4.1 Article

GSTT1 null genotype contributes to hepatocellular carcinoma risk: a meta-analysis

Journal

TUMOR BIOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 213-218

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s13277-013-1026-2

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma; GSTT1; Polymorphism; Meta-analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies investigating the association between genetic polymorphism of glutathione S-transferase T1 (GSTT1) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk have reported conflicting results. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to provide more precise evidence. Databases including PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Science, and Wangfang were searched for relevant studies. Potential sources of heterogeneity were also assessed by subgroup analysis. Funnel plots and Egger's linear regression were used to test publication bias among the articles. Finally, a total of 28 studies involving 3,897 HCC patients and 6,117 controls were included in this meta-analysis. In a combined analysis, the summary odds ratio for HCC of the GSTT1 null genotype was 1.43 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.22-1.68, P < 10(-5)). In the subgroup analysis by ethnicity, significantly increased risks were found in East Asians for GSTT1 null polymorphism, while no significant associations were found among Caucasian, South Asian, and African populations. When stratified by a source of controls, both population- and hospital-based studies get consistent positive results. By pooling data from 10 studies (1,639 cases and 2,224 controls) that considered combinations of GSTT1 and GSTM1 genotypes, a statistically significant increased risk for HCC (odd ratio = 1.85, 95 % CI 1.37-2.49) was detected for individuals with combined deletion mutations in both genes compared with positive genotypes. No evidence of publication bias was observed. Our result suggests that the GSTT1 null genotype contributes to an increased risk of HCC in East Asians and that interaction between unfavorable GSTs genotypes may exist.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available