Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Family history of prostate and colorectal cancer and risk of colorectal cancer in the Women’s health initiative

BMC Cancer201717:848

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3873-5

Received: 16 February 2017

Accepted: 4 December 2017

Published: 13 December 2017

Abstract

Background

Evidence suggests that risk of colorectal and prostate cancer is increased among those with a family history of the same disease, particularly among first-degree relatives. However, the aggregation of colorectal and prostate cancer within families has not been well investigated.

Methods

Analyses were conducted among participants of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) observational cohort, free of cancer at the baseline examination. Subjects were followed for colorectal cancer through August 31st, 2009. A Cox-proportional hazards regression modeling approach was used to estimate risk of colorectal cancer associated with a family history of prostate cancer, colorectal cancer and both cancers among first-degree relatives of all participants and stratified by race (African American vs. White).

Results

Of 75,999 eligible participants, there were 1122 colorectal cancer cases diagnosed over the study period. A family history of prostate cancer alone was not associated with an increase in colorectal cancer risk after adjustment for confounders (aHR =0.94; 95% CI =0.76, 1.15). Separate analysis examining the joint impact, a family history of both colorectal and prostate cancer was associated with an almost 50% increase in colorectal cancer risk (aHR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.04, 2.10), but similar to those with a family history of colorectal cancer only (95% CI = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.11, 1.54).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest risk of colorectal cancer is increased similarly among women with colorectal cancer only and among those with both colorectal and prostate cancer diagnosed among first-degree family members. Future studies are needed to determine the relative contribution of genes and shared environment to the risk of both cancers.

Background

Colorectal cancer is both the 3rd most common invasive cancer diagnosed in the United States (U.S.), and 2nd most common cause of cancer mortality with a predicted 135,430 new cases diagnosed and 50,260 deaths in 2017 [1]. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed among U.S. men with an estimated 161,360 cases and the 2nd leading cause of cancer mortality in men with 26,730 attributed deaths [1]. A positive family history of the same cancer is an important risk factor for both cancers, particularly when it is diagnosed in a first-degree family member [27]. Risk increases with an increasing number of affected relatives and is inversely associated with the age at diagnosis of affected relatives [2, 5, 812]. It is estimated that 3–6% of colorectal cancers may be attributed to rarer familial syndromes, [13] including, but not limited to, germline mutations in MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2 in Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (HNPCC) or Lynch syndrome, APC in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) and STK11 in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS) [14]. These syndromes carry a lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer of up to 90% [15]. The remaining 20–30% of familial cases may be attributed to more common genes of lower penetrance, [15] potentially interacting with environmental factors. In contrast, very few genes have been consistently reported in familial and hereditary prostate cancer apart from BRCA 1 and BRCA2 as well as HOXB13 [1619]. This is despite the fact that inherited predisposition is predicted to account for 30–35% of prostate cancers [20].

Aggregation of colorectal and prostate cancer within families has not been as thoroughly investigated. Epidemiologic studies investigating the clustering of these cancers within families are conducted in populations of primarily European descent [2126], few with an adequate number of minority patients to address racial or ethnic differences in risk associated with clustering of these cancers in families. The rationale for studies focused on clustering of these two tumors within families is partially driven by a similar underlying biology focused on exposure to adipokines (leptin and adiponectin), insulin and insulin-like growth factors, having mitogenic and potentially genotoxic effects on target tissues. The aggregation of colorectal and prostate cancer within families is likely due to a combination of both genes and shared environment, with environmental exposures occurring earlier in life perhaps more important. Similarly to our current knowledge of the contribution of genetics, a number of lifestyle and medical risk factors have been identified in colorectal cancer while very few established risk factors for prostate cancer have been identified apart from family history, age and African American race. Lastly, there are distinct racial differences in risk and survival for both cancers. African Americans are approximately 20% more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 50% more likely to die from the disease compared to their Non-Hispanic white counterparts. Likewise, African American men are approximately 60% more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer and 2.5 times more likely to die compared to white men [27].

