4.5 Article

Associations between ERα, ERβ, and AR genotypes and colon and rectal cancer

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages 2936-2942

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0514

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 61757, CA 48998, N01 PC 67000, CA 85846, R01 CA061757, R01 CA085846, R01 CA061757-10, R01 CA085846-06, R01 CA048998-12A2, R01 CA048998] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Estrogen and androgens are thought to be involved in the etiology of colorectal cancer. We evaluate genetic variants of the estrogen receptor genes (ER alpha and ER beta) and the androgen receptor gene (AR). We use data from two large case-control studies of colon (n = 1,580 cases and 1,968 controls) and rectal (n = 797 cases and 1,016 controls) cancer. We evaluated the 351A>G XbaI polymorphism of ER alpha, the 1,082 G>A and CA repeat polymorphisms of ER beta, and the CAG repeat of AR. Having two 25 or more CA repeats in ER beta was associated with an increased relative risk of colon cancer in women [odds ratio (OR), 2.13; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.24-3.64] but not in men (P-interaction relative excess risk from interaction < 0.01; multiplicative = 0.03). Increasing number of AR CAG repeats was directly associated with colon cancer among men (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.54), but not women (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.02); the interaction P value for AR gene x sex was <0.01. Taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer in the presence of the R allele of the ER beta gene, whereas an R allele was associated with increased risk among postmenopausal women who did not take HRT. Postmenopausal women not using HRT who had >= 25 CA repeats of the ERO gene had over a 6-fold increased risk of colon cancer (OR, 6.71; 95% CI, 2.89-15.6). Our results suggest that the ER beta gene is more important than ER alpha in the etiology of colorectal cancer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available