Risks and Familial Coaggregation of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among First-Degree Relatives of Individuals With Colorectal Cancer

Article information

Psychiatry Investig. 2026;23(6):738-745

Publication date (electronic) : 2026 June 8

doi : https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2025.0460

Dian-Jeng Li ¹^,²

, Shih-Jen Tsai ³^,⁴

, Chih-Ming Cheng ³^,⁴

, Wen-Han Chang ³

, Ya-Mei Bai ³^,⁴

, Tung-Ping Su ³^,⁴^,⁵

, Tzeng-Ji Chen ⁶^,⁷^,⁸

, Mu-Hong Chen^,³^,⁴

, Chih-Sung Liang^,⁹^,¹⁰

¹Department of Addiction Science, Kaohsiung Municipal Kai-Syuan Psychiatric Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

²Department of Nursing, Meiho University, Pingtung, Taiwan

³Department of Psychiatry, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

⁴Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan

⁵Department of Psychiatry, General Cheng Hsin Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

⁶Department of Family Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

⁷Institute of Hospital and Health Care Administration, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan

⁸Department of Family Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Hsinchu Branch, Hsinchu, Taiwan

⁹Department of Psychiatry, Beitou Branch, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

¹⁰Department of Psychiatry, National Defense Medical School, Taipei, Taiwan

Correspondence: Mu-Hong Chen, MD Department of Psychiatry, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Sec. 2, Shihpai Road, Beitou District, Taipei 11217, Taiwan Tel: +886-2-28344012, Fax: +886-2-28344012, E-mail: kremer7119@gmail.com

Correspondence: Chih-Sung Liang, MD Department of Psychiatry, Beitou Branch, Tri-Service General Hospital, No. 60, Xinmin Road, Beitou District, Taipei 11243, Taiwan Tel: +886-2-2895-9808, Fax: +886-222895-7633, E-mail: lcsyfw@gmail.com

Received 2025 December 19; Revised 2026 March 13; Accepted 2026 March 25.

Abstract

Objective

Associations between major mental disorders (MMDs) and colorectal cancer (CRC) have been reported; however, it remains unknown whether this association extends to an individual’s kinship. The aim of this study was to explore the risks of MMDs in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of individuals with CRC.

Methods

We used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. FDRs of individuals with CRC were identified as the index group, and a demographic-matched group was also included as the controls. The primary outcome was the risk of an MMD. A Poisson regression model with robust error variance was used to estimate the relative risks and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 68,965 FDRs of individuals with CRC (38,024 males and 30,941 females) and 275,860 matched controls were included. After adjustments for potential confounders, the FDR-CRC group had a higher risk of autism spectrum disorder than the controls, especially in the males of fathers with CRC. In addition, individuals who had a son with CRC had a higher risk of bipolar disorder than the controls, especially females. Males whose mother had CRC had higher risks of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and general anxiety disorder than the controls.

Conclusion

With the unique association identified in this study between FDRs of individuals with CRC and the risk of MMDs, genetic studies are encouraged to explore the complicated etiologies behind this association.

Keywords: Major mental disorder; Colorectal cancer; Autism spectrum disorder; Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; Kinship

INTRODUCTION

Association between major mental disorders and cancer

Mental health problems, particularly major mental disorders (MMDs), have become a significant global health concern. Mental health problems affect 1 in 4 people, with about 450 million individuals having MMDs worldwide, including approximately 300 million with depression, 21 million with schizophrenia, and 46 million with bipolar disorder (BD) [1]. Importantly, people with MMDs may have an increased risk of certain types of cancer. A meta-analysis including 125,760 women demonstrated that schizophrenia was associated with a 1.32-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared with the general population [2]. However, the association between MMDs and cancer may vary across different types of cancer. For example, compared to the general population, one study suggested a lower prevalence of prostate cancer in male patients with schizophrenia but a higher prevalence of lung cancer in female patients [3]. Another study identified a higher incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with schizophrenia compared to people with BD or the general population [4], and a crosscancer genome-wide association study (GWAS) demonstrated a moderate positive correlation between lung cancer with depression [5]. In addition, a positive genetic correlation was found between breast cancer and schizophrenia, while the associations between cancer and other MMDs were insignificant [5].