The current study evaluates the impact of a family history of prostate cancer and aggregation of prostate and colorectal cancer among first-degree relatives on risk of colorectal cancer in the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI OS). Any evidence of clustering of these two cancers within close family members would have significant clinical implications suggesting that physicians should consider a family history of other cancers in addition to colorectal cancer and recommend earlier and more aggressive screening among women with a positive family history. Colonoscopy screening is an effective tool in reducing both colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. For individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps in a first degree relative diagnosed before age 60 years or multiple first degree relatives diagnosed at any age (excluding suspected familial cancer syndromes), the American Cancer Society recommends colonoscopy screening to begin at age 40 or 10 years prior to the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative, whichever comes first and should occur every 5 years thereafter.. If family members are diagnosed after age 60 years, screening is recommended to begin at age 40 with repeat colonscopy every 10 years [28].

Subjects and methods

The WHI consists of several clinical trials and an observational cohort with over 168,000 U.S. healthy, postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 enrolled with active follow-up of living participants. The study details of the WHI have been previously published [2932]. The WHI initially began as a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of treatment with estrogen and progesterone to reduce the risk of coronary artery disease and a randomized, controlled clinical trial of a low-fat diet compared to a usual diet on risk of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Any woman who was unwilling or ineligible to participate in the clinical trials was given an opportunity to participate in the OS. Detailed information on demographics, personal medical history, and family medical history, lifestyle and behavioral risk factors was collected during a baseline interview on all OS participants.

The WHI OS study enrolled 93,676 postmenopausal women through 40 clinical centers in the United States between October 1, 1993 and December 31, 1998. The WHI OS protocol was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at each center and informed consent was obtained from each participant locally. Each participant completed an interview and physical examination at baseline and at 3 years. Women were deemed ineligible to participate in the OS at baseline if they had a medical history which would impact participation or predicted mortality within 3 years of the baseline exam [29]. Annual questionnaires were mailed to participants to obtain follow-up data focused primarily on changes in medical history and in health behaviors. Colorectal cancers were verified using medical records and pathology was reviewed centrally by trained WHI physician adjudicators [32]. For the current study, women with any prevalent cancer at the baseline interview (n = 11,678), or those women whose colorectal cancer was ascertained by death certificate only (n = 97) were excluded (Fig. 1). In addition, we excluded women who had missing information on family history of either colorectal cancer (n = 3363) or prostate cancer (n = 1912), as well as women with an unknown period of follow-up (n = 627). Follow-up documentation of incident colorectal cancers was conducted through August 31st, 2009.
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Observational Study (OS)

Baseline data collection

At baseline, all participants had height, weight, waist and hip circumference, and blood pressure measured, and their body mass index (BMI) in kg/m2, calculated from measures of weight and height. Participants also completed a standardized self-administered questionnaire collecting information on demographics (including self-reported race), occupation, lifestyle risk factors for various chronic diseases (i.e., smoking, alcohol consumption and physical activity), reproductive and medical history, medication use and cancer screening behavior.

All participants were asked about their family medical history including cancer diagnoses among close relatives. The most detailed cancer family history data gathered from women were for colorectal and breast cancer, primarily due to the impact of these cancers on morbidity and mortality, as well as their inclusion as secondary end points in one or more of the clinical trial components. For both of these cancers, the number of affected first-degree relatives was recorded, the approximate age at diagnosis for each affected relative, as well as the relationship to the participant. For other cancers like prostate cancer (endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancers), only the number of affected first-degree, full-blood relatives was recorded. Data on half-siblings were not collected.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were conducted using Statistical Analysis Systems software (SAS Inc. v.9.3, Cary, NC). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the baseline characteristics of the study population including age, race/ethnicity, education, WHI region, BMI, waist circumference, smoking history, physical activity (in metabolic equivalent [or MET] hours per week), alcohol intake, aspirin use, hormone therapy use, insurance coverage, history of diabetes, family history of other cancers (non-colorectal, non-prostate), colorectal cancer screening within previous 5 years, and general health. Differences in the distribution of baseline characteristics between colorectal cancer cases and non-cases were evaluated separately using chi-square tests and the associated p-values. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for colorectal cancer associated with having a family history of colorectal cancer and/or prostate cancer with adjustment for important confounders. Significant baseline characteristics were included individually in preliminary regression models. Of those characteristics, if their inclusion in the model changed the hazard ratios related to family history of either prostate or colorectal cancer by ≥10%, then these characteristics were considered important confounding variables. Models were generated for all participants combined as well as stratified by race, and for the latter analysis, participants of either non-white, non-African American were excluded. For all analyses, family history was restricted to first-degree, full blood relatives. As adjustment for some baseline characteristics such as number of first degree relatives, hormone replacement therapy use, diabetes, waist circumference, physical activity, smoking and aspirin use did not appreciably change risk estimates, final models included mutual adjustment for family history of colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, family history of other cancers, as well as age, race, and colonoscopy screening history.

