4.4 Article

A meta-analysis of MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms and risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children

Journal

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
Volume 58, Issue 4, Pages 513-518

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.23137

Keywords

acute lymphoblastic leukemia; case-control; children; MTHFR; polymorphism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T and A1298C polymorphisms have been implicated in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) risk, but previously published studies were inconsistent and recent meta-analyses were not adequate. Procedures. In a meta-analysis of 21 publications with 4,706 cases and 7,414 controls, we used more stringent inclusion method and summarized data on associations between MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms and childhood ALL risk. Results. We found an overall association between 677T variant genotypes and reduced childhood ALL risk. Specifically, in the dominant genetic model, an association was found in a fixed-effect (TT + CT vs. CC: OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99) but not random-effect model, whereas such an association was observed in both homozygote genetic model (TT vs. CC: OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.70-0.93 by fixed effects and OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.650.93 by random effects) and recessive genetic model (TT vs. CC + CT: OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.95 by fixed effects and OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73-0.97 by random effects). These associations were also observed in subgroups by ethnicity: for Asians in all models except for the dominant genetic model by random effect and for Caucasians in all models except for the recessive genetic model. However, the A1298C polymorphism did not appear to have an effect on childhood ALL risk. Conclusions. These results suggest that the MTHFR C677T, but not A1298C, polymorphism is a potential biomarker for childhood ALL risk. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2012; 58: 513-518. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available