Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Hematologic Markers and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Analysis in UK Biobank

Eleanor L. Watts, Aurora Perez-Cornago, Jaimal Kothari, Naomi E. Allen, Ruth C. Travis and Timothy J. Key
Eleanor L. Watts
1Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eleanor L. Watts
  • For correspondence: ellie.watts@ndph.ox.ac.uk
Aurora Perez-Cornago
1Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Aurora Perez-Cornago
Jaimal Kothari
2Clinical Haematology, Oxford Cancer and Haematology Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Naomi E. Allen
3Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
4UK Biobank Ltd, Cheadle, Stockport, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Naomi E. Allen
Ruth C. Travis
1Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ruth C. Travis
Timothy J. Key
1Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Timothy J. Key
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1525 Published August 2020
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Risk factors for prostate cancer are not well understood. Red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell indices may be markers of a range of exposures that might be related to prostate cancer risk. Therefore, we examined the associations of hematologic parameters with prostate cancer risk.

Methods: Complete blood count data from 209,686 male UK Biobank participants who were free from cancer at study baseline were analyzed. Participants were followed up via data linkage. After a mean follow-up of 6.8 years, 5,723 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 323 men died from prostate cancer. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression was used to estimate adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for prostate cancer incidence and mortality by hematologic parameters, and corrected for regression dilution bias.

Results: Higher red blood cell (HR per 1 SD increase = 1.09, 95% CI, 1.05–1.13) and platelet counts (HR = 1.07, 1.04–1.11) were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Higher mean corpuscular volume (HR = 0.90, 0.87–0.93), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (HR = 0.90, 0.87–0.93), mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (HR = 0.87, 0.77–0.97), and mean sphered cell volume (HR = 0.91, 0.87–0.94) were associated with a lower prostate cancer risk. Higher white blood cell (HR = 1.14, 1.05–1.24) and neutrophil count (HR = 1.27, 1.09–1.48) were associated with prostate cancer mortality.

Conclusions: These associations of blood indices of prostate cancer risk and mortality may implicate shared common causes, including testosterone, nutrition, and inflammation/infection among several others in prostate cancer development and/or progression.

Impact: These associations provide insights into prostate cancer development and progression.

This article is featured in Highlights of This Issue, p. 1513

Introduction

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men and the fifth leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide (1). Established risk factors for prostate cancer include age, family history, ethnicity, and genetic factors (2). Although there are large differences in the global incidence of prostate cancer, little is known regarding potential modifiable risk factors.

Testosterone, folate, vitamin B12, and iron are fundamental to the generation of red blood cells, and low concentrations of any of these factors can lead to changes in red blood cell counts and morphologies (3–10). Low free testosterone concentrations may reduce prostate cancer risk (11), and there is some evidence that folate, vitamin B12, and iron may be positively associated with prostate cancer risk, though these associations are inconsistent (12, 13).

Inflammation and infection stimulate increases in platelet and white blood cell production (10, 14). Previous studies indicate that chronic inflammation and/or the immune response may be associated with overall cancer incidence (15, 16), but it is unclear whether these factors are associated specifically with prostate cancer risk (17, 18).

Although some prospective studies have previously examined the associations between a limited number of hematologic parameters and overall cancer risk (19–23), few have had the power to examine these exposures in relation to prostate cancer diagnosis or mortality (19, 20, 24). Moreover, these studies have relied on a single measure at study baseline. The UK Biobank has measured complete blood count and reticulocyte indices across the entire cohort, as well as repeat measurements in approximately 9,000 men, and thus provides a unique opportunity to investigate these associations reliably. Therefore, we aimed to assess the association of hematologic indices as possible surrogate markers of exposures including testosterone, dietary factors, and inflammation/infection, with risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality.

Materials and Methods

Study design

UK Biobank is a large prospective study designed to be a resource for research into the causes of disease. Further details of the study protocol and data collection are available online (http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/UK-Biobank-Protocol.pdf) and in the literature (25).

In brief, all participants were registered with the National Health Service (NHS) and lived within 40 km of one of the UK Biobank assessment centers. Approximately 9.2 million people were initially invited to participate. Overall, about 503,000 men and women ages 40–69 years consented to join the cohort and attended one of 22 assessment centers throughout England, Wales, and Scotland between 2006 and 2010, resulting in a participation rate of 5.5% (25).

The UK Biobank study was approved by the North West Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee (reference number 06/MRE08/65), and at recruitment all participants gave written informed consent to participate and be followed-up.

Baseline assessment

At baseline, participants provided data on a range of sociodemographic, physical, lifestyle, and health-related factors and summary diet information (including supplement and medication use) via self-completed touch-screen questionnaires and a computer-assisted personal interview (25). Body mass index (BMI) was measured at the assessment center.

