4.3 Article

Association between 8q24 rs6983267 polymorphism and cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis involving 170,737 subjects

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 8, Issue 34, Pages 57421-57439

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.18960

Keywords

cancer; 8q24; rs6983267; polymorphism; meta-analysis

Funding

  1. US-China Biomedical Cooperation Projection [81261120403]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB720605]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Published data on the association between 8q24 rs6983267 polymorphism and cancer risk are inconsistent. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between rs6983267 polymorphism and cancer risk. We searched on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) up to November 1, 2016 for relevant studies. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the strength of this association. We included 78 case-control studies with a total of 73,996 cases and 96,741 controls in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that rs6983267 polymorphism was significantly associated with increased risk of overall cancer in all genetic models (dominant model: OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.13-1.26; recessive model: OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.14-1.25; homozygous model: OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.23-1.40; heterozygous model: OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.10-1.19; allelic model: OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.11-1.18). Stratified analyses indicated that rs6983267 significantly increased the risk of colorectal cancer in Caucasians, prostate cancer in Caucasians and Asians, thyroid cancer in Caucasians and lung cancer in Asians. When studies were stratified by study quality, source of controls and genotyping method, significant associations were especially found in the high quality studies, the publication-based studies, the hospital-based studies, and the PCR-RFLP studies. Additional well-designed studies with large samples should be performed to validate our results.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available