4.5 Article

No association of EGF 5 ' UTR variant A61G and hepatocellular carcinoma in Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection

期刊

PATHOLOGY
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 555-560

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1080/00313020903071603

关键词

Case-control study; epidermal growth factor; single-nucleotide polymorphism; chronic hepatitis; HBV; hepatocellular carcinoma

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30770994]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Epidermal growth factor (EGF) has many biological functions, including mitogenesis, tumorigenesis, and proliferation of epidermal tissues. Previous studies have reported that the EGF +61 (A/G) single nucleotide polymorphism in the 5'-untranslated region of the EGF gene is functional, and is associated with development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in liver cirrhosis and various malignancy. Our aim was to investigate whether EGF gene A61G polymorphism could be implicated in susceptibility to and/or clinicopathological characteristics of HCC in Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Methods: This polymorphism was studied in 387 patients with chronic HBV infection and in 208 healthy volunteers using restriction fragment-length polymorphism. The patients were divided into two groups: those without (n = 172) and those with HCC (n = 215). These 215 HCC patients with chronic HBV infection were designated as cases, and the remaining 172 patients without HCC served as controls. Results: There were no significant differences in EGF genotype or allelic frequencies between cases and controls nor was EGF genotype or allelic frequencies associated with tumour number, size, growth phase, stage, and invasiveness. We also found ethnic heterogeneity in the functional EGF polymorphism. Conclusions: The present results show that although EGF gene A61G polymorphism is associated with development of HCC in liver cirrhosis, it is not sufficient for HCC in Chinese patients with chronic HBV infection.

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

4.5
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