Blood samples were taken from all participants except for a small proportion who declined, were unable to, or where the attempt was abandoned for either technical or health reasons (0.3%; ref. 25).

To prevent the blood from clotting, it was collected into ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid vacutainers and shipped to the central processing laboratory in temperature-controlled shipping boxes (at 4°C; ref. 26). On arrival at the central laboratory, the blood contents were measured on a Beckman-automated hematology analyzer, and reticulocyte parameters were measured on a COULTER LH 750 System, typically within 24 hours of blood draw (26). A maximum of 31 hematologic parameters were measured by the machine, including a mixture of measured and calculated values (further details are available from https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/crystal/docs/haematology.pdf; ref. 27).

For red blood cell and platelet parameters, the values analyzed here are as measured by the machines. For subtypes of white blood cells (neutrophils, eosinophils, basophils, monocytes, lymphocytes), we calculated the counts from the measured proportions of these cells.

Repeat assessment

Repeat assessment data were collected in a subset of participants (∼9,000 men) between August 2012 and June 2013 at the UK Biobank Co-ordinating Centre in Stockport. Participants who lived within a 35 km radius were invited to attend, with an overall response rate of 21% (27, 28); for further details, see: https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~bbdatan/Repeat_assessment_doc_v1.0.pdf).

Exclusion criteria

There were up to 209,686 men included in this analysis, after excluding 9,871 men with prevalent malignant cancer (except C44: nonmelanoma skin cancer), 213 participants who were identified as being genetically female, and 9,364 men who did not have blood data available.

Participant follow-up

Cancer registration data were provided via record linkage to the NHS Central Register, until the censoring date (March 31, 2016, in England and Wales and October 31, 2015, in Scotland). Death data for England and Wales were provided by NHS Digital and for Scotland by the Information and Statistics Division (censoring dates January 31, 2018 and November 30, 2016, respectively).

In the analyses of incident prostate cancer, the endpoint was defined as the first diagnosis of prostate cancer, or death from prostate cancer [International Classification of Diseases Tenth revision code (ICD-10) C61; ref. 29], whichever was recorded first. Prostate cancer cases identified via death records were included only if death from prostate cancer preceded the NHS Central Register censoring date. Person-years were calculated from the date of recruitment to the date of the first cancer registration [excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (ICD-10 C44; ref. 29)], death, or censoring date, whichever occurred first. In analyses of prostate cancer mortality, the endpoint was defined as being prostate cancer as the primary cause of death.

Statistical analysis

Partial correlations between the blood indices were estimated after adjustment for region (10 UK regions), age at recruitment (<45, 45–49, 50–54, 55–59, 60–64, and ≥65 years), and BMI [<25, ≥25–<30, ≥30–<35, ≥35 kg/m2, unknown (0.4%)].

HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of prostate cancer diagnosis and mortality were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, with age as the underlying time variable. Analyses were stratified by geographic region of recruitment (10 UK regions) and age at recruitment (categories as defined above), and adjusted for Townsend deprivation score [fifths, unknown (0.1%)], racial/ethnic group [White, mixed background, Asian, Black, other, and unknown (0.6%)], height [<170, ≥170–<175, ≥175–<180, ≥180 cm, and unknown (0.4%)], lives with a wife or partner (no, yes), BMI (categories as defined above), cigarette smoking [never, former, current light smoker (1–14 cigarettes per day), current heavy smoker (≥15 cigarettes per day), current (number of cigarettes per day unknown), and smoking status unknown (0.6%)], alcohol consumption (nondrinkers, <1–≤9, ≥10–<20, ≥20 g ethanol/day, unknown (0.5%)], and self-reported diabetes [no, yes, and unknown (0.5%)]. Categories of the adjustment covariates were defined a priori based on previous analyses using UK Biobank data (30).

The blood parameters investigated were chosen a priori. The red blood cell parameters were: red blood cell (erythrocyte) count, red blood cell distribution width, hematocrit, hemoglobin concentration, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH), mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), mean sphered cell volume (MSCV), and reticulocyte count. Platelets parameters were platelet count, platelet distribution width, and mean platelet (thrombocyte) volume. White blood cells parameters were white blood cell (leukocyte) count, neutrophil count, eosinophil count, basophil count, monocyte count, and lymphocyte count. Summary descriptions of hematologic parameters and measurements are in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Summary description of hematologic parameters and measurement/calculation methods by UK Biobank.

