4.4 Article

XRCC1 and GSTP1 polymorphisms and prognosis of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 733-740

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-012-2067-8

关键词

Oxaliplatin; Colorectal cancer; XRCC1; GSTP1; Genetic polymorphisms

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81160072]
  2. Guangxi Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [2012jjFA40011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic variations are related to individual differences of DNA repair ability and drug metabolism, which can greatly influence prognosis of antineoplastic agents, such as oxaliplatin. The aim was to explore the influences of X-ray repair cross-complementing 1(XRCC1) and Glutathione S-transferase P1 (GSTP1) genetic variants on prognosis of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer patients. We performed a meta-analysis including 13 original studies with a total number of 1,234 patients in advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. Tumor responses [complete response, partial response, stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD)] and progression-free survival were estimated. Our results showed that XRCC1 Arg399Gln polymorphism was significantly associated with tumor chemotherapy when SD or PD was considered as non-response [risk ratio (RR) = 1.29; 95 % confidence intervals (CI): 1.05-1.60; P = 0.02]. No significant association was found between GSTP1 Ile105 Val polymorphism and tumor response (RR = 0.63; 95 % CI: 0.35-1.14; P = 0.13). In addition, our results also showed that there was no significant association between XRCC1 codon 399 Arg/Gln or Gln/Gln genotypes and hazard ratio for progression-free survival (Hazards ratio = 1.04 and 1.92; 95 % CI: 0.75-1.43 and 0.62-1.37; P = 0.826 and 0.677, respectively). In our meta-analysis, XRCC1 Arg399Gln polymorphism may be a valuable genetic marker for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer, and the results still need further confirmation.

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

4.4
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