4.5 Article

Cytochrome P450 2A6 deletion polymorphism and risk of lung cancer: a meta-analysis

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
Volume 40, Issue 9, Pages 5255-5259

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-013-2625-0

Keywords

Cytochrome P450 2A6 (CYP2A6); Polymorphism; Meta-analysis; Lung cancer

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province, China [1308085MH141]
  2. Department of Education of Anhui Province, China [KJ2011A173]
  3. Anhui Medical University [2010xkj115]
  4. Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies concerning the association between cytochrome P450 2A6 (CYP2A6) deletion polymorphism and lung cancer risk provided controversial results. To clarify the precise association, a meta-analysis was performed. The electronic databases PubMed, Chinese Biomedical Database and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database were searched for case-control studies last updated on June 3, 2012 that investigated CYP2A6 deletion polymorphism and lung cancer risk. The odds ratio (OR) and its respective 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were used to measure the strength of association by means of a genetic model free approach. A total of 8 studies including 2,607 cases and 2,595 controls met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to the final analysis. The most appropriate co-dominant model was adopted. Overall, we found that CYP2A6 *1/*1 genotype was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer relative to *4/*4 genotype (OR = 2.65, 95 % CI: 1.84-3.81, P < 0.001). Significant association was also detected among Asians. Publication bias was absent in this meta-analysis. Therefore, our data suggested that the presence of the CYP2A6 *1/*1 might be associated with an increased lung cancer risk, especially for Asians. Further studies well-designed among different ethnicity populations are required.

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