Due to measurement error and within-person variability, using single measures at baseline may lead to substantial underestimation of potential associations with disease risk (i.e., regression dilution bias; ref. 31). UK Biobank repeated the blood measurements during follow-up in a subsample of 8,667 men. HRs for trend were estimated per one unit increase in SD and were corrected for regression dilution bias using the MacMahon–Peto method (32). This method divides the subjects into fifths at baseline measurement and calculates the difference between the mean parameter measurement in the top and bottom quintile groups for both the baseline and a second measurement in order to estimate a ratio of ranges (32). In the categorical analysis, hematologic data were categorized into fifths of the distribution of the whole cohort at study baseline. HRs were calculated relative to the lowest fifth of each blood parameter. The variance of the log risk in each group was calculated (from the variances and covariances of the log risk) and used to obtain group-specific 95% CIs, which enabled comparisons across different exposure categories (33).

The proportional hazards assumption was tested using Schoenfeld residuals and revealed no evidence of deviation from the assumption.

Stratified analyses

To examine whether associations with prostate cancer risk differed for cancers diagnosed shortly after recruitment or in men who were diagnosed at a younger age, heterogeneity in the associations of hematologic indices with incident prostate cancer was tested by time from recruitment to diagnosis and mortality (<4; ≥4 years) and age at diagnosis (<65; ≥65 years). Stratified Cox models were fitted based on competing risks, and heterogeneity in the risk coefficients and standard errors in the two subgroups was tested using the χ2 test of heterogeneity (11).

For noncase-defined characteristics, heterogeneity in the associations with incident prostate cancer by age at blood collection (<60, ≥60 years), BMI (<30, ≥30 kg/m2), smoking (never, ever smokers), and diabetes status (yes, no) was tested using the χ2 test of interaction between subgroups.

Sensitivity analyses

Family history of prostate cancer was not included as an adjustment factor in the primary analysis due to the limited availability of data (45.1% missing/unknown). Family history of prostate cancer was further adjusted for as a sensitivity analysis [no, yes (brother or father), and unknown]. To adjust for the possibility of laboratory drift, analyses were repeated following additional adjustment for year of blood collection (continuous).

The primary analysis was repeated after: (i) excluding men who reported that they were regularly taking folic acid, folate, or multivitamin supplementation at baseline (n = 41,323); (ii) excluding men who reported that they were regularly taking prescription hydroxyurea, interferon, heparin, erythropoietin, anemia treatment, immunosuppressants, antihistamines, or anti-inflammatories at baseline (n = 64,284); and (iii) after removing outliers [outside the range of (lower quartile – 3 × interquartile range, upper quartile + 3 × interquartile range)], the number of outliers identified ranged from n = 195 for mean platelet volume to n = 5,199 for basophils.

All tests of significance were two-sided, and P values <0.01 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using Stata version 14.1 (Stata Corporation), and figures were created in R version 3.2.3.

Results

Note that 209,686 men were included in this analysis, and after a mean follow-up of 6.8 years (SD = 1.3 years), 5,723 (2.7%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 323 died from the disease (numbers of incident cases and deaths are smaller for some exposure variables). Table 2 summarizes the baseline characteristics of study participants. Mean age at recruitment was 56.6 years (SD = 8.2), and men had a mean BMI of 27.8 kg/m2. Note that 12% of men were current smokers, and 43% reported drinking ≥20 g alcohol per day. Twenty-eight percent reported having a PSA test prior to baseline, and 7.5% had a family history of prostate cancer.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Baseline characteristics and blood indices of men free from prostate cancer and men who developed prostate cancer.

Median and interquartile range values for hematologic data are displayed in Table 2. Characteristics of men by red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts by 1st, 3rd, and 5th fifths at baseline are displayed in Table 3. Regression dilution ratios are displayed in Supplementary Table S1. Basophil count and MCHC had the lowest regression dilution ratios (0.20 and 0.24, respectively). Regression dilution ratios for the other hematologic parameters ranged between 0.53 and 0.83 (Supplementary Table S1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Baseline characteristics of 209,686 men in UK Biobank according to observed red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell count at initial assessment.

Correlations between blood indices

Red blood cell count was negatively correlated with MCV and MCH (r = −0.50 and −0.54, respectively). Platelet count was negatively correlated with mean platelet volume and platelet distribution width (r = −0.47 and −0.35, respectively). White blood cell counts were at least weakly positively correlated with each other, and with platelet count (r = 0.24; Supplementary Fig. S1).

Associations between hematologic data and prostate cancer incidence and mortality

Estimates are corrected for regression dilution bias; uncorrected results are displayed in Supplementary Table S2.

Higher total red blood cell count was associated with an elevated risk of prostate cancer (HR per 1 SD increase = 1.09, 95% CI, 1.05–1.13; Ptrend < 0.001). Higher MCV (HR per 1 SD increase = 0.90, 95% CI, 0.87–0.93), MCH (0.90, 0.87–0.93), MCHC (0.87, 0.77–0.97), and MSCV (0.91, 0.87–0.94) were associated with a lower prostate cancer risk (Fig. 1). Red blood cell indices were not associated with prostate cancer mortality (Supplementary Fig. S2).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

HR (95% CIs) of prostate cancer diagnosis by fifths of red blood cell indices. HRs are stratified by region and age at recruitment and adjusted for age (underlying time variable), Townsend deprivation score, racial/ethnic group, height, lives with a wife or partner, BMI, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and diabetes. HRs per 1 SD increase are adjusted for regression dilution bias.

