4.7 Article

Validating genetic risk associations for ovarian cancer through the international Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 100, 期 2, 页码 412-420

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604820

关键词

ovarian cancer; genetic susceptibility; oestrogen metabolism; CYP3A4; pooled-analyses

类别

资金

  1. Ovarian Cancer Research Fund
  2. Cancer Research UK [11021] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Cancer Research UK
  4. The Francis Crick Institute [10119, 10124] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [G0801875] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. MRC [G0801875] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The search for genetic variants associated with ovarian cancer risk has focused on pathways including sex steroid hormones, DNA repair, and cell cycle control. The Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) identified 10 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes in these pathways, which had been genotyped by Consortium members and a pooled analysis of these data was conducted. Three of the 10 SNPs showed evidence of an association with ovarian cancer at P <= 0.10 in a log-additive model: rs2740574 in CYP3A4 (P = 0.011), rs1805386 in LIG4 (P = 0.007), and rs3218536 in XRCC2 (P = 0.095). Additional genotyping in other OCAC studies was undertaken and only the variant in CYP3A4, rs2740574, continued to show an association in the replication data among homozygous carriers: OR(homozygous(hom)) = 2.50 (95% CI 0.54-11.57, P = 0.24) with 1406 cases and 2827 controls. Overall, in the combined data the odds ratio was 2.81 among carriers of two copies of the minor allele (95% CI 1.20-6.56, P = 0.017, p(het) across studies = 0.42) with 1969 cases and 3491 controls. There was no association among heterozygous carriers. CYP3A4 encodes a key enzyme in oestrogen metabolism and our finding between rs2740574 and risk of ovarian cancer suggests that this pathway may be involved in ovarian carcinogenesis. Additional follow-up is warranted.

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