Among different cancers, CRC is of particular concern due to its high incidence and mortality. According to the 2018 Global Cancer Statistics, CRC is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide [6], and the age-standardized incidence rate (62 per 100,000) of CRC is highest among all cancers in Taiwan [7]. The association between CRC and MMDs has been investigated in epidemiological studies. A literature review reported that the prevalence rates of anxiety and depressive disorders among patients with CRC ranged up to 47.2% and 57%, respectively [8]. A population cohort study in the US reported that patients with a CRC diagnosis had a 3.7-fold increased risk of any mental health disorder at 0 to 2 years after the diagnosis [9]. Another cohort study in Denmark found that patients with CRC also had a 12-fold higher risk of depression than people without cancer [10]. In addition, a Canadian cohort study in 2022 demonstrated a 1.17-fold higher risk of depression among males with CRC compared to the cancer-free group [11]. Many factors contribute to the association between CRC and MMDs. For instance, screen-detected cancer diagnosis can lead to short-term adverse psychological outcomes [12]. Another study indicates that anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder are the most frequent psychological disorders in patients with breast cancer [13]. From a genetic point of view, a GWAS confirmed the significant relationship between the risk of CRC and schizophrenia [14].

Aim of the study

Although previous studies have explored associations between MMDs and CRC, several key aspects of this relationship remain unclear and warrant further investigation. First, it remains unclear whether the association between CRC and MMDs extends to kinship, such as parents, siblings, or offspring. It is worthwhile to estimate the heredity effect on the association between CRC and MMD in a massive epidemiological study, which may support the genetic evidence [14]. In addition, no previous research has comprehensively assessed the association between CRC with various kinds of MMDs, such as schizophrenia, BD, major depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive-compulsive disorder, or general anxiety disorder (GAD) regarding kinship. To address this gap in the knowledge, we aimed to conduct a family linkage study with a nationally representative cohort to explore the associations between the risk of MMDs in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of individuals with CRC. Moreover, we also aimed to investigate sex differences in these associations.

METHODS

Data sources

The Taiwan Health and Welfare Data Science Center audits and releases the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) for research purposes upon formal application. This comprehensive database includes the healthcare data of approximately 99.7% of the population in Taiwan, comprising clinical visit dates, demographic details, and diagnoses. To protect patient privacy, the NHIRD contains only anonymized individual medical records. In the current study, we integrated three NHIRD datasets: the catastrophic illness database, a specialized dataset for mental disorders, and the registry of beneficiaries. The catastrophic illness database includes diagnoses of catastrophic illnesses such as malignancies and the specific diagnosis dates from 2000 to 2011 [15]. The diagnoses of malignant cancers are validated through histological confirmation, and patients issued with a catastrophic illness certificate are exempt from medical co-payment fees. The specialized dataset for mental disorders encompasses all medical records of insured individuals diagnosed with mental disorders from 2000 to 2011. The beneficiary registry database contains comprehensive demographic information including birthdates and residence for the entire Taiwanese population. Family kinships documented in the NHIRD were used for genealogical reconstruction based on the methodologies established by Cheng et al. [16] and Chen et al. [17] The diagnostic codes used in this study refer to International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. The Institutional Review Board of Taipei Veterans General Hospital approved the study protocol (approval number: TPEVGH-IRB-2018-07-016AC) and granted a waiver for informed consent due to the use of deidentified data, which required no direct contact with human participants. The NHIRD has been extensively used in various epidemiological studies conducted in Taiwan [18-20].

Inclusion criteria and disease classification

The FDRs of all individuals diagnosed with CRC (ICD-9-CM codes: 153, 154) were identified as the study group, and included parents, offspring, and siblings (Supplementary Figure 1). To minimize potential confounding effects related to age and sex, a 1:4 matched case-control analysis was performed based on age, sex, and familial relationships (Supplementary Figure 1). For example, a 15-year-old son of a mother with CRC would be matched with four 15-year-old sons of mothers without CRC. If this individual had two distinct familial relationships, such as son-mother and brother-sister, they would be counted in each relationship and matched on both counts. Participants in both the study and control groups were assessed for major psychiatric disorders and neurodevelopmental disorders including ASD (ICD-9-CM code: 299), ADHD (ICD-9-CM code: 314), schizophrenia (ICD-9-CM code: 295), BD (ICD-9-CM codes: 296 excluding 296.2, 296.3, 296.9, and 296.82), major depressive disorder (ICD-9-CM codes: 296.2 and 296.3), as well as any malignancy (ICD-9-CM codes: 140– 208). These psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders were diagnosed at least twice by board-certified psychiatrists. The urbanization level of residence (levels 1–5, most to least urbanized) was assessed as a proxy for healthcare availability in Taiwan [21].