Higher platelet count (HR per 1 SD increase = 1.07, 95% CI, 1.04–1.11) was associated with increased risk of prostate cancer diagnosis (Fig. 2). Platelet indices were not associated with prostate cancer mortality (Supplementary Fig. S3).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

HR (95% CIs) of prostate cancer diagnosis by fifths of platelet indices. HRs are stratified by region and age at recruitment and adjusted for age (underlying time variable), Townsend deprivation score, racial/ethnic group, height, lives with a wife or partner, BMI, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and diabetes. HRs per 1 SD increase are adjusted for regression dilution bias.

White blood cell counts were not associated with prostate cancer diagnosis (Fig. 3), but higher white blood cell (HR per 1 SD increase = 1.14, 95% CI, 1.05–1.24) and neutrophil counts (1.27, 1.09–1.48) were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer mortality (Fig. 4).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

HR (95% CIs) of prostate cancer diagnosis by fifths of white blood cell indices. HRs are stratified by region and age at recruitment and adjusted for age (underlying time variable), Townsend deprivation score, racial/ethnic group, height, lives with a wife or partner, BMI, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and diabetes. HRs per 1 SD increase are adjusted for regression dilution bias.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

HR (95% CIs) of prostate cancer mortality by fifths of white blood cell indices. HRs are stratified by region and age at recruitment and adjusted for age (underlying time variable), Townsend deprivation score, racial/ethnic group, height, lives with a wife or partner, BMI, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and diabetes. HRs per 1 SD increase are adjusted for regression dilution bias.

Stratified analyses

There was some evidence of heterogeneity in the associations of red blood cell and platelet parameters with prostate cancer risk by time to diagnosis, with stronger associations observed in men diagnosed ≥4 years from baseline blood collection for MCH and MSCV parameters (Phet all < 0.01; Table 4). There was also some evidence that associations between white blood cell counts and prostate cancer mortality were stronger with a longer follow-up time, but numbers of prostate cancer deaths were limited (Supplementary Table S3). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in the associations with prostate cancer risk by age at diagnosis (Supplementary Table S4), age at recruitment, smoking, BMI, or diabetes status (Phet > 0.01 for all).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Multivariable-adjusted HRs (95% CIs) for prostate cancer by time to diagnosis in relation to hematologic indices.

Sensitivity analyses

Further adjustment for family history of prostate cancer and date of blood collection made no appreciable difference to the associations. Associations remained consistent following the exclusion of: (i) men who reported regularly taking multivitamins/folate supplementation, (ii) medications that are known to influence hematologic parameters, and (iii) following the exclusion of outliers. White blood cell and reticulocyte counts were positively skewed; however, log-transformation did not materially alter the results.

Discussion

The findings from this large prospective study in British men provide evidence for the associations of hematologic parameters with prostate cancer risk. Higher red blood cell and platelet counts were associated with an elevated risk of prostate cancer diagnosis, and higher MCV, MCH, MCHC, and MSCV were associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer diagnosis, but red blood cell and platelet parameters were not associated with prostate cancer mortality. In contrast, white blood cell counts were not associated with risk of prostate cancer diagnosis, but higher white blood cell and neutrophil counts were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer mortality.

The observed associations of higher red blood cell counts, but lower measures of red blood cell volumes with prostate cancer risk may support the hypothesized roles of testosterone, folate, vitamin B12, and/or iron in prostate cancer development. Testosterone and dietary factors (folate, vitamin B12, and iron) play a role in red blood cell production and deficiencies in any of these factors can cause anemia (5–10, 34–37). We observed an association between a greater number of red blood cells, but lower red blood cell volumes and an elevated risk of prostate cancer diagnosis. Macrocytic anemia is a subtype of anemia which is characterized by larger red cell volumes and is commonly associated with folate and vitamin B12 deficiencies (38); therefore, our results are compatible with prior hypotheses that folate and/or B12 may have a positive association with prostate cancer risk, whereas iron deficiencies are more commonly associated with smaller red blood cell volumes, i.e., microcytic anemia (39). Although testosterone is associated with red blood cell production, any possible role in determining red blood cell size is not well described.

Red blood cell production is primarily controlled by the kidneys (via erythropoietin; ref. 3). Previous epidemiological studies have observed a reduced risk of prostate cancer in men with chronic kidney disease (40); therefore, the associations of red blood cell indices with prostate cancer risk may be related to the correlates of kidney function [including testosterone (41), insulin-like growth factor-I (42), iron (43), and metabolic syndrome (44)].

