risk in observational studies may be due to small sample sizes, varying timing/characteristics of blood collection, different assay methodology, and differential adjustment for confounding factors. In the current study, clinical assays were used to measure lipids in both populations and analyses were consistently adjusted for confounding across study. A prior study in the NHS/NHSII study populations reported an increased ovarian cancer risk with high levels of circulating triacylglycerols, as measured by a metabolomics platform. In overlapping controls from the two populations, triglycerides were correlated with triacylglycerols (25). The current suggestion of an increased risk of ovarian cancer with high relative to low levels of circulating triglycerides is consistent with this previous evaluation.
Mechanisms underlying the effects of decreased total cholesterol, LDL-C, and HDL-C on ovarian cancer risk are unclear as reports of the effects of cholesterol in the literature are conflicting. Lipids have multiple functions, such as cell growth, division, and signaling that are dysregulated with cancer (26). As such the timing of the measurement of lipids in assessing cancer risk in women may need to be considered. Importantly, in our study, the associations for cholesterol remained and for triglycerides became stronger in analyses limited to blood collected more than 2 years prior to diagnosis, suggesting that alterations in lipid levels due to subclinical disease could be masking an apparent association with ovarian cancer risk in prior studies. LDL-C has been shown to demonstrate cancer cell cytotoxicity and inhibit angiogenesis (27), a key oncogenic process, thus an inverse association is plausible. Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress may be another mechanism influencing cholesterol metabolism. Experimentally, ER stress dysregulates cholesterol metabolism, and cholesterol in the tumor microenvironment can induce ER stress and ultimately reducing anti-tumor immunity (28–32). T cell activity has also been shown to vary by intracellular cholesterol levels (33–35). It is well established that cancer arises in the context of an in vivo tumor microenvironment which is both a cause and consequence of tumorigenesis. Cholesterol metabolism is one of many targets that may mediate anti-cancer effects through the tumor microenvironment (36). Cholesterol is also thought to increase female cancer risk via increasing circulating estrogen levels, which may be particularly relevant in the low estrogen environment characteristic of postmenopausal women not using hormone therapy; however, we observed reductions in risk associated with increased circulating cholesterol within this group. Further, estrogen levels appear to be primarily associated with risk of non-serous tumors (37) and we did not observe differential associations by this binary histology classification in our analysis, suggesting other potential pathways by which cholesterol could influence ovarian cancer development. The data on triglycerides and circulating hormone levels is limited, but suggests an inverse association with estrogens (38), which does not help to explain the increased ovarian cancer risk observed in the current study with high (relative to low) triglyceride levels.
Our study has several important strengths, including its large sample size and the inclusion of studies conducted in both the US and UK. Additional strengths include the measurement of total cholesterol as well as the lipoprotein subfractions, HDL-C, LDL-C and importantly triglycerides. Comprehensive information on potential confounding factors and equivalent adjustment across study populations are also notable strengths. Finally, given that we utilized data from prospective cohorts, we were able to assess the potential bias caused by preclinical disease by evaluating cases diagnosed at least two years after blood collection (23). However, generalizability of study is limited in that the summarized data are from predominantly non-Hispanic white study populations and should be explored more widely given that lipid profile components vary depending on race/ethnicity (39). Our study is limited in that we did not have a sample size sufficiently large enough to evaluate associations with rare ovarian cancer histotypes. We were unable to evaluate high grade serous cancers because of missing information on tumor grade in the UK Biobank. We were also limited in our ability to evaluate our results in the context of lipid-lowering medications as this information was not uniformly available in the NHS/NHSII study population. Future analyses should consider both statin use as well as evaluating associations stratified by hypercholesterolemia.
This analysis of two large prospective studies suggests that circulating lipid levels are not strongly associated with ovarian cancer risk. The inverse association between total cholesterol and ovarian cancer incidence is not likely explained by undiagnosed/preclinical cancer. The positive association suggested between triglycerides and increased ovarian cancer risk warrants further evaluation, with a focus on factors that might modify this association (i.e., menopausal status and histotype).
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements:
We would like to thank the participants and staff of the NHS and NHSII for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. We thank the Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital as home of the Nurses’ Health Studies. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. We would like to acknowledge the following grants UM1 CA186107, P01 CA87969 (NHS) and U01 CA176726 (NHSII).
Financial Support:
We would like to acknowledge the following grants UM1 CA186107, P01 CA087969 (NHS, PIs Eliassen H, Tworoger S, respectively) and U01 CA176726 (NHSII, PI Eliassen H). Intramural research program of the National Cancer Institute (ZIA CP010126, Britton Trabert).