Statistical analysis

For between-group comparisons, independent t-tests were used for continuous variables, while Pearson’s χ² test was used for nominal variables. Prevalence rates across the two groups were evaluated. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, adjusting for sex, year of birth, and level of urbanization, to determine the risks of malignancy, major psychiatric disorders, and neurodevelopmental disorders between the groups. In addition, analyses were conducted with further adjustments for individual cancer comorbidities to assess the coaggregation of CRC with major psychiatric disorders and neurodevelopmental disorders. As previously noted, each family cluster could encompass multiple familial relationships. To account for the effects of clustering, we used a Poisson regression model with robust error variance to estimate the RRs for the clustered data [22]. Sub-analyses stratified by kinship (parents, offspring, and siblings) were conducted to investigate differences in the risks of major psychiatric disorders and neurodevelopmental disorders between the groups. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute), with PROC GENMOD to estimate the adjusted RRs (ARRs). All tests were two-tailed, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Data availability statement

The NHIRD is released and audited by the Department of Health and Bureau of the NHI Program for the purpose of scientific research (https://www.apre.mohw.gov.tw/). The NHIRD can be accessed through a formal application that is regulated by the Health and Welfare Data Science Center of Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taiwan.

RESULTS

Demographic and clinical characteristics

In this study, 68,965 FDRs of individuals with CRC (38,024 males and 30,941 females; FDR-CRC group) and 275,860 FDRs of individuals without CRC (152,096 males and 123,764 females; matched controls) were included. There were no significant differences in sex and age between the case and the control groups. The FDR-CRC group had higher levels of monthly income and urbanization than the controls. Other details stratified by sex are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics among individuals of FDRs with CRC and matched cohort

Risk of cancer and MMD among the FDR-CRC group

After adjustments for demographic variables, Charlson Comorbidity Index, monthly income, area of residence, psychiatric disorders, and cancer comorbidities, the FDR-CRC group had a significantly higher risk of cancer (ARR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.23–1.37) than the controls (Table 2), including in both females (ARR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.16–1.35) and males (ARR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.25–1.45). Regarding MMDs, the FDR-CRC group had a higher risk of ASD (ARR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.01–1.77) than the controls after adjusting for the abovementioned confounders. In addition, the male individuals in the FDR-CRC group had a higher risk of ASD (ARR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.08–2.01) than the controls after adjusting for potential confounders. The risks of MMDs stratified by kinship (parents, offspring, and siblings) in the FDR-CRC group are shown in Figure 1. In addition, details of the risks of cancer and different MMDs in the FDR-CRC group stratified by kinship are presented in Supplementary Tables 1-7. In summary, the risks of CRC were mostly significant among all of the FDRs of individuals with CRC, including parents, offspring, and siblings (Supplementary Table 1). Sons of the CRC individuals had a higher risk of BD (ARR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.28–4.44) than the controls, and especially for mothers of CRC (ARR: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.24–5.56) (Supplementary Table 3). Fathers of individuals with CRC had a higher risk of ASD (ARR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.07–2.21) than the controls, and especially sons with CRC (ARR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.15–2.61) (Supplementary Table 5). Mothers of male individuals with CRC had higher risks of ADHD (ARR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.07–1.71) (Supplementary Table 6) and GAD (ARR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02–1.24) than the matched controls (Supplementary Table 8).

Table 2.

Relative risks of major mental disorders among individuals of FDRs with CRC compared with matched controls

Figure 1.

Relative risks of major mental disorders between FDRs of individuals with CRC and matched controls, stratified by kinship. CI, confidence interval; FDR, first-degree relative; ASD, autism spectrum disorder; ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; Na, not applicable.

DISCUSSION

Main findings

We found that the FDR-CRC group had a higher risk of cancer than the controls, regardless of sex. In addition, the FDR-CRC group had a higher risk of ASD than the controls, and this risk remained after multiple adjustments for potential confounders in males, especially in males who had a father with CRC. Moreover, the individuals, and especially females, who had a son with CRC had a higher risk of BD, and males who had a mother with CRC had higher risks of ADHD and GAD than the controls.