Results

Baseline characteristics of the 75,999 women included in the study are summarized in Table 1. We identified 1122 incident colorectal cancer cases during follow-up of participants with a median number of years of follow-up in the cohort of 14.6 years (InterQuartile Range = 8.5, 16.2) These cases were older at time of baseline survey (median age 66 v. 63 years; p < 0.0001), and were more likely than non-cases to be non-Hispanic white (85.0% v. 83.2%; p = 0.008), obese (28.6% v. 24.2%; p < 0.0001), have a greater waist circumference (p < 0.0001), a history of smoking (50.9% v. 47.8%; p = 0.04), and diabetes (7.6% v. 5.3%; 0.0008). Cases were less likely to have had a colonoscopy within 5 years of baseline interview (29.9% v. 33.5%; p = 0.03), and less likely to have used hormone replacement therapy (61.6% v. 69.5%; p < 0.0001).
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of Women Participating in the WHI OS

 

Colorectal cancer cases

Non-cases

 

Characteristic

N

(%)a

N

(%)a

p-valueb

Total population

1122

1.5

74,877

98.5

 

Age at baseline

     

  < 60

227

20.2

24,900

33.3

< 0.0001

 60–69

529

47.1

32,959

44.0

 

  > = 70

366

32.6

17,018

22.7

 

Age at diagnosis

     

 50–59

55

4.9

  

 60–69

296

26.4

  

 70–79

518

46.2

  

 80+

253

22.5

  

Race/Ethnicity

    

0.008

 Non-Hispanic White

954

85.0

62,296

83.2

 

 Black

98

8.7

5930

7.9

 

 Other

68

6.1

6449

8.6

 

 Unknown

2

0.2

202

0.3

 

Education

    

0.63

 No High school diploma

49

4.4

3668

4.9

 

 High school diploma/GED

176

15.7

12,045

16.1

 

 College graduate or above

890

79.3

58,560

78.2

 

 Unknown

7

0.6

604

0.8

 

Region

    

0.005

 Northeast

283

25.2

17,421

23.3

 

 South

236

21.0

19,185

25.6

 

 Midwest

251

22.4

16,427

21.9

 

 West

352

31.4

21,844

29.2

 

Body mass index (kg/m2)

    

0.0003

 Normal weight (<25.0)

401

35.7

30,664

41.0

 

 Overweight (25.0–29.9)

386

34.4

25,238

33.7

 

 Obese (> = 30.0)

321

28.6

18,110

24.2

 

 Unknown

14

1.2

865

1.2

 

Waist (cm)

    

< 0.0001

  ≤ 75

210

18.7

20,114

26.9

 

 75.1–82.5

262

23.4

17,961

24.0

 

 82.6–92.5

282

25.1

18,111

24.2

 

  > 92.5

364

32.4

18,372

24.5

 

 Unknown

4

0.4

319

0.4

 

Physical activity (MET-hours/week)

    

0.10

  ≤ 3.5

320

28.5

19,320

25.8

 

 3.5+ − 10

270

24.1

17,985

24.0

 

 10+ − 20

272

24.2

18,291

24.4

 

  > 20

249

22.2

18,551

24.8

 

 Unknown

11

1.0

730

1.0

 

Smoking

    

0.04

 Never

540

48.1

38,087

50.9

 

 Former

486

43.3

31,334

41.8

 

 Current

85

7.6

4529

6.0

 

 Unknown

11

1.0

927

1.2

 

Alcohol Intake

    

0.05

 Never/Former

318

28.3

22,090

29.5

 

  < 1/week or month

390

34.8

23,667

31.6

 

 1 - < 7/week

260

23.2

19,287

25.8

 

 7+/week

152

13.5

9385

12.5

 

 Unknown

2

0.2

448

0.6

 

Aspirinα

    

0.79

 Never user

720

64.2

48,194

64.4

 

 Inconsistent user

264

23.5

17,087

22.8

 

