4.7 Article

Association of vitamin D receptor FokI polymorphism with prostate cancer risk, clinicopathological features and recurrence of prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 119, Issue 8, Pages 1902-1907

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.22053

Keywords

vitamin D receptor; FokI; genetic polymorphism; prostate cancer; benign prostatic hyperplasia

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To investigate the effect of vitamin D receptor (VDR) FokI polymorphism on susceptibility to prostate cancer and the outcome of the disease in a Taiwanese population, we genotyped a total of 416 prostate cancer patients, 502 age-matched male controls and 189 non age-matched symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Although we did not find a significant association between VDR FokI genotypes and overall prostate cancer risk, we found that in men aged less than or equal to the median age of 73 years with VDR FokI F allele specifically had an increased risk of prostate cancer with a marginal significant trend (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.00-4.34, p for trend = 0.056). The FF genotype was also highly associated with more aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason score 8-10) (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.20-5.08) than did the Ff and ff genotypes. After adjusting other covariates, we found that in patients who had localized prostate cancer for which a radical prostatectomy was performed (n = 131), the VDR FokI FF genotype was associated with worse prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio = 3.25, 95% CI = 1.32-8.00, p = 0.010). Our findings suggest that the VDR FF genotype may increase the risk of early-onset prostate cancer and is associated with more aggressive disease. Furthermore, the VDR polymorphism could be used as a prognostic marker for localized prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. (c) 2006 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available