Risk of MMDs among the FDR-CRC group

After adjusting for potential confounders, we found that the FDR-CRC group had a higher risk of ASD, especially in males who had a father with CRC. In addition to epidemiological evidence from a previous population-based study [23], multiple etiologies have been proposed to explain the association between ASD and cancer, including genetic dysregulation, nutritional habits, microbiota composition in the gut, stress, and inflammatory response [24]. With regards to genetic etiologies, recent evidence has shown a notable link between ASD and tumor progression, including cellular proliferation, differentiation, and migration [25,26]. On the other hand, inflammation may also be involved in the association between ASD and cancer, as inflammatory response plays an important role in neuronal development [27] and also in different stages of cancer progression [28]. Moreover, neurological dysregulation has also been implicated in the link between ASD and cancer, possibly through overlap in both carcinogenic and neural signaling pathways. For example, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling axis has been associated with an inherited risk of both cancer and ASD [29,30]. Our finding of the association between FDRs of individuals with CRC and ASD may support the genetic evidence and inherited effect of a neurological etiology. Furthermore, we found that the risk of ASD was predominant in males who had a father with CRC. This finding may provide new insights for further genetic studies, such as Y-linked targets regarding cancer or ASD [31,32]. However, the limited effect sizes should also be considered in the interpretation of our findings.

In addition to ASD, we also found that males who had a mother with CRC had a significant risk of ADHD. A previous population-based study also demonstrated a significant association between CRC and ADHD [33]. We hypothesize that genetic factors may play a crucial role in this association due to the unique link between males and their mothers. Although research directly exploring the genetic association between ADHD and CRC is lacking, substantial genetic overlap between ADHD and lung cancer has been demonstrated [34]. Other potential etiologies for the association between CRC and ADHD include gut microbiota [35], inflammation [36,37], and dopamine dysregulation [38,39]. On the other hand, some of the individuals in the FDR-CRC group were also associated with the risk of BD or GAD. Several population-based studies have discussed the association between CRC and mood or anxiety disorder [40,41]. Many explanations have been proposed for the link between cancer and BD, including environmental and lifestyle factors [42]. However, genetic factors may be more relevant in our findings because only some of the FDRs were affected, especially mothers who had a son with CRC. Shared genetic predisposition has been proposed to enhance the association between BD and cancer [42-44]. Nevertheless, further genetic studies are warranted to confirm the genetic and hereditary factors regarding our findings.

Limitations

There are several limitations to the current study. First, data on environmental and lifestyle factors are not available in the NHIRD, where these factors may also confound the interpretations of our results [42].

For instance, smoking and nicotine use disorder was highly associated with MMD [45,46], where smoking also increases risk of CRC [47]. Such history of problematic lifestyle and environmental factors may confound the association between the risk of an MMD and CRC. Second, although we adjusted for several confounders, residual confounding factors may still exist. However, a naturalistic study may better reflect real-world clinical practice. Third, as a case-control study, time effect of MMDs in FDRs on CRC cannot be identified, such as time ordering between them. For instance, whether the psychiatric diagnosis in the relative occurs before or after the CRC diagnosis date in the proband remains unclear. Fourth, detection or surveillance bias may exist in this registry-based study, as FDRs of individuals with CRC may have increased healthcare contact and thus a higher probability of receiving psychiatric diagnoses.

Conclusions

We identified an association between FDRs of individuals with CRC and the risk of MMDs, including ASD, ADHD, BD, and GAD. Moreover, some sex differences in the associations were identified. The clinical implication of this study is to extend the direct association between CRC and MMDs to FDRs of individuals with CRC. Previous evidence has discussed factors involved in the association between CRC and MMDs, such as an unhealthy lifestyle, substance use, adverse effects due to psychotropic drugs, chronic inflammation, insufficient access to preventative care, social isolation, and misdiagnosis from physical symptoms wrongly considered as psychiatric manifestations [42,48]. Our finding of the association in FDRs suggests the potential impact of genetic factors regarding the etiology between CRC and MMDs.

Moreover, we also identified some of sex differences in this association, further suggesting the potential role of genetic etiologies, such as targets on sex chromosomes. The novel association between the risk of MMDs and FDRs of individuals with CRC may provide further insights for future genetic studies to better understand the etiology underlying the association.

Supplementary Materials

The Supplement is available with this article at https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2025.0460.

Supplementary Table 1.

Relative risk of colorectal cancer among different kind of FDR relationships

pi-2025-0460-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Supplementary Table 2.

Relative risk of schizophrenia among different kind of FDR relationships

pi-2025-0460-Supplementary-Table-2.pdf

Supplementary Table 3.

Relative risk of bipolar disorder among different kind of FDR relationships

pi-2025-0460-Supplementary-Table-3.pdf

Supplementary Table 4.

Relative risk of MDD among different kind of FDR relationships

pi-2025-0460-Supplementary-Table-4.pdf

Supplementary Table 5.

