4.7 Article

Polymorphisms of Nucleotide Excision Repair Genes Predict Melanoma Survival

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY
卷 133, 期 7, 页码 1813-1821

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jid.2012.498

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute [R01 CA 100264, CA 131274, P50 CA 093459]
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [R01 ES11740, P30 CA16672]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Melanoma is the most highly malignant skin cancer, and nucleotide excision repair (NER) is involved in melanoma susceptibility. In this analysis of 1,042 melanoma patients, we evaluated whether genetic variants of NER genes may predict survival outcome of melanoma patients. We used genotyping data of 74 tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (tagSNPs) in eight core NER genes from our genome-wide association study (including two in XPA, 14 in XPC, three in XPE, four in ERCC1, 10 in ERCC2, eight in ERCC3, 14 in ERCC4, and 19 in ERCC5) and evaluated their associations with prognosis of melanoma patients. Using the Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier analysis, we found a predictive role of XPE rs28720291, ERCC5 rs4150314, XPC rs2470458, and ERCC2 rs50871 SNPs in the prognosis of melanoma patients (rs28720291: AG vs. GG, adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) = 11.2, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 3.04-40.9, P=0.0003; rs4150314: AG vs. GG, adjHR = 4.76, 95% CI 1.09-20.8, P=0.038; rs2470458: AA vs. AG/GG, adjHR = 2.11, 95% Cl 1.03-4.33, P=0.040; and rs50871: AA vs. AC/CC adjHR = 2.27, 95% Cl 1.18-1.35, P=0.015). Patients with an increasing number of unfavorable genotypes had markedly increased death risk. Genetic variants of NER genes, particularly XPE rs28720291, ERCC5 rs4150314, XPC rs2470458, and ERCC2 rs50871, may independently or jointly modulate survival outcome of melanoma patients. Because our results were based on a median follow-up of 3 years without multiple test corrections, additional large prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

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