3.9 Article

Glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms and risk of differentiated thyroid carcinomas -: A case-control analysis

期刊

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archotol.132.7.756

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P-30 CA 16672, K-12 CA 88084] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the association between glutathione S-transferase (GST) polymorphisms and the risk of differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) and benign thyroid tumors. Design: Case-control study. Setting: Tertiary care cancer center. Patients: Two hundred one patients with DTC, 103 patients with benign thyroid tumors, and 680 cancer-free control subjects. Main Outcome Measures: Results of a polymerase chain reaction-based assay for genotyping. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, tobacco use, and alcohol use. Results: The patients with DTC were younger, more likely to be female and nonwhite, and less likely to smoke or consume alcohol than the controls. Overall, 55.2% of the DTC cases and 52.6% of the controls were null for the gene for GST-mu l (GSTM1) (P = .52), and 25.4% of the DTC subjects and 20.6% of the controls were null for the GST-theta 1 gene (GSTT1) (P = .15). However, 15.9% of the DTC cases but only 9.4% of the controls were null for both genes (P = .009). In addition, the results of the adjusted multivariate regression analysis suggested that having both null genotypes was associated with an increased risk for DTC (odds ratio [OR], 2.1 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.5; P = .003]). This was particularly true for women (OR, 2.5), current smokers (OR, 3.6), and nonwhites (OR, 5.6). A similar analysis demonstrated a nonsignificant association between these genotypes and benign thyroid tumors (OR, 1.5 [95% confidence interval, 0.7-3.0; P = 30). Conclusions: Our results suggest that the simultaneous presence of the GSTM1- and GSTT1-null genotypes is a susceptibility factor for DTC. Such knowledge may ultimately help refine cancer prevention efforts; however, larger studies are needed to verify these 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

3.9
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