4.5 Article

Polymorphisms of XRCC1 and gastric cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 1305-1313

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-011-0863-6

Keywords

X-ray repair cross-complementing gene 1; XRCC1; Polymorphism; Gastric cancer; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies investigating the association between X-ray repair cross-complementing gene 1 (XRCC1) polymorphisms and gastric cancer (GC) risk have reported conflicting results. We performed a meta-analysis of published case-control and cohort studies to better compare results between studies. Published literature from PubMed, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were retrieved. 18 studies with 3,915 GC cases and 6,759 controls were selected. For XRCC1 Arg194Trp polymorphism, we only found the Trp/Trp genotype carriers might be at high risk of GC (TT vs. CC+CT: OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.04-1.65). When stratifying for ethnicity, the results showed there was a significant difference in genotype distribution between GC cases and controls among Asians (especially, in Chinese population), but not among Caucasians. When stratifying for control sources, significant association between Arg194Trp polymorphism and GC risk was only observed in the hospital-based controls' subgroup (TT vs. CC+CT: OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.13-1.87). Additionally, no significant association was detected in the gastric cardia cancer's subgroup. The results of the overall meta-analysis did not suggest any association between Arg280His/Arg399Gln polymorphisms and GC susceptibility for all genetic models. There was no evidence for the association between these two gene polymorphisms and GC risk in subgroup analyses based on study design, ethnicity, country, tumor location, Helicobacter pylori infection and the Lauren's classification of GC. In conclusion, XRCC1 Arg194Trp homozygous mutant genotype (Trp/Trp) was found to be associated with increased risk of GC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available