4.7 Article

DNA repair phenotype and cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 55 case-control studies

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07256-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA159868, UM1 CA164920, P30 CA013696]
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [P30 ES009089, U01 ES029660]
  3. Breast Cancer Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

DNA repair phenotype is associated with cancer risk, and different DNA repair capacity is associated with different types of cancer risk. These findings support the potential use of DNA repair phenotype as a biomarker for cancer risk.
DNA repair phenotype can be measured in blood and may be a potential biomarker of cancer risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of DNA repair phenotype and cancer through March 2021. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) of cancer risk for those with the lowest DNA repair capacity compared with those with the highest capacity. We included 55 case-control studies that evaluated 12 different cancers using 10 different DNA repair assays. The pooled OR of cancer risk (all cancer types combined) was 2.92 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.49, 3.43) for the lowest DNA repair. Lower DNA repair was associated with all studied cancer types, and pooled ORs (95% CI) ranged from 2.02 (1.43, 2.85) for skin cancer to 7.60 (3.26, 17.72) for liver cancer. All assays, except the homologous recombination repair assay, showed statistically significant associations with cancer. The effect size ranged from 1.90 (1.00, 3.60) for the etoposide-induced double-strand break assay to 5.06 (3.67, 6.99) for the gamma-H2AX assay. The consistency and strength of the associations support the use of these phenotypic biomarkers; however large-scale prospective studies will be important for understanding their use related to age and screening initiation.

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