 Consistent user

138

12.3

9596

12.8

 

Diabetes

    

0.0008

 No

1036

92.3

70,837

94.6%

 

 Yes

85

7.6

3972

5.3%

 

 Unknown

1

0.1

68

0.1%

 

Hysterectomy

    

0.91

 No

677

60.3

45,265

60.5

 

 Yes

445

39.7

29,540

39.5

 

 Unknown

0

0.0

72

0.1

 

Hormone Replacement Therapy Use

    

< 0.0001

 Never

411

36.6

21,419

28.6

 

 Former

238

21.2

14,386

19.2

 

 Current

453

40.4

37,659

50.3

 

 Unknown

20

1.8

1413

1.9

 

Insurance

    

0.49

 No

34

3.0

2555

3.4

 

 Yes

1076

95.9

71,558

95.6

 

 Unknown

12

1.1

764

1.0

 

Colonoscopy within 5 years

    

0.03

 None done

546

48.7

34,785

46.5

 

 No

225

20.1

14,018

18.7

 

 Yes

335

29.9

25,068

33.5

 

 Unknown

16

1.4

1006

1.3

 

Fecal occult blood test within 5 years

    

0.55

 None done

263

23.4

16,841

22.5

 

 No

207

18.4

13,331

17.8

 

 Yes

635

56.6

43,588

58.2

 

 Unknown

17

1.5

1117

1.5

 

Family History of Cancerc

    

0.89

 No

639

57.0

42,662

57.0

 

 Yes

435

38.8

28,795

38.5

 

 Unknown

48

4.3

3420

4.6

 
 

Median

Range

Median

Range

 

 Age at baseline

66

50–79

63

49–81

 

 Age at diagnosis

74

52–94

 

 Body mass index (kg/m2)

26.8

15.5–66.6

26.0

11.9–69.9

 

aPercentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

bChi-square test - excluding missing data

cCancer other than colorectal or prostate among male or female relatives

α Aspirin usage: Consistent - usage of aspirin reported at both initial screening and 3-year follow-up. Inconsistent - at only one of the 2 surveys

A positive family history of colorectal cancer in a first-degree relative was associated with a 34% increase in risk of colorectal cancer among these women (aHR = 1.34; 95% CI = 1.14, 1.57) with only a marginal increase in the estimate risk when multiple affected first degree relatives were reported, but was not statistically significant (aHR = 1.40; 95% CI = 0.92, 2.11) (Table 2). Family history of prostate cancer was not associated with an increase in risk of colorectal cancer (aHR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.76, 1.15) after controlling for colorectal cancer family history. A family history of both colorectal and prostate cancer was associated with an almost 50% increase in risk of colorectal cancer after adjustment for other important confounding factors (aHR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.04, 2.10). Interestingly, risk of colorectal cancer in African American women with a family history of colorectal cancer appeared slightly greater (aHR = 1.80; 95% CI = 1.10, 2.93) compared with non-Hispanic white women (aHR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.11, 1.55) (Table 3). And while there was no racial difference in colorectal cancer risk among women with a family history of prostate cancer alone (without colorectal cancer), African American women with a family history of both prostate and colorectal cancer had an approximate 75% increase in risk of colorectal cancer (aHR = 1.76; 95% CI = 0.64, 4.81), an estimate greater than for non-Hispanic white women (aHR = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.00, 2.16). No formal testing of heterogeneity by race was performed due to the relatively small number of African American cases.
Table 2

Baseline reported history of colorectal and prostate cancer among first-degree, full-blood relatives and colorectal cancer risk in the WHI OS

Family History of cancer among 1st degree relatives

Colorectal cancer cases

Non-cases

p-value

Crude HR (95% CI)

Multivariable-adjusted

HR (95% CI)a

N

(%)

N

(%)

Total (75,999)

1122

1.5

74,877

98.5

   

Colorectal cancerb

    

<0.001

  

 none

907

80.8

63,678

85.0

 

referent

referent

 1 relative

192

17.1

10,071

13.5

 

1.34 (1.14–1.56)

1.34 (1.14–1.57)

  > 1 relative

23

2.0

1128

1.5

 

1.52 (1.00–2.29)

1.40 (0.92–2.11)

Prostate cancer†

    

