4.5 Article

Gender differences in genetic susceptibility for lung cancer

Journal

LUNG CANCER
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 153-160

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5002(00)00163-X

Keywords

lung cancer; females; genetic susceptibility; cytochrome P450 1A1; glutathione S-transferase M1; smoking history

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA-06927] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In contrast to men, the incidence of lung cancer among women has increased over the past decade. The basis for this increase among female smokers remains unknown. Surgical patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer and control subjects without a history of malignancy completed a smoking questionnaire and donated a blood sample. DNA was extracted from peripheral mononuclear cells and genotyped for polymorphisms in cytochrome P450 1A1 (CYP1A1) (exon 7) and glutathione S-transferase M1 (GSTM1) (null). No gender differences in either age at diagnosis or histological subtype were observed among lung cancer patients. In both patients (n = 180) and controls (n = 163), females smoked significantly less than males. The pack-year history associated with adenocarcinoma was smaller than that for squamous cell carcinoma. No significant association was observed between the GSTM1 null genotype and cancer risk. However, women had a larger cancer risk than men (odds ratio 4.98 vs. 1.37) if they possessed the mutant CYP1A1 genotype. Female cancer patients were significantly more likely than female controls to have both the CYP1A1 mutation and GSTM1 null genotype. The combined variant genotypes conferred an odds ratio of 6.54 for lung cancer in women versus 2.36 for men, independent of age or smoking history. These data suggest that polymorphisms in CYP1A1 and GSTM1 contribute to the increased risk of females for lung cancer. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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