4.7 Article

Association between a 15q25 gene variant, smoking quantity and tobacco-related cancers among 17 000 individuals

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 563-577

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyp288

关键词

Lung cancer; nicotine dependence; smoking quantity; UADT cancer

资金

  1. NCI [R01CA092039-07]
  2. International lung cancer consortium [R03CA133939-01]
  3. MRC [G9900432] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G9900432] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods We performed a detailed analysis of one 15q single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) (rs16969968) with smoking behaviour and cancer risk in a total of 17 300 subjects from five LC studies and four upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) cancer studies. Results Subjects with one minor allele smoked on average 0.3 cigarettes per day (CPD) more, whereas subjects with the homozygous minor AA genotype smoked on average 1.2 CPD more than subjects with a GG genotype (P < 0.001). The variant was associated with heavy smoking (> 20 CPD) [odds ratio (OR) = 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.34, P = 0.13 for heterozygotes and 1.81, 95% CI 1.39-2.35 for homozygotes, P < 0.0001]. The strong association between the variant and LC risk (OR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.23-1.38, P = 1 x 10(-18)), was virtually unchanged after adjusting for this smoking association (smoking adjusted OR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.19-1.35, P = 5 x 10(-13)). Furthermore, we found an association between the variant allele and an earlier age of LC onset (P = 0.02). The association was also noted in UADT cancers (OR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15, P = 0.02). Genome wide association (GWA) analysis of over 300 000 SNPs on 11 219 subjects did not identify any additional variants related to smoking behaviour. Conclusions This study confirms the strong association between 15q gene variants and LC and shows an independent association with smoking quantity, as well as an association with UADT cancers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据