0.999

  

 none

1015

90.5

67,737

90.5

 

referent

referent

 1 or more relative

107

9.5

7140

9.5

 

0.97 (0.80–1.19)

0.94(0.76–1.15)

Colorectal and Prostate cancer

    

<0.001

  

 None

834

74.3

58,053

77.5

 

referent

referent

 Colorectal only

181

16.1

9684

12.9

 

1.30 (1.11–1.53)

1.31 (1.11–1.54)

 Prostate only

73

6.5

5625

7.5

 

0.89 (0.70–1.13)

0.88 (0.67–1.11)

 Both

34

3.0

1515

2.0

 

1.60 (1.14–2.26)

1.48 (1.04–2.10)

aModels include age, race, colonoscopy within 5 years of screening

bModels mutually adjust for colorectal cancer and prostate cancer family history

Table 3

Race-specific estimates of colorectal cancer risk associated with family history of colorectal and prostate cancer in the WHI OS

Family History of cancer among 1st degree relatives

White

Black

Colorectal cancer cases

Non-cases

p-value

Multivariable-adjusted HR (95% CI)a

Colorectal cancer cases

Non-cases

p-value

Multivariable-adjusted HR (95% CI)a

N

(%)

N

(%)

N

(%)

N

(%)

Total (78757)

954

2.0

62,296

98.0

  

98

2.0

5930

98.0

  

Colorectal cancer†

    

0.001

     

0.033

 

 none

771

80.8

52,807

84.8

 

referent

77

78.6

5107

86.1

 

referent

 1 or more relatives

183

19.2

9489

15.2

 

1.31 (1.11–1.55)

21

21.4

823

13.9

 

1.80 (1.10–2.93)

Prostate cancerb

    

0.805

     

0.576

 

 none

859

90.0

56,241

90.3

 

referent

89

90.8

5280

89.0

 

referent

 1 or more relatives

95

10.0

6055

9.7

 

0.97 (0.80–1.22)

9

9.2

650

11.0

 

0.69 (0.33–1.42)

Colorectal and Prostate cancer

    

0.005

     

0.146

 

 None

705

73.9

48,010

77.1

 

referent

72

73.5

4612

77.8

 

referent

 Colorectal only

154

16.1

8231

13.2

 

1.28 (1.07–1.52)

17

17.3

668

11.3

 

1.65 (0.97–2.81)

 Prostate only

66

6.9

4797

7.7

 

0.93 (0.72–1.20)

5

5.1

495

8.3

 

0.51 (0.19–1.41)

 Both

29

3.0

1258

2.0

 

1.47 (1.00–2.16)

4

4.1

155

2.6

 

1.76 (0.64–4.81)

aModels include age, colonoscopy within 5 years of baseline

bModels mutually adjust for colorectal and prostate cancer family history

Discussion

Our findings suggest that a family history of prostate cancer alone is not significantly associated with risk of colorectal cancer. Although the highest risk of colorectal cancer was observed among women with a family history of both prostate and colorectal cancer, this estimate was statistically similar to the observed risk associated with having a family history of colorectal cancer only. Nevertheless, the potential for clustering of these tumors within some families have several implications: 1) Because of the known contribution of inherited predisposition for both cancers, the investigation of the clustering of these two cancers within families represents a unique framework or phenotype to identify new susceptibility genes thus contributing to our knowledge of the underlying biology of both diseases. 2) Colorectal cancer is one of the few tumors with effective screening tools that impact both primary and secondary prevention, so that identifying and screening high-risk individuals is critical in reducing both incidence and mortality. 3) It is well known that communication of colorectal cancer family history between family members is critical in risk assessment and making informed decisions about screening. However, having a complete family history of all cancers, among close relatives, even among those of the opposite sex can assist in making these decisions.

These results complement those of a recently published study examining familial clustering of breast and prostate cancer in the WHI. In this study, we observed that a family history of prostate cancer was associated with a modest increase in risk (13%) of breast cancer in the same OS cohort with the highest risk among women reporting both breast and prostate cancer diagnoses among first degree relatives. Interestingly, we examined family history of colorectal cancer and also found a marginal increase in breast cancer risk (HR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.99–1.18) after adjustment for both breast and prostate cancer diagnosed among relatives [33]. The reverse relationship was not observed in this study, as no increase in colorectal cancer risk was observed among women with a family history of breast cancer (aHR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.87–1.15) or women with a family history of both colorectal and breast cancer (aHR = 1.15; 95% CI = 0.85,1.54).