The finding of a positive association of higher platelet count with risk of prostate cancer diagnosis, and higher white blood cell and neutrophil counts with increased risk of prostate cancer mortality may support the hypothesized roles of chronic inflammation and/or infection in prostate cancer development and/or progression (16, 45). Previous studies have reported that inflammatory markers were associated with an increased risk of several cancers (20, 22, 23), but the associations with prostate cancer were inconsistent (20, 23, 46). Furthermore, the associations of intraprostatic inflammation with prostate tumor prognosis remain unclear (47).

It is possible that the associations of blood cells with prostate cancer may indicate causal patterns relating to general cell behavior (48, 49). Future analyses, such as Mendelian randomization, may be beneficial in identifying the possible causal components that may account for these associations (50).

It is possible that the associations observed in the current study may be at least partially explained by reverse causation. Cancer can cause anemia by producing cytokines, which lead to iron sequestration (51). Tumors can also increase platelet indices, even during early cancer (52). However, the associations of red blood cell and platelet indices with prostate cancer diagnosis were stronger with a longer follow-up time, which may suggest that they are etiologically relevant markers. Tumors may also increase the half-life of neutrophils, which can then promote tumor growth and metastasis (53, 54). In this analysis, associations of white blood cell counts with prostate cancer mortality were stronger with longer durations of follow-up. This suggests that these associations with prostate cancer death may not be explained by reverse causation, although there was limited statistical power to assess heterogeneity by time to prostate cancer death.

This analysis has a number of strengths. With data on over 200,000 men, this is the largest prospective study to examine a wide range of hematologic measures in relation to prostate cancer–specific risk. Blood indices were measured across the entire cohort via standardized methods and participants were well characterized. The availability of repeat measures in a subsample of men allowed for correction for regression dilution bias, and therefore more accurate estimates of the associations with risk.

A limitation of this analysis was that it was not possible to rule out detection bias. These blood indices may be associated with health status [for instance, low red blood cell count is associated with hypertension, hypothyroidism, and congestive heart failure (55), whereas high white blood cell count is associated with increased total and cardiovascular mortality (56, 57)]. It is also difficult to rule out the possibility of residual confounding due to other potential lifestyle-related risk factors. Comorbidities, socioeconomic status, and poor health may affect PSA test attendance, but PSA testing attendance after baseline was not known. Prostate tumor stage and grade data are not currently available in UK Biobank. In the absence of data on tumor characteristics, associations with prostate cancer death may be considered more etiologically relevant than overall diagnosis, although the statistical power to examine associations with death was limited. The associations of white blood cell counts with prostate cancer death may indicate that these indices are associated with more clinically relevant forms of prostate cancer, or may be evidence of their role in tumor progression. UK Biobank participants are healthier and better educated than the sampling population, and have a higher rate of incident prostate cancer (25), which may be related to a greater PSA testing attendance (58). Therefore, risk estimates may not be generalizable to all populations. The UK Biobank prospective cohort study design is underpowered to detect associations with acute short-term infection and inflammation, and associations with inflammation and infection are likely to reflect chronic long-term exposure. However, acute short-term inflammation and infection may decrease regression dilution ratios. Although the blood measurements were generally consistent between baseline measurement and the repeat measurement, MCHC and basophil count had low regression dilution ratios. Lower regression dilution ratios will not affect the P value, but will increase the uncertainty of the risk estimates. Blood indices were used as surrogate markers of a range of possible risk factors. Circulating folate, vitamin B12, iron, and testosterone concentrations or markers of inflammation (such as C-reactive protein) were not available at the time of analysis; therefore, it was not possible to investigate further any potential mechanistic factors which may account for the observed associations.

In conclusion, this analysis of more than 200,000 men observed associations of several hematologic parameters with prostate cancer risk. The associations of blood indices with prostate cancer risk and mortality implicate shared common causes with prostate cancer. These relationships are compatible with the hypothesized relationships of testosterone, folate, vitamin B12, and inflammation with prostate cancer development. Future analyses, such as Mendelian randomization, may be beneficial in identifying the possible causal components that may account for these associations.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: E.L. Watts, A. Perez-Cornago, R.C. Travis, T.J. Key

Development of methodology: E.L. Watts, A. Perez-Cornago

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): R.C. Travis

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): E.L. Watts, J. Kothari

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: E.L. Watts, A. Perez-Cornago, J. Kothari, N.E. Allen, R.C. Travis, T.J. Key