Relative risk of ASD among different kind of FDR relationships

pi-2025-0460-Supplementary-Table-5.pdf

Supplementary Table 6.

Relative risk of ADHD among different kind of FDR relationships

pi-2025-0460-Supplementary-Table-6.pdf

Supplementary Table 7.

Relative risk of OCD among different kind of FDR relationships

pi-2025-0460-Supplementary-Table-7.pdf

Supplementary Table 8.

Relative risk of GAD among different kind of FDR relationships

pi-2025-0460-Supplementary-Table-8.pdf

Supplementary Figure 1.

Study flowchart. FDR, first-degree relative.

pi-2025-0460-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf

Notes

Availability of Data and Material

Anonymized data, as described in this manuscript, will be shared upon request from any qualified investigator by the corresponding author (Dr. Mu-Hong Chen, email: kremer7119@gmail.com).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Dian-Jeng Li, Shih-Jen Tsai, Mu-Hong Chen, Chih-Sung Liang. Data curation: Shih-Jen Tsai, Wen-Han Chang, Mu-Hong Chen. Formal analysis: Wen-Han Chang, Chih-Ming Cheng, Mu-Hong Chen, Chih-Sung Liang. Funding acquisition: Mu-Hong Chen. Investigation: Dian-Jeng Li, Ya-Mei Bai, Tung-Ping Su, Tzeng-Ji Chen. Methodology: Shih-Jen Tsai, Wen-Han Chang, Ya-Mei Bai, Chih-Ming Cheng, Mu-Hong Chen. Project administration: Mu-Hong Chen. Writing—original draft: Dian-Jeng Li. Writing—review & editing: Mu-Hong Chen, Chih- Sung Liang.

Funding Statement

The study was supported by grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital (V111C-010, V111C-040, V111C-029, V112C-033, V113C-010, V113C-011, V113C-039), Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation (CI-109-21, CI-109-22, CI-110-30, CI-113-30, CI-113-31, CI-113-32), Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST110-2314-B-075-026, MOST110-2314-B-075-024 -MY3, MOST 109-2314-B-010-050-MY3, MOST111- 2314-B-075 -014 -MY2, MOST 111-2314-B-075 -013, NSTC111-2314-BA49-089-MY2), Taipei, Taichung, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Tri-Service General Hospital, Academia Sinica Joint Research Program (VTA112-V1-6-1, VTA113-V1-5-1) and Veterans General Hospitals and University System of Taiwan Joint Research Program (VGHUST112-G1-8-1, VGHUST113-G1-8-1). The funding sources had no role in any process of our study.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mr I-Fan Hu, MA (Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London; National Taiwan University) for his friendship and support. Mr Hu declares no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Saxena S, Funk MK, Chisholm D. Comprehensive mental health action plan 2013-2020. East Mediterr Health J 2015;21:461–463.

2. Zhuo C, Triplett PT. Association of schizophrenia with the risk of breast cancer incidence: a meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2018;75:363–369.

3. Li H, Li J, Yu X, Zheng H, Sun X, Lu Y, et al. The incidence rate of cancer in patients with schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Schizophr Res 2018;195:519–528.

4. Hippisley-Cox J, Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, Parker C. Risk of malignancy in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder: nested casecontrol study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007;64:1368–1376.

5. Jiang X, Finucane HK, Schumacher FR, Schmit SL, Tyrer JP, Han Y, et al. Shared heritability and functional enrichment across six solid cancers. Nat Commun 2019;10:431.

6. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424.

7. GBD 2019 Colorectal Cancer Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of colorectal cancer and its risk factors, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;7:627–647.

8. Peng YN, Huang ML, Kao CH. Prevalence of depression and anxiety in colorectal cancer patients: a literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:411.

9. Lloyd S, Baraghoshi D, Tao R, Garrido-Laguna I, Gilcrease GW 3rd, Whisenant J, et al. Mental health disorders are more common in colorectal cancer survivors and associated with decreased overall survival. Am J Clin Oncol 2019;42:355–362.

10. Kjaer TK, Moustsen-Helms IR, Albieri V, Larsen SB, Degett TH, Tjønneland A, et al. Risk of pharmacological or hospital treatment for depression in patients with colorectal cancer-associations with pre-cancer lifestyle, comorbidity and clinical factors. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:1979.