A family history of colorectal cancer, particularly among first-degree relatives is an established risk factor for colorectal cancer, with higher risks observed with a greater number of affected relatives, and with affected siblings (as opposed to parents) and risk inversely related to the age at diagnosis among affected relatives [2, 5, 9, 11]. A meta-analysis of 59 studies produced a pooled estimate of relative risk of 2.24 (95% CI = 2.06, 2.43) associated with having a single, first-degree relative diagnosed with colorectal cancer, while the estimate associated with having 2 or more affected first-degree relatives was 3.97 (95% CI = 2.60, 6.06) [12]. The same meta-analysis estimated the cumulative risk of developing colorectal cancer to age 70 among those with a family history (3.6% or 1 in 30), compared to the general population (1.4% or 1 in 70) with the absolute risk among individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer in multiple affected relatives increasing to 4.1% (or 1 in 24) [12]. These estimates are significantly higher than what was observed in our study. There are a couple of potential explanations for this. One explanation for this discrepancy may stem from the fact that the vast majority of studies included in the meta-analysis are case-control or cross-sectional (43 of 59) as opposed to cohort and therefore subject to different sensitivity in reporting of family history between cancer cases and controls. Furthermore, only 4 of 17 cohort studies providing data for this meta-analysis had cases which were ascertained prospectively. The remaining studies compared the incidence of colorectal cancer in relatives of colorectal cancer cases with what might be expected from the general population. The difference might also be explained by the fact that family history of cancer was assessed only at baseline in the WHI cohort, so that additional cancers diagnosed among family members post-baseline were not captured in this analysis [34].

Fewer studies have examined risk of colorectal cancer associated with a family history of other cancers including prostate cancer [2123, 26]. An excess of endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome families has been widely reported with a 40–60% lifetime risk of diagnosis [35]. Cancers of the stomach, small bowel, pancreas, and ovary have also been reported with less frequency in HNPCC families [14]. In a pooled analysis of case-control studies, Turati et al. observed an increased risk of colorectal cancer associated with a family history of prostate cancer that was similar to the current investigation (ORpooled = 1.6) with higher estimates if the proband was diagnosed younger than age 60 (ORpooled = 2.1). Similarly, an increased risk of prostate cancer was observed to be associated with a family history of colorectal cancer (ORpooled = 1.5) [21]. Other studies report no significant association between colorectal cancer and family history of prostate cancer or vice-versa [3, 2224].

To our knowledge, this is the first investigation to examine familial aggregation of colorectal and prostate cancer in a racially-diverse population and to explore the possibility that the risk relationship differs by race. The number of African American cases (n = 98) limited our ability to formally test for differences in estimates of risk related to family history, however our results generally suggest that African American women with a family history of colorectal cancer and of both colorectal and prostate cancer have a greater risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer compared with non-Hispanic white women. These findings, if replicated in a larger minority sample, are particularly important in that studies have shown that only 30–60% of individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer adhere to screening guidelines [36, 37], with some evidence to suggest that African Americans and Hispanics with a positive family history were less likely than whites to adhere to screening recommendations [36, 38].

The strengths of the current investigation include its relatively large population which allowed for precise estimation of colorectal cancer risk associated with a history of colorectal and prostate cancer among immediate family members, and particularly among those with a family history of both cancers, which is a relatively rare in the general population (~2%). Additionally, the prospective nature of the WHI cohort eliminates the potential for misclassification bias produced by differential recall of family history in colorectal cancer cases compared to non-cases. Other important strengths include the long period of follow-up for outcome with central adjudication of colorectal cancers. Study limitations include the small number of African American women with colorectal cancer in the study as well as the reliance on self-report of family history of cancer. Evidence suggests that self-reported cancer family history among first-degree relatives is generally accurate [39].