Study supervision: A. Perez-Cornago, R.C. Travis, T.J. Key

Acknowledgments

This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank resource under application number 3282. Data analysis was supported by Cancer Research UK grants C8221/A19170, C8221/A29017, and C8221/A20986. E.L. Watts was supported by the Nuffield Department of Population Health Early Career Research Fellowship.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Online (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29:1615–26

  • Received December 13, 2019.
  • Revision received February 12, 2020.
  • Accepted May 19, 2020.
  • Published first May 26, 2020.
  • ©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ferlay J,
    2. Ervik M,
    3. Lam F,
    4. Colombet M,
    5. Mery L,
    6. Piñeros M,
    7. et al.
    Global cancer observatory: cancer today. Lyon (France): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2018. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Pernar CH,
    2. Ebot EM,
    3. Wilson KM,
    4. Mucci LA
    . The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2018;8:a030361.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Valent P,
    2. Büsche G,
    3. Theurl I,
    4. Uras IZ,
    5. Germing U,
    6. Stauder R,
    7. et al.
    Normal and pathological erythropoiesis in adults: from gene regulation to targeted treatment concepts. Haematologica 2018;103:1593–603.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Coviello AD,
    2. Kaplan B,
    3. Lakshman KM,
    4. Chen T,
    5. Singh AB,
    6. Bhasin S
    . Effects of graded doses of testosterone on erythropoiesis in healthy young and older men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93:914–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Ferrucci L,
    2. Maggio M,
    3. Bandinelli S,
    4. Basaria S,
    5. Lauretani F,
    6. Ble A,
    7. et al.
    Low testosterone levels and the risk of anemia in older men and women. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1380–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Koury MJ,
    2. Ponka P
    . New insights into erythropoiesis: the roles of folate, vitamin B12, and iron. Annu Rev Nutr 2004;24:105–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Carrero JJ,
    2. Barany P,
    3. Yilmaz MI,
    4. Qureshi AR,
    5. Sonmez A,
    6. Heimbürger O,
    7. et al.
    Testosterone deficiency is a cause of anaemia and reduced responsiveness to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in men with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27:709–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Roy CN,
    2. Snyder PJ,
    3. Stephens-Shields AJ,
    4. Artz AS,
    5. Bhasin S,
    6. Cohen HJ,
    7. et al.
    Association of testosterone levels with anemia in older men: a controlled clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:480–90.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Schwartz SO,
    2. Flowers VC
    . Morphologic changes in red blood cell with iron deficiency anemia. JAMA 1946;130:622–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. George-Gay B,
    2. Parker K
    . Understanding the complete blood count with differential. J Perianesth Nurs 2003;18:96–117.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Watts EL,
    2. Appleby PN,
    3. Perez-Cornago A,
    4. Bueno-de-Mesquita HB,
    5. Chan JM,
    6. Chen C,
    7. et al.
    Low free testosterone and prostate cancer risk: a collaborative analysis of 20 prospective studies. Eur Urol 2018;74:585–94.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Price AJ,
    2. Travis RC,
    3. Appleby PN,
    4. Albanes D,
    5. Gurrea AB,
    6. Bjørge T,
    7. et al.
    Circulating folate and vitamin B(12) and risk of prostate cancer: a collaborative analysis of individual participant data from six cohorts including 6875 cases and 8104 controls. Euro Urol 2016;70:941–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Choi JY,
    2. Neuhouser ML,
    3. Barnett MJ,
    4. Hong C-C,
    5. Kristal AR,
    6. Thornquist MD,
    7. et al.
    Iron intake, oxidative stress-related genes (MnSOD and MPO) and prostate cancer risk in CARET cohort. Carcinogenesis 2008;29:964–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ghoshal K,
    2. Bhattacharyya M
    . Overview of platelet physiology: its hemostatic and nonhemostatic role in disease pathogenesis. ScientificWorldJournal 2014;2014:781857.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Multhoff G,
    2. Molls M,
    3. Radons J
    . Chronic inflammation in cancer development. Front Immunol 2011;2:98.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Coussens LM,
    2. Werb Z
    . Inflammation and cancer. Nature 2002;420:860.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Doat S,
    2. Marous M,
    3. Rebillard X,
    4. Trétarre B,
    5. Lamy P-J,
    6. Soares P,
    7. et al.
    Prostatitis, other genitourinary infections and prostate cancer risk: Influence of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? Results from the EPICAP study. Int J Cancer 2018;143:1644–51.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Sfanos KS,
    2. Isaacs WB,
    3. De Marzo AM
    . Infections and inflammation in prostate cancer. Am J Clin Exp Urol 2013;1:3–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Adris N,
    2. Chua ACG,
    3. Knuiman MW,
    4. Divitini ML,
    5. Trinder D,
    6. Olynyk JK
    . A prospective cohort examination of haematological parameters in relation to cancer death and incidence: the Busselton Health Study. BMC Cancer 2018;18:863.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Allin KH,