11. Howren A, Sayre EC, Cheng V, Oveisi N, McTaggart-Cowan H, Peacock S, et al. Risk of anxiety and depression after diagnosis of youngonset colorectal cancer: a population-based cohort study. Curr Oncol 2022;29:3072–3081.

12. Lidington E, Ragupathy D, Schmeising-Barnes N, Dibden A, Waller J, Marlow L. The psychological impact of screen-detected cancer: a systematic review. Psychooncology 2026;35:e70358.

13. Dinapoli L, Colloca G, Di Capua B, Valentini V. Psychological aspects to consider in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Curr Oncol Rep 2021;23:38.

14. Kim S, Nam S. The causal relationship of colorectal cancer on schizophrenia: a Mendelian randomization study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023;102:e35517.

15. Hsieh CY, Su CC, Shao SC, Sung SF, Lin SJ, Kao Yang YH, et al. Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database: past and future. Clin Epidemiol 2019;11:349–358.

16. Cheng CM, Chang WH, Chen MH, Tsai CF, Su TP, Li CT, et al. Coaggregation of major psychiatric disorders in individuals with first-degree relatives with schizophrenia: a nationwide population-based study. Mol Psychiatry 2018;23:1756–1763.

17. Chen MH, Hsu JW, Huang KL, Su TP, Li CT, Lin WC, et al. Risk and coaggregation of major psychiatric disorders among first-degree relatives of patients with bipolar disorder: a nationwide population-based study. Psychol Med 2019;49:2397–2404.

18. Hsu TW, Liang CS, Tsai SJ, Bai YM, Su TP, Chen TJ, et al. Risk of major psychiatric disorders among children and adolescents surviving malignancies: a nationwide longitudinal study. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:2054–2066.

19. Tsai SJ, Cheng CM, Chang WH, Bai YM, Hsu JW, Huang KL, et al. Risks and familial coaggregation of death by suicide, accidental death and major psychiatric disorders in first-degree relatives of individuals who died by suicide. Br J Psychiatry 2023;223:465–470.

20. Zhang B, Wang HE, Bai YM, Tsai SJ, Su TP, Chen TJ, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease is associated with higher dementia risk: a nationwide longitudinal study. Gut 2021;70:85–91.

21. Liu CY, Hung YT, Chuang YL, Chen YJ, Weng WS Liu JS. [Incorporating development stratification of Taiwan townships into sampling design of large scale health interview survey]. J Health Management (Chin) 2006;4:1–22. Chinese.

22. Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:702–706.

23. Liu Q, Yin W, Meijsen JJ, Reichenberg A, Gådin JR, Schork AJ, et al. Cancer risk in individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Ann Oncol 2022;33:713–719.

24. Pedini G, Chen CL, Achsel T, Bagni C. Cancer drug repurposing in autism spectrum disorder. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2023;44:963–977.

25. Crawley JN, Heyer WD, LaSalle JM. Autism and cancer share risk genes, pathways, and drug targets. Trends Genet 2016;32:139–146.

26. Forés-Martos J, Catalá-López F, Sánchez-Valle J, Ibáñez K, Tejero H, Palma-Gudiel H, et al. Transcriptomic metaanalyses of autistic brains reveals shared gene expression and biological pathway abnormalities with cancer. Mol Autism 2019;10:17.

27. Hughes HK, R J Moreno, Ashwood P. Innate immune dysfunction and neuroinflammation in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Brain Behav Immun 2023;108:245–254.

28. Abbott M, Ustoyev Y. Cancer and the immune system: the history and background of immunotherapy. Semin Oncol Nurs 2019;35:150923.

29. Peng Y, Wang Y, Zhou C, Mei W, Zeng C. PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway and its role in cancer therapeutics: are we making headway? Front Oncol 2022;12:819128.

30. Thomas SD, Jha NK, Ojha S, Sadek B. mTOR signaling disruption and its association with the development of autism spectrum disorder. Molecules 2023;28:1889.

31. Feng X, Zhang T, Chou J, Patwa HS, Sullivan CA, Browne JD. Y-chromosome-linked genes are associated with sex-related head-neck squamous cell carcinoma survival. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2023;169:1533–1541.

32. Schaafsma SM, Pfaff DW. Etiologies underlying sex differences in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Front Neuroendocrinol 2014;35:255–271.

33. Hu JM, Lee CC, Lin TC, Chung CH, Chen CY, Chang PK, et al. Risk of colorectal cancer in patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a nationwide, population-based cohort study. Front Psychiatry 2021;12:537137.

34. Thapar A. Discoveries on the genetics of ADHD in the 21st century: new findings and their implications. Am J Psychiatry 2018;175:943–950.