Conclusions

In summary, family histories of both colorectal and prostate cancer and colorectal cancer only were associated with the risk of colorectal cancer in women diagnosed after age 50. However, there was no increase in risk associated with having only a family history of prostate cancer, absent colorectal cancer. There was some suggestion that African American women with a positive family history were at a greater risk compared with non-Hispanic whites, a finding deserving further study with a larger number of minorities given the racial disparities in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Abbreviations

aHR: 

adjusted Hazard Ratio

BMI: 

Body Mass Index

CI: 

Confidence Interval

FAP: 

Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

HNPCC: 

Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer

OR: 

Odds Ratio

OS: 

Observational Study

PJS: 

Peutz-Jeghers syndrome

SNP: 

Single Nucleotide Polymorphism

WHI: 

Women’s Health Initiative

Declarations

Funding

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through contracts HHSN268201100046C, HHSN268201100001C, HHSN268201100002C, HHSN268201100003C, HHSN268201100004C, and HHSN271201100004C.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (https://biolincc.nhlbi.nih.gov/studies/whios/), but restrictions to apply to the availability of these data. Data are however available from the WHI upon reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

All authors have approved of the content of this final version of this manuscript. Drs. Beebe-Dimmer and Simon are responsible for the overall content as guarantor(s) and were responsible for the conception, design and interpretation of data analysis and drafting of the manuscript. Ms. Yee was responsible for the data analysis. Drs. Paskett, Schwartz, Lane, Palmer, Bock and Nassir were responsible for the revisions and critical review of drafts.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Women’s Health Initiative was overseen by ethics committee at all 40 clinical centers (Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard University, Brown University, Emory University, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, George Washington University Medical Center, Harbor-UCLA Research and Education Institute, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research [Portland, OR], Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, [Oakland CA], Medical College of Wisconsin, Howard University, Northwestern University, Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke’s Medical Center, Stanford Prevention Research Center, State University at Stony Brook, Ohio State University, University of Arizona, University of Buffalo, University of California-Davis, University of California-Irvine, University of California-Los Angeles, University of California-San Diego, University of Cincinnati, University of Florida, University of Hawaii, University of Iowa, University of Massachusetts, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, University of Miami, University of Minnesota, University of Nevada, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Pittsburgh, University of Tennessee, University of Texas, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine), by the coordinating center (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center), and an independent data and safety monitoring board for the clinical trials. Each institution obtained human subjects committee approval. Each participant provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, USA
(2)
Department of Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, USA
(3)
Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, USA
(4)
Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Columbus, USA
(5)
Department of Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, New York, USA
(6)
Department of Medicine, University of California-San Francisco, California, USA
(7)
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, University of California-Davis, California, USA

