4.4 Article

An Updating Meta-Analysis of the GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 Polymorphisms and Prostate Cancer: A HuGE Review

Journal

PROSTATE
Volume 69, Issue 6, Pages 662-688

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pros.20907

Keywords

prostate cancer; susceptibility; glutathione transferase; GSTM1; GSTT1; GSTP1; genetic polymorphism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It has been postulated that individuals with GSTM1, GSTT1 deficiency and, GSTP1 (105Ile/Val transition) have increased susceptibility to carcinogens and are more likely to develop prostate cancer. In recent years, GST status has been extensively studied as a prostate cancer risk factor; however, the results are inconsistent. To re-examine this controversy, we have undertaken an updating meta-analysis of 29 studies with GSTM1 genotyping (4,564 prostate cancer cases and 5,464 controls), 22 studies with GSTT1 genotyping (3,837 cases and 4,552 controls), and 24 studies with GSTP1 genotyping (5,301 cases and 5,621 controls). The random effects odds ratio was 1.33 [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.15, 1.55; I-2 = 68.9%, P for heterogeneity = 0.00] for the GSTM1 null versus present genotype and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.27; I-2 = 68.2%, P for heterogeneity = 0.00) for the GSTT1 null versus present genotype, and 1.06 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.24; I-2 = 71.5%, P for heterogeneity = 0.00) for the GSTP1-Val versus GSTP1-Ile allele. For GSTM1 polymorphism, similar results reached in Caucasians and Asians, with exception for Africans. No association between GSTT1 or GSTP1 polymorphisms and prostate cancer risk was detected in different racial. In conclusion, the major finding of our study suggested that GSTM1 polymorphism conferred an increasing risk of prostate cancer on a wide population basis, however, no relationship was found between GSTT1 and GSTP1 status and the risk of prostate cancer. Prostate 69: 662-688, 2009. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, 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