35. Mayer EA. Gut feelings: the emerging biology of gut-brain communication. Nat Rev Neurosci 2011;12:453–466.

36. Hegvik TA, Instanes JT, Haavik J, Klungsøyr K, Engeland A. Associations between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autoimmune diseases are modified by sex: a population-based cross-sectional study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2018;27:663–675.

37. Long AG, Lundsmith ET, Hamilton KE. Inflammation and colorectal cancer. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 2017;13:341–351.

38. Swanson JM, Kinsbourne M, Nigg J, Lanphear B, Stefanatos GA, Volkow N, et al. Etiologic subtypes of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: brain imaging, molecular genetic and environmental factors and the dopamine hypothesis. Neuropsychol Rev 2007;17:39–59.

39. Zhang X, Liu Q, Liao Q, Zhao Y. Potential roles of peripheral dopamine in tumor immunity. J Cancer 2017;8:2966–2973.

40. Lin GM, Chen YJ, Kuo DJ, Jaiteh LE, Wu YC, Lo TS, et al. Cancer incidence in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan, 1997-2009. Schizophr Bull 2013;39:407–416.

41. Sun LM, Liang JA, Lin CL, Sun S, Kao CH. Risk of mood disorders in patients with colorectal cancer. J Affect Disord 2017;218:59–65.

42. Anmella G, Fico G, Lotfaliany M, Hidalgo-Mazzei D, Soto-Angona Ó, Giménez-Palomo A, et al. Risk of cancer in bipolar disorder and the potential role of lithium: international collaborative systematic review and meta-analyses. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2021;126:529–541.

43. Almeida HS, Mitjans M, Arias B, Vieta E, Ríos J, Benabarre A. Genetic differences between bipolar disorder subtypes: a systematic review focused in bipolar disorder type II. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2020;118:623–630.

44. Fico G, Anmella G, Pacchiarotti I, Verdolini N, Sagué-Vilavella M, Corponi F, et al. The biology of aggressive behavior in bipolar disorder: a systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2020;119:9–20.

45. Fornaro M, Carvalho AF, De Prisco M, Mondin AM, Billeci M, Selby P, et al. The prevalence, odds, predictors, and management of tobacco use disorder or nicotine dependence among people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2022;132:289–303.

46. Hartz SM, Horton AC, Hancock DB, Baker TB, Caporaso NE, Chen LS, et al. Genetic correlation between smoking behaviors and schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2018;194:86–90.

47. Botteri E, Borroni E, Sloan EK, Bagnardi V, Bosetti C, Peveri G, et al. Smoking and colorectal cancer risk, overall and by molecular subtypes: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:1940–1949.

48. Solmi M, Firth J, Miola A, Fornaro M, Frison E, Fusar-Poli P, et al. Disparities in cancer screening in people with mental illness across the world versus the general population: prevalence and comparative meta-analysis including 4 717 839 people. Lancet Psychiatry 2020;7:52–63.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

	Male			Female			Total
	FDRs of CRC individuals (N=38,024)	Matched cohort (N=152,096)	p	FDRs of CRC individuals (N=30,941)	Matched cohort (N=123,764)	p	FDRs of CRC individuals (N=68,965)	Matched cohort (N=275,860)	p
Birth year			-			-			-
≤1950	2,767 (7.3)	11,068 (7.3)		2,747 (8.9)	10,988 (8.9)		5,514 (8.0)	22,056 (8.0)
1951–1960	5,918 (15.6)	23,672 (15.6)		3,061 (9.9)	12,244 (9.9)		8,979 (13.0)	35,916 (13.0)
1961–1970	8,506 (22.4)	34,024 (22.4)		4,923 (15.9)	19,692 (15.9)		13,429 (19.5)	53,716 (19.5)
1971–1980	10,756 (28.3)	43,024 (28.3)		10,003 (32.3)	40,012 (32.3)		20,759 (30.1)	83,036 (30.1)
1981–1990	6,621 (17.4)	26,484 (17.4)		6,854 (22.2)	27,416 (22.2)		13,475 (19.5)	53,900 (19.5)
1991–2000	2,761 (7.3)	11,044 (7.3)		2,690 (8.7)	10,760 (8.7)		5,451 (7.9)	21,804 (7.9)
>2000	695 (1.8)	2,780 (1.8)		663 (2.1)	2,652 (2.1)		1,358 (2.0)	5,432 (2.0)
Sex
Male	-	-		-	-		38,024 (55.1)	152,096 (55.1)
Female	-	-		-	-		30,941 (44.9)	123,764 (44.9)
Monthly income			<0.001			0.014			<0.001
0–1,000 USD	29,775 (78.3)	120,372 (79.1)	<0.001	26,528 (85.7)	106,796 (86.3)	0.012	56,303 (81.6)	227,168 (82.4)	<0.001
1,001–1,800 USD	4,958 (13.0)	19,378 (12.7)	0.119	3,101 (10.0)	12,115 (9.8)	0.217	8,059 (11.7)	31,493 (11.4)	0.047
≥1,801 USD	3,291 (8.7)	12,346 (8.1)	<0.001	1,312 (4.2)	4,853 (3.9)	0.010	4,603 (6.7)	17,199 (6.2)	<0.001
Place of residence			<0.001			<0.001			<0.001
1 (urban)	15,079 (39.7)	57,742 (38)	<0.001	13,619 (44.0)	52,365 (42.3)	<0.001	28,698 (41.6)	110,107 (39.9)	0.200
2	12,465 (32.8)	49,272 (32.4)	0.150	9,439 (30.5)	37,644 (30.4)	0.757	21,904 (31.8)	86,916 (31.5)	<0.001
3	5,622 (14.8)	23,626 (15.5)	<0.001	4,086 (13.2)	16,882 (13.6)	0.046	9,708 (14.1)	40,508 (14.7)	<0.001
4	3,446 (9.1)	14,848 (9.8)	<0.001	2,616 (8.5)	11,486 (9.3)	<0.001	6,062 (8.8)	26,334 (9.6)	<0.001
5 (rural)	1,412 (3.7)	6,608 (4.3)	<0.001	1,181 (3.8)	5,387 (4.4)	<0.001	2,593 (3.8)	11,995 (4.4)	<0.001
CCI scores

	Male				Female				All
	FDRs of CRC individuals (N=38,024)	Matched cohort (N=152,096)	ARR^* (95% CI)	ARR^†‡ (95% CI)	FDRs of CRC individuals (N=30,941)	Matched cohort (N=123,764)	ARR^* (95% CI)	ARR^†‡ (95% CI)	FDRs of CRC individuals (N=68,965)	Matched cohort (N=275,860)	ARR^* (95% CI)	ARR^†‡ (95% CI)
Cancer	865 (2.3)	2,581 (1.7)	1.35 (1.25–1.45)	1.35 (1.25–1.45)	854 (2.8)	2,722 (2.2)	1.25 (1.16–1.35)	1.25 (1.16–1.35)	1,719 (2.5)	5,303 (1.9)	1.30 (1.23–1.37)	1.30 (1.23–1.37)
Schizophrenia	311 (0.8)	1,233 (0.8)	1.03 (0.91–1.16)	1.01 (0.89–1.15)	214 (0.7)	867 (0.7)	1.00 (0.86–1.16)	0.98 (0.83–1.14)	525 (0.8)	2,100 (0.8)	1.01 (0.92–1.12)	0.99 (0.90–1.10)
BD	172 (0.5)	651 (0.4)	1.06 (0.90–1.26)	1.04 (0.86–1.26)	178 (0.6)	676 (0.6)	1.05 (0.89–1.24)	1.03 (0.86–1.24)	350 (0.5)	1,327 (0.5)	1.06 (0.94–1.19)	1.04 (0.91–1.19)
MDD	429 (1.1)	1,762 (1.2)	0.97 (0.87–1.08)	0.95 (0.84–1.07)	624 (2.0)	2,423 (2.0)	1.03 (0.94–1.13)	1.02 (0.92–1.12)	1,053 (1.5)	4,185 (1.5)	1 (0.94–1.08)	0.99 (0.91–1.06)
ASD	57 (0.2)	154 (0.1)	1.47 (1.08–1.99)	1.47 (1.08–2.01)	10 (<0.1)	45 (<0.1)	0.89 (0.45–1.77)	0.81 (0.40–1.64)	67 (0.1)	199 (0.1)	1.34 (1.01–1.77)	1.32 (0.99–1.75)
ADHD	209 (0.6)	733 (0.5)	1.14 (0.98–1.33)	1.10 (0.94–1.29)	49 (0.2)	227 (0.2)	0.86 (0.63–1.17)	1.12 (0.86–1.45)	258 (0.4)	960 (0.4)	1.08 (0.94–1.23)	1.05 (0.91–1.21)