4.6 Review

Pooled analysis and meta-analysis of glutathione S-transferase M1 and bladder cancer:: A HuGE review

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 156, 期 2, 页码 95-109

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwf018

关键词

bladder neoplasms; epidemiology; genetics; glutathione transferase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Smoking is a known risk factor for bladder cancer. The product of the GSTM1 gene, glutathione S-transferase M1 (GSTM1), is involved in the detoxification of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in tobacco smoke; a homozygous deletion of this gene in approximately 50% of Caucasians and Asians results in a lack of GSTM1 enzyme activity. Most studies examining the relation between bladder cancer and GSTM1 have reported an increased risk associated with a lack of GSTM1 activity. The authors performed meta- and pooled analyses of published and unpublished, case-control, genotype-based studies that examined this association (17 studies, 2,149 cases, 3,646 controls) and excluded studies conducted in populations with a high prevalence of exposure to known bladder cancer risk factors other than tobacco smoke. Using random effects models in the meta-analysis, the authors obtained a summary odds ratio of 1.44 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23, 1.68) for GSTM1 null status with all studies included. Results from studies with at least 100 cases and 100 controls produced a summary odds ratio of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.26, 1.60). Pooled analyses using original data sets from 10 studies (1,496 cases and 1,444 controls) and adjusting for age, sex, and race produced similar results. There was no evidence of multiplicative interaction between the GSTM1 null genotype and ever smoking in relation to bladder cancer, although there was a suggestion of additive interaction (additive interaction = 0.45, 95% CI: -0.03, 0.93). These results indicate that, among populations studied to date, GSTM1 null status is associated with a modest increase in the risk of bladder cancer.

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

4.6
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