4.2 Review

Tumor Necrosis Factor-α T-857C (rs1799724) Polymorphism and Risk of Cancers: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

DISEASE MARKERS
卷 2016, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2016/4580323

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Funds [81573459, 81472033, 30901308]
  2. National Science Foundation of Hubei Province [2013CFB233, 2013CFB235]
  3. project of Wuhan Science and Technology Bureau [2014070404010223, 2014060101010045]
  4. Hubei Province Health and Family Planning Scientific Research Project [WJ2015Q021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To investigate the potential association of tumor necrosis factor-alpha T-857C polymorphism with susceptibility to the five common malignant tumors. Materials and Methods. A comprehensive search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases was performed up to November 2015. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated to assess the strength of the association. Subgroup analysis, heterogeneity analyses, and publication bias were also texted in the meta-analysis. Results. A total of twenty-two publications involving 5215 cases and 6755 controls were recruited. Overall, the meta-analysis revealed an increased risk between the TNF-alpha T-857C polymorphism and gastric cancer susceptibility in T versus C model, heterozygote genetic model, and dominant genetic model. An increased risk between the TNF-alpha T-857C polymorphism and hepatocellular cancer susceptibility in homozygote genetic model and recessive genetic model was also found. No significant association was found between the TNF-alpha T-857C polymorphism and colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, and prostate cancer. Conclusions. Our meta-analyses suggest that TNF-alpha T-857C polymorphism may be associated with increased risk of gastric cancer and hepatocellular cancer development. Therefore, the TNF-alpha T-857C polymorphism could be considered as one possible risk factor of gastric cancer and hepatocellular cancer according to our study.

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

4.2
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