4.5 Article

Association of Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants with Risk of Pancreatic Cancer

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 3044-3048

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0306

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA122340, P50CA116201, P50CA102701]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A number of susceptibility genes are common to breast and pancreatic cancer. Recently, several breast cancer susceptibility loci have been identified through genome-wide association studies. Here we evaluated possible associations between these single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and pancreatic cancer risk. Methods: Ten SNPs from FGFR2, TOX3, MAP3K1, H19, LSP1, chromosome 8q24, CASP8, and LUM were investigated for associations with pancreatic cancer risk following genotyping in 1,143 Caucasian individuals with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and 1,097 unaffected controls from a clinic-based pancreatic cancer case-control study. Results: CASP8 rs1045485 [odds ratio (OR), 0.78; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.65-0.9; P = 0.005] and MAP3K1 rs889312 (OR, 0.85; 95% Cl, 0.74-0.97; P = 0.017) showed evidence of association with risk of pancreatic cancer. The CASP8 rs1045485 association was evident in ever smokers (P = 0.002), but not in nonsmokers (P = 0.55), and the effect was strongest in heavy smokers (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.93; P = 0.03). In contrast the MAP3K1 rs889312 association was only evident in nonsmokers (OR, 0.78; 95% Cl, 0.64-0.95; P = 0.01). In addition, evaluation of the influence of the 10 SNPs on survival detected significant associations between outcome for locally advanced pancreatic cancer cases and both 8q rs6983561 (P = 0.045) and LUM rs2268578 (P = 0.02). Conclusion: Association studies in a large pancreatic case-control study indicate that SNPs associated with breast cancer may also be associated with pancreatic cancer susceptibility and survival. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(11):3044-8)

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

4.5
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