    2. Bojesen SE,
    3. Nordestgaard BG
    . Inflammatory biomarkers and risk of cancer in 84,000 individuals from the general population. Int J Cancer 2016;139:1493–500.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Bailey SER,
    2. Ukoumunne OC,
    3. Shephard EA,
    4. Hamilton W
    . Clinical relevance of thrombocytosis in primary care: a prospective cohort study of cancer incidence using English electronic medical records and cancer registry data. Br J Gen Pract 2017;67:e405–e13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Margolis KL,
    2. Rodabough RJ,
    3. Thomson CA,
    4. Lopez AM,
    5. McTiernan A
    . Prospective study of leukocyte count as a predictor of incident breast, colorectal, endometrial, and lung cancer and mortality in postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:1837–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Van Hemelrijck M,
    2. Holmberg L,
    3. Garmo H,
    4. Hammar N,
    5. Walldius G,
    6. Binda E,
    7. et al.
    Association between levels of C-reactive protein and leukocytes and cancer: three repeated measurements in the Swedish AMORIS study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:428–37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Edgren G,
    2. Bagnardi V,
    3. Bellocco R,
    4. Hjalgrim H,
    5. Rostgaard K,
    6. Melbye M,
    7. et al.
    Pattern of declining hemoglobin concentration before cancer diagnosis. Int J Cancer 2010;127:1429–36.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Fry A,
    2. Littlejohns TJ,
    3. Sudlow C,
    4. Doherty N,
    5. Adamska L,
    6. Sprosen T,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of sociodemographic and health-related characteristics of UK Biobank participants with those of the general population. Am J Epidemiol 2017;186:1026–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Elliott P,
    2. Peakman TC
    . The UK Biobank sample handling and storage protocol for the collection, processing and archiving of human blood and urine. Int J Epidemiol 2008;37:234–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Sheard SM,
    2. Froggatt J
    . UK Biobank haematology data companion document. Stockport (UK): UK Biobank; 2017. Available from: https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/crystal/docs/haematology.pdf.
  28. 28.↵
    UK Biobank. Repeat assessment data. Stockport (UK): UK Biobank; 2013. Available from: https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~bbdatan/Repeat_assessment_doc_v1.0.pdf.
  29. 29.↵
    WHO. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. 10th revision. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2010.
  30. 30.↵
    1. Perez-Cornago A,
    2. Key TJ,
    3. Allen NE,
    4. Fensom GK,
    5. Bradbury KE,
    6. Martin RM,
    7. et al.
    Prospective investigation of risk factors for prostate cancer in the UK Biobank cohort study. Br J Cancer 2017;117:1562–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    1. Clarke R,
    2. Shipley M,
    3. Lewington S,
    4. Youngman L,
    5. Collins R,
    6. Marmot M,
    7. et al.
    Underestimation of risk associations due to regression dilution in long-term follow-up of prospective studies. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:341–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. MacMahon S,
    2. Peto R,
    3. Cutler J,
    4. Collins R,
    5. Sorlie P,
    6. Neaton J,
    7. et al.
    Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 1, prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet 1990;335:765–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Plummer M
    . Improved estimates of floating absolute risk. Stat Med 2004;23:93–104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Hunt A,
    2. Harrington D,
    3. Robinson S
    . Vitamin B12 deficiency. BMJ 2014;349:g5226.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Snow CF
    . Laboratory diagnosis of vitamin b12 and folate deficiency: a guide for the primary care physician. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:1289–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. d'Onofrio G,
    2. Chirillo R,
    3. Zini G,
    4. Caenaro G,
    5. Tommasi M,
    6. Micciulli G
    . Simultaneous measurement of reticulocyte and red blood cell indices in healthy subjects and patients with microcytic and macrocytic anemia. Blood 1995;85:818–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Barton JC,
    2. Bertoli LF,
    3. Rothenberg BE
    . Peripheral blood erythrocyte parameters in hemochromatosis: evidence for increased erythrocyte hemoglobin content. J Lab Clin Med 2000;135:96–104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Aslinia F,
    2. Mazza JJ,
    3. Yale SH
    . Megaloblastic anemia and other causes of macrocytosis. Clin Med Res 2006;4:236–41.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Uprichard WO,
    2. Uprichard J
    . Investigating microcytic anaemia. BMJ 2013;346:f3154.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Wong G,
    2. Staplin N,
    3. Emberson J,
    4. Baigent C,
    5. Turner R,
    6. Chalmers J,
    7. et al.
    Chronic kidney disease and the risk of cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis of 32,057 participants from six prospective studies. BMC Cancer 2016;16:488.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Edey MM
    . Male sexual dysfunction and chronic kidney disease. Front Med 2017;4:32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Kamenický P,
    2. Mazziotti G,
    3. Lombès M,
