4.4 Article

Polymorphisms in CYP17 and CYP3A4 and prostate cancer in men of African descent

Journal

PROSTATE
Volume 73, Issue 6, Pages 668-676

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pros.22612

Keywords

prostate cancer; genetics; African ancestry

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute
  2. National Institutes of Health [R13CA130596A, P20CA132385-01, CA006927]
  3. Fox Chase Cancer Center Genomics Facility
  4. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [R13CA130596A, P20CA132385-01, CA006927]
  5. Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Human Genome Research Institute
  6. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND A meta and pooled analysis of published and unpublished casecontrol studies was performed to evaluate the association of CYP17 (rs743572) and CYP3A4 (rs2740574) polymorphisms and prostate cancer (PCa) in men from the USA, Caribbean, and Africa. METHODS Eight publications (seven studies) and two unpublished studies for CYP17 included 1,580 subjects (559 cases and 1,021 controls) and eleven publications and three unpublished studies for CYP3A4 included 3,400 subjects (1,429 cases and 1,971 controls). RESULTS Overall, the CYP17 heterozygous and homozygous variants were not associated with PCa, but they confer a 60% increased risk of PCa in a sub-group analysis restricted to African-American men (T/C+C/C, OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.12.4). No associations were observed for CYP3A4, overall and in stratified analyses for African-Americans and Africans. The pooled analysis suggests that after adjusting for study, age, PSA, and family history of PCa, CYP17 was associated with PCa for men of African ancestry (Adjusted OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 1.210.0). CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that genetic factors involved in the androgen pathway play a role in PCa risk among men of African ancestry. Prostate 73: 668676, 2013. (c) 2012 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