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J.Clin. 2017;67:7–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Stanford JL, Ostrander EA. Familial prostate cancer. EpidemiolRev. 2001;23:19–23.Google Scholar
  3. Hayes RB, Liff JM, Pottern LM, et al. Prostate cancer risk in U.S. blacks and whites with a family history of cancer. Int J Cancer. 1995;60:361–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Slattery ML, Levin TR, Ma K, Goldgar D, Holubkov R, Edwards S. Family history and colorectal cancer: predictors of risk. Cancer Causes Control. 2003;14:879–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baglietto L, Jenkins MA, Severi G, et al. Measures of familial aggregation depend on definition of family history: meta-analysis for colorectal cancer. JClinEpidemiol. 2006;59:114–24.Google Scholar
  6. Johnson CM, Wei C, Ensor JE, et al. Meta-analyses of colorectal cancer risk factors. Cancer Causes Control. 2013;24:1207–22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Schoen RE, Razzak A, KJ Y, et al. Incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2015;Google Scholar
  8. Kicinski M, Vangronsveld J, Nawrot TS. An epidemiological reappraisal of the familial aggregation of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS.One. 2011;6:e27130.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Fuchs CS, Giovannucci EL, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Speizer FE, Willett WC. A prospective study of family history and the risk of colorectal cancer. N.Engl.J.Med. 1994;331:1669–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Zeegers MP, Jellema A, Ostrer H. Empiric risk of prostate carcinoma for relatives of patients with prostate carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Cancer. 2003;97:1894–903.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruner DW, Moore D, Parlanti A, Dorgan J, Engstrom P. Relative risk of prostate cancer for men with affected relatives: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J Cancer. 2003;107:797–803.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Butterworth AS, Higgins JP, Pharoah P. Relative and absolute risk of colorectal cancer for individuals with a family history: a meta-analysis. Eur. J Cancer. 2006;42:216–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Samadder NJ, Jasperson K, Burt RW. Hereditary and common familial colorectal cancer: evidence for colorectal screening. DigDisSci. 2015;60:734–47.Google Scholar
  14. Stoffel EM. Screening in GI cancers: the role of genetics. J.Clin Oncologia. 2015;33:1721–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Jasperson KW, Tuohy TM, Neklason DW, Burt RW. Hereditary and familial colon cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:2044–58.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Ewing CM, Ray AM, Lange EM, et al. Germline mutations in HOXB13 and prostate-cancer risk. N.Engl.J.Med. 2012;366:141–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Xu J, Lange EM, Lu L, et al. HOXB13 is a susceptibility gene for prostate cancer: results from the international consortium for prostate cancer genetics (ICPCG). HumGenet. 2012;Google Scholar
  18. Kirchhoff T, Kauff ND, Mitra N, et al. BRCA mutations and risk of prostate cancer in Ashkenazi Jews. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:2918–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallagher DJ, Gaudet MM, Pal P, et al. Germline BRCA mutations denote a clinicopathologic subset of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:2115–21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Carter BS, Carter HB, Isaacs JT. Epidemiologic evidence regarding predisposing factors to prostate cancer. Prostate. 1990;16:187–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Turati F, Edefonti V, Bosetti C, et al. Family history of cancer and the risk of cancer: a network of case-control studies. Ann Oncologia. 2013;24:2651–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Zeegers MP, Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, van den Brandt PAA. Compendium of familial relative risks of cancer among first degree relatives: a population-based study. Int. J Cancer. 2008;123:1664–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hemminki K, Chen B. Familial association of colorectal adenocarcinoma with cancers at other sites. Eur. J Cancer. 2004;40:2480–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Brandt A, Sundquist J, Hemminki K. Risk for incident and fatal prostate cancer in men with a family history of any incident and fatal cancer. Ann Oncologia. 2012;23:251–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Jang JH, Cotterchio M, Gallinger S, Knight JA, Daftary D. Family history of hormonal cancers and colorectal cancer risk: a case-control study conducted in Ontario. Int.J Cancer. 2009;125:918–25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Slattery ML, Kerber RA. Family history of cancer and colon cancer risk: the Utah population database. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86:1618–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Desantis C, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2013. CA Cancer JClin. 2013;63:151–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:307–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Langer RD, White E, Lewis CE, Kotchen JM, Hendrix SL, Trevisan M. The Women’s Health Initiative observational study: baseline characteristics of participants and reliability of baseline measures. AnnEpidemiol. 2003;13:S107–21.Google Scholar
  30. Hays J, Hunt JR, Hubbell FA, et al. The Women’s Health Initiative recruitment methods and results. Ann.Epidemiol. 2003;13:S18–77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Design of the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study. The Women’s Health Initiative Study Group. Control Clin. Trials 1998;19:61–109.Google Scholar
  32. Curb JD, McTiernan A, Heckbert SR, et al. Outcomes ascertainment and adjudication methods in the Women’s Health Initiative. Ann.Epidemiol. 2003;13:S122–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Beebe-Dimmer JL, Yee C, Cote M, et al. Familial clustering of breast and prostate cancer and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer in the Women’s Health Initiative study. Cancer. 2014;Google Scholar
  34. Ziogas A, Horick NK, Kinney AY, et al. Clinically relevant changes in family history of cancer over time. JAMA. 2011;306:172–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Stoffel E, Mukherjee B, Raymond VM, et al. Calculation of risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer among patients with lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1621–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Almario CV, May FP, Ponce NA, Spiegel BM. Racial and ethnic disparities in Colonoscopic examination of individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer. ClinGastroenterolHepatol. 2015;13:1487–95.Google Scholar
  37. Ait OD, Lockett T, Boussioutas A, Hopper JL, Jenkins MA. Screening participation for people at increased risk of colorectal cancer due to family history: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fam Cancer. 2013;12:459–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Hall MJ, Ruth K, Giri VN. Rates and predictors of colorectal cancer screening by race among motivated men participating in a prostate cancer risk assessment program. Cancer. 2012;118:478–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Murff HJ, Spigel DR, Syngal S. Does this patient have a family history of cancer? An evidence-based analysis of the accuracy of family cancer history. JAMA. 2004;292:1480–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement