Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-ORG-131 standard review

Genetic test of gallbladder removal and bowel cancer

Associations of cholecystectomy with the risk of colorectal cancer: a Mendelian randomization study.

Overview

Chen L et al.. Chin Med J (Engl) 2023 · PMID 37027252 · DOI 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002612

A genetic analysis found no sign that gallbladder removal itself causes bowel cancer, but gallstone disease might.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Use genetics to test causality

How was the study done?

Mendelian randomisation

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

Large genetic datasets

What was actually found?

No causal effect of cholecystectomy on CRC

How large was the observed effect?

OR 1.54 (0.61-3.92)

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Gallstones, not the operation, may explain links

What are the study's limitations?

Weak instruments, wide CIs

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Contradicts causal claim

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Applicable

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Not definitive

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Chen L et al.
Journal
Chin Med J (Engl)
Year
2023
Identifier
PMID 37027252 DOI 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002612
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref works API 2026-10-26
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

Not stated in abstract.

2. Research question

Does genetic liability to cholecystectomy causally affect CRC and other outcomes, independent of cholelithiasis?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Other – Two-sample and multivariable Mendelian randomisation study
Population

GWAS summary data

Country

Multinational (GWAS consortia)

Period

Not applicable

Sample size

GWAS summary statistics (instruments explain 1.76% of variance)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Genome-wide significant variants

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Genetic liability to cholecystectomy; cholelithiasis

Comparator

n/a

Endpoints

CRC, colon, rectal cancer; other outcomes

Statistical methods

MR (OR per genetic liability)

5. Actual results

Results

Cholecystectomy not associated with CRC (OR 1.543, 95% CI 0.607-3.924), nor colon or rectal cancer. Cholelithiasis liability increased CRC risk (OR 1.041, 1.010-1.073), also after adjustment for cholecystectomy (OR 1.061, 1.002-1.125). Possible increase in IBS (OR 7.573, 1.096-52.318).

Absolute risks

Not applicable

Authors' conclusion

Cholecystectomy might not increase CRC risk; gallstone liability may; needs further proof.

6. Strengths

  • MR reduces confounding
  • Separates gallstones from surgery

7. Weaknesses

  • Weak instruments (1.76% variance)
  • Very wide CIs
  • Genetic liability to surgery is an unusual exposure

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
none applicable
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

MR assumptions (pleiotropy, instrument strength) are a concern.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Imprecise null for surgery; suggests gallstone disease rather than surgery may drive observational associations.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Tests causality for the cholecystectomy-cancer association.

11. Independent contrary findings

Observational right-colon signals (I-ORG-129, A-ORG-06).

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Mostly European-ancestry GWAS.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Weak but relevant argument against a causal effect of cholecystectomy on CRC.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultslow
Directnessindirect
Reproducibilityunknown
Consistency with the overall evidencemixed
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Better-powered MR.

15. Linked fact checks