4.7 Article

Genetic polymorphisms of selected DNA repair genes, estrogen and progesterone receptor status, and breast cancer risk

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages 4620-4626

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2534

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Genetic polymorphisms of DNA repair genes seem to determine the DNA repair capacity, which in turn may affect the risk of breast cancer. To evaluate the role of genetic polymorphisms of DNA repair genes in breast cancer, we conducted a hospital-based case-control study of Korean women. Experimental Design: We included 872 incident breast cancer cases and 671 controls recruited from several teaching hospitals in Seoul from 1995 to 2002. Twelve loci of selected DNA repair genes were genotyped by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (XRCC2 Arg(188) His, XRCC4 921G > T XRCC6 1796G > T, LIG4 1977T/C, RAD51 135G > C, 172G > T, RAD52 2259C > T, LIG1 551A > C, ERM 8092A > C, 354C > T hMLH1 -93G > A, and lle(219)Val). Results: We found that the RAD52 2259 CT or TT hMLH1 -93 GG, and ERM 8092 AA genotypes were associated with breast cancer risk after adjustment for known risk factors [odds ratio (OR), 1.33; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.02-1.75; OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.991.74; and OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.89, respectively]. When Bonferroni's method was used to correct for multiple comparisons for nine polymorphisms with P = 0.005, all of these associations were not significant. However, the effects of RAD52 2259 CT or TT and ERM 354 CT or TT genotypes were more evident for the estrogen /progesterone receptor-negative cases (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.24-3.34 and OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.35-2.94, respectively). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that genetic polymorphisms of RAD52, ERM, and hMLH1 may be associated with breast cancer risk in Korean women.

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