Footnotes
Disclosures: All authors report no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Data availability:
Further information including the procedures to obtain and access data from the Nurses’ Health Studies is described at https://www.nurseshealthstudy.org/researchers (contact email: nhsaccess@channing.harvard.edu) and from the UK Biobank is described at https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/apply-for-access
REFERENCES
- 1.Heart Protection Study Collaborative G. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360(9326):7–22 doi 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09327-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Huxley R, Lewington S, Clarke R. Cholesterol, coronary heart disease and stroke: a review of published evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials. Semin Vasc Med 2002;2(3):315–23 doi 10.1055/s-2002-35402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Eliassen AH, Hankinson SE. Endogenous hormone levels and risk of breast, endometrial and ovarian cancers: prospective studies. Adv Exp Med Biol 2008;630:148–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Toner CD, Davis CD, Milner JA. The vitamin D and cancer conundrum: aiming at a moving target. J Am Diet Assoc 2010;110(10):1492–500 doi 10.1016/j.jada.2010.07.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kitahara CM, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Freedman ND, Huxley R, Mok Y, Jee SH, et al. Total cholesterol and cancer risk in a large prospective study in Korea. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2011;29(12):1592–8 doi 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.5200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Helzlsouer KJ, Alberg AJ, Norkus EP, Morris JS, Hoffman SC, Comstock GW. Prospective study of serum micronutrients and ovarian cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1996;88(1):32–7 doi 10.1093/jnci/88.1.32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kabat GC, Kim MY, Chlebowski RT, Vitolins MZ, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Rohan TE. Serum lipids and risk of obesity-related cancers in postmenopausal women. Cancer causes & control : CCC 2018;29(1):13–24 doi 10.1007/s10552-017-0991-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Bjorge T, Lukanova A, Tretli S, Manjer J, Ulmer H, Stocks T, et al. Metabolic risk factors and ovarian cancer in the Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer project. International journal of epidemiology 2011;40(6):1667–77 doi 10.1093/ije/dyr130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Melvin JC, Seth D, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Hammar N, Jungner I, et al. Lipid profiles and risk of breast and ovarian cancer in the Swedish AMORIS study. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 2012;21(8):1381–4 doi 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wu MM, Chen HC, Chen CL, You SL, Cheng WF, Chen CA, et al. A prospective study of gynecological cancer risk in relation to adiposity factors: cumulative incidence and association with plasma adipokine levels. PloS one 2014;9(8):e104630 doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0104630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Chen Y, Zhang L, Liu W, Wang K. Case-control study of metabolic syndrome and ovarian cancer in Chinese population. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2017;14:21 doi 10.1186/s12986-017-0176-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Parazzini F, Moroni S, La Vecchia C, Negri E, dal Pino D, Bolis G. Ovarian cancer risk and history of selected medical conditions linked with female hormones. European journal of cancer 1997;33(10):1634–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bodmer M, Becker C, Meier C, Jick SS, Meier CR. Use of metformin and the risk of ovarian cancer: a case-control analysis. Gynecologic oncology 2011;123(2):200–4 doi 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.06.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Michels KA, McNeel TS, Trabert B. Metabolic syndrome and risk of ovarian and fallopian tube cancer in the United States: An analysis of linked SEER-Medicare data. Gynecologic oncology 2019;155(2):294–300 doi 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.08.032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tworoger SS, Eliassen AH, Sluss P, Hankinson SE. A prospective study of plasma prolactin concentrations and risk of premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007;25(12):1482–8 doi 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.6356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Michaud DS, Manson JE, Colditz GA, Longcope C, et al. Plasma prolactin levels and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1999;91(7):629–34 doi 10.1093/jnci/91.7.629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen N, Beral V, Burton P, Danesh J, et al. UK biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS medicine 2015;12(3):e1001779 doi 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Fry A, Littlejohns TJ, Sudlow C, Doherty N, Adamska L, Sprosen T, et al. Comparison of Sociodemographic and Health-Related Characteristics of UK Biobank Participants With Those of the General Population. American journal of epidemiology 2017;186(9):1026–34 doi 10.1093/aje/kwx246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Elliott P, Peakman TC, Biobank UK. The UK Biobank sample handling and storage protocol for the collection, processing and archiving of human blood and urine. International journal of epidemiology 2008;37(2):234–44 doi 10.1093/ije/dym276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Roberts WL, Moulton L, Law TC, Farrow G, Cooper-Anderson M, Savory J, et al. Evaluation of nine automated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein methods: implications for clinical and epidemiological applications. Part 2. Clin Chem 2001;47(3):418–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Alexander KS, Kazmierczak SC, Snyder CK, Oberdorf JA, Farrell DH. Prognostic utility of biochemical markers of cardiovascular risk: impact of biological variability. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine : CCLM / FESCC 2013;51(9):1875–82 doi 10.1515/cclm-2012-0750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Peres LC, Mallen AR, Townsend MK, Poole EM, Trabert B, Allen NE, et al. High Levels of C-Reactive Protein Are Associated with an Increased Risk of Ovarian Cancer: Results from the Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium. Cancer research 2019;79(20):5442–51 doi 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-1554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Schatzkin A, Hoover RN, Taylor PR, Ziegler RG, Carter CL, Larson DB, et al. Serum cholesterol and cancer in the NHANES I epidemiologic followup study. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Lancet 1987;2(8554):298–301 doi 10.1016/s0140-6736(87)90890-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lunn M, McNeil D. Applying Cox regression to competing risks. Biometrics 1995;51(2):524–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Zeleznik OA, Eliassen AH, Kraft P, Poole EM, Rosner BA, Jeanfavre S, et al. A Prospective Analysis of Circulating Plasma Metabolites Associated with Ovarian Cancer Risk. Cancer research 2020;80(6):1357–67 doi 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-2567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Snaebjornsson MT, Janaki-Raman S, Schulze A. Greasing the Wheels of the Cancer Machine: The Role of Lipid Metabolism in Cancer. Cell Metab 2020;31(1):62–76 doi 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.11.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Jin F, Hagemann N, Brockmeier U, Schafer ST, Zechariah A, Hermann DM. LDL attenuates VEGF-induced angiogenesis via mechanisms involving VEGFR2 internalization and degradation following endosome-trans-Golgi network trafficking. Angiogenesis 2013;16(3):625–37 doi 10.1007/s10456-013-9340-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Sun Y, Zhang D, Liu X, Li X, Liu F, Yu Y, et al. Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Affects Lipid Metabolism in Atherosclerosis Via CHOP Activation and Over-Expression of miR-33. Cell Physiol Biochem 2018;48(5):1995–2010 doi 10.1159/000492522. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Cubillos-Ruiz JR, Silberman PC, Rutkowski MR, Chopra S, Perales-Puchalt A, Song M, et al. ER Stress Sensor XBP1 Controls Anti-tumor Immunity by Disrupting Dendritic Cell Homeostasis. Cell 2015;161(7):1527–38 doi 10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Veglia F, Tyurin VA, Mohammadyani D, Blasi M, Duperret EK, Donthireddy L, et al. Lipid bodies containing oxidatively truncated lipids block antigen cross-presentation by dendritic cells in cancer. Nat Commun 2017;8(1):2122 doi 10.1038/s41467-017-02186-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Veglia F, Tyurin VA, Blasi M, De Leo A, Kossenkov AV, Donthireddy L, et al. Fatty acid transport protein 2 reprograms neutrophils in cancer. Nature 2019;569(7754):73–8 doi 10.1038/s41586-019-1118-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Ma X, Bi E, Lu Y, Su P, Huang C, Liu L, et al. Cholesterol Induces CD8(+) T Cell Exhaustion in the Tumor Microenvironment. Cell Metab 2019;30(1):143–56 e5 doi 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.04.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Surls J, Nazarov-Stoica C, Kehl M, Olsen C, Casares S, Brumeanu TD. Increased membrane cholesterol in lymphocytes diverts T-cells toward an inflammatory response. PloS one 2012;7(6):e38733 doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0038733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Cheng HY, Wu R, Gebre AK, Hanna RN, Smith DJ, Parks JS, et al. Increased cholesterol content in gammadelta (gammadelta) T lymphocytes differentially regulates their activation. PloS one 2013;8(5):e63746 doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0063746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Aguilar-Ballester M, Herrero-Cervera A, Vinue A, Martinez-Hervas S, Gonzalez-Navarro H. Impact of Cholesterol Metabolism in Immune Cell Function and Atherosclerosis. Nutrients 2020;12(7) doi 10.3390/nu12072021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Casey SC, Amedei A, Aquilano K, Azmi AS, Benencia F, Bhakta D, et al. Cancer prevention and therapy through the modulation of the tumor microenvironment. Semin Cancer Biol 2015;35 Suppl:S199–S223 doi 10.1016/j.semcancer.2015.02.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Trabert B, Brinton LA, Anderson GL, Pfeiffer RM, Falk RT, Strickler HD, et al. Circulating Estrogens and Postmenopausal Ovarian Cancer Risk in the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study. Cancer Epidem Biomar 2016;25(4):648–56 doi 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-1272-T. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Mesalic L, Tupkovic E, Kendic S, Balic D. Correlation between hormonal and lipid status in women in menopause. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 2008;8(2):188–92 doi 10.17305/bjbms.2008.2980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Willey JZ, Rodriguez CJ, Carlino RF, Moon YP, Paik MC, Boden-Albala B, et al. Race-ethnic differences in the association between lipid profile components and risk of myocardial infarction: The Northern Manhattan Study. Am Heart J 2011;161(5):886–92 doi 10.1016/j.ahj.2011.01.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Further information including the procedures to obtain and access data from the Nurses’ Health Studies is described at https://www.nurseshealthstudy.org/researchers (contact email: nhsaccess@channing.harvard.edu) and from the UK Biobank is described at https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/apply-for-access