    4. Giustina A,
    5. Chanson P
    . Growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor-1, and the kidney: pathophysiological and clinical implications. Endocr Rev 2014;35:234–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Babitt JL,
    2. Lin HY
    . Mechanisms of anemia in CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol 2012;23:1631–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Pecoits-Filho R,
    2. Abensur H,
    3. Betônico CCR,
    4. Machado AD,
    5. Parente EB,
    6. Queiroz M,
    7. et al.
    Interactions between kidney disease and diabetes: dangerous liaisons. Diabetol Metab Syndr 2016;8:50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Caini S,
    2. Gandini S,
    3. Dudas M,
    4. Bremer V,
    5. Severi E,
    6. Gherasim A
    . Sexually transmitted infections and prostate cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol 2014;38:329–38.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    1. Toriola AT,
    2. Laukkanen JA,
    3. Kurl S,
    4. Nyyssonen K,
    5. Ronkainen K,
    6. Kauhanen J
    . Prediagnostic circulating markers of inflammation and risk of prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 2013;133:2961–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Zhou CK,
    3. Rencsok EM,
    4. Fall K,
    5. Lotan TL,
    6. Loda M,
    7. et al.
    A prospective study of intraprostatic inflammation, focal atrophy, and progression to lethal prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2019;28:2047–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Gibson CJ,
    2. Steensma DP
    . New insights from studies of clonal hematopoiesis. Clin Cancer Res 2018;24:4633–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Wu L,
    2. Saxena S,
    3. Awaji M,
    4. Singh RK
    . Tumor-associated neutrophils in cancer: going pro. Cancers 2019;11:564.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    1. Yarmolinsky J,
    2. Wade KH,
    3. Richmond RC,
    4. Langdon RJ,
    5. Bull CJ,
    6. Tilling KM,
    7. et al.
    Causal inference in cancer epidemiology: what is the role of Mendelian randomization? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2018;27:995–1010.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Spivak JL
    . The anaemia of cancer: death by a thousand cuts. Nat Rev Cancer 2005;5:543–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Menter DG,
    2. Tucker SC,
    3. Kopetz S,
    4. Sood AK,
    5. Crissman JD,
    6. Honn KV
    . Platelets and cancer: a casual or causal relationship: revisited. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2014;33:231–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Swierczak A,
    2. Mouchemore KA,
    3. Hamilton JA,
    4. Anderson RL
    . Neutrophils: important contributors to tumor progression and metastasis. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2015;34:735–51.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    1. Coffelt SB,
    2. Wellenstein MD,
    3. de Visser KE
    . Neutrophils in cancer: neutral no more. Nat Rev Cancer 2016;16:431.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Gandhi SJ,
    2. Hagans I,
    3. Nathan K,
    4. Hunter K,
    5. Roy S
    . Prevalence, comorbidity and investigation of anemia in the primary care office. J Clin Med Res 2017;9:970–80.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    1. Kabat GC,
    2. Kim MY,
    3. Manson JE,
    4. Lessin L,
    5. Lin J,
    6. Wassertheil-Smoller S,
    7. et al.
    White blood cell count and total and cause-specific mortality in the Women's Health Initiative. Am J Epidemiol 2017;186:63–72.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    1. Vinholt PJ,
    2. Hvas AM,
    3. Frederiksen H,
    4. Bathum L,
    5. Jørgensen MK,
    6. Nybo M
    . Platelet count is associated with cardiovascular disease, cancer and mortality: a population-based cohort study. Thromb Res 2016;148:136–42.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    1. Littlejohns TJ,
    2. Travis RC,
    3. Key TJ,
    4. Allen NE
    . Lifestyle factors and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in UK Biobank: implications for epidemiological research. Cancer Epidemiol 2016;45:40–6.
    OpenUrl
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 29 (8)
August 2020
Volume 29, Issue 8
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Hematologic Markers and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Analysis in UK Biobank
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Hematologic Markers and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Analysis in UK Biobank
Eleanor L. Watts, Aurora Perez-Cornago, Jaimal Kothari, Naomi E. Allen, Ruth C. Travis and Timothy J. Key
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev August 1 2020 (29) (8) 1615-1626; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1525

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Hematologic Markers and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Analysis in UK Biobank
Eleanor L. Watts, Aurora Perez-Cornago, Jaimal Kothari, Naomi E. Allen, Ruth C. Travis and Timothy J. Key
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev August 1 2020 (29) (8) 1615-1626; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1525
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Urinary Melatonin in Relation to Breast Cancer Risk
  • Endometrial Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Cross-Cancer GWAS
  • Risk Factors of Subsequent CNS Tumor after Pediatric Cancer
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement