4.5 Article

Association of CYP1A1 polymorphisms with prostate cancer risk: an updated meta-analysis

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
Volume 39, Issue 12, Pages 10273-10284

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-012-1904-5

Keywords

Prostate cancer; Risk; CYP1A1; Genetic polymorphism

Funding

  1. Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [S20110 10004146]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epidemiological studies have evaluated the association between 3801T > C and 2455A > G polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 1A1 (CYP1A1) and prostate cancer risk. However, controversy exists regarding the role of these polymorphisms. In this work, a meta-analysis was performed to derive a more precise estimation of the relationship. PubMed and ISI Web databases were searched for all cases dated until March 2012. Crude odds ratios with 95 % confidence intervals were used to assess the strength of the association between CYP1A1 polymorphisms and prostate cancer risk. Sensitivity analysis, excluding the studies that deviated from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE), was performed. A total of 17 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria in this meta-analysis, 12 of which were eligible (1,645 cases and 1,801 controls) for 3801T > C, and eleven (1,640 cases and 1,959 controls) were eligible for 2455A > G. Overall, the 2455A > G polymorphism resulted in a significantly increased susceptibility to prostate cancer. In addition, no significant associations between 3801T > C polymorphism and prostate cancer susceptibility were found in all genetic models. Only an elevated risk was observed for TC versus CC in Asian studies. However, no relationship was found in the Asian group for TC versus CC after excluding the studies that deviated from HWE. Thus, this meta-analysis finds the 2455A > G allele to be a risk factor for prostate cancer, whereas the 3801T > C status does not seem to be capable of modifying prostate cancer risk.

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