4.1 Article

Association of glutathione S-transferase T1, M1, and P1 polymorphisms in the breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis

期刊

THERAPEUTICS AND CLINICAL RISK MANAGEMENT
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 763-769

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S104339

关键词

GSTM1; GSTT1; GSTP1; polymorphism; breast cancer; meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81573008, 81201798]
  2. Pudong Health Bureau of Shanghai [PWRd2014-01]
  3. Key Disciplines Group Construction Project of Pudong Health Bureau of Shanghai [PWZxq2014-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Several case-control studies investigating the relationship between genetic polymorphisms of glutathione S-transferase (GST) M1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 (rs1695) and the risk of breast cancer have reported contradictory results. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to clarify this issue. Materials and methods: An updated meta-analysis using PubMed and Web of Knowledge databases for the eligible case-control studies was performed. Random- or fixed-effects model was used. Results: A total of 10,067 cancer cases and 12,276 controls in 41 independent case-control studies from 19 articles were included in this meta-analysis. Significant increase in risk of breast cancer for Asians was found in GSTM1-null genotype (P=0.012, odds ratio [OR] = 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04-1.32) and GSTT1-null genotype (P=0.039, OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.01-1.41). In addition, our results showed that the GSTP1 (rs1695) polymorphisms can significantly increase the risk among Caucasians (P=0.042, OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.01-1.34). Sensitivity analysis and publication bias further confirmed the dependability of the results in this meta-analysis. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that both GSTM1-and GSTT1-null polymorphisms are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in Asians and that GSTP1 Val105Ile (rs1695) polymorphism is associated with an increased breast cancer risk in Caucasians.

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

4.1
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