4.1 Article

Meta-analysis of the CYP1A2-163C>A Polymorphism and Lung Cancer Risk

期刊

ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 3155-3158

出版社

ASIAN PACIFIC ORGANIZATION CANCER PREVENTION
DOI: 10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.5.3155

关键词

CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism; lung cancer; meta-analysis

类别

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Ministry of Education [Q20122405]
  2. Science Planning Project of Shiyan City [068s]
  3. Intramural Research Program of the Hubei University of Medcine [2011CZX01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many published studies have concerned associations between the CYP1A2 -163 C>A polymorphism and risk of lung cancer, but the results have been inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to obtain a more precise estimate. We searched the PubMed database up to March 1, 2013 for relevant cohort and case-control studies. Supplementary search was conducted manually by searching the references of the included studies and relevant meta-analyses. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software for calculation of pooled odds ratios (ORs) and relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs) after data extraction. Finally, seven case-control studies and one nested case-control study involving 1,675 lung cancer patients and 2,393 controls were included. The meta-analysis showed that there was no association of CYP1A2 -163 C>A polymorphism with risk of lung cancer overall [(OR=0.89, 95% CI=0.74-1.07) for C vs. A; (OR=0.73, 95% CI=0.50-1.07) for AA vs. CC; (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.62-1.09) for AC vs. CC; (OR=0.79, 95% CI=0.58-1.07) for (AC+AA) vs. CC; and (OR=0.87, 95% CI=0.67-1.13) for AA vs. (CC+AC)]. Subgroup analysis indicated that there was an associationbetween CYP1A2 -163C>A polymorphism and lung cancer risk for population-based controls, a trend risk for SCCL (squamous cell carcinoma of lung) and Caucasians. These results suggested that -163 C>A polymorphism is likely to be associated with risk of lung cancer compared with population-based controls.

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