4.5 Article

Toll-like Receptor Signaling Pathway Variants and Prostate Cancer Mortality

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 1859-1863

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0981

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Service Award Training program in Cancer Epidemiology [T32 CA009001-32]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [T32CA009001] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An understanding of factors associated with prostate cancer (PCa) mortality is increasingly important given the biological heterogeneity of disease. Previous studies have shown that genetic variation in the Toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling pathway is associated with PCa incidence, but any role in progression and mortality is unclear. Among 1,252 PCa cases from the Cancer Prostate in Sweden study, we conducted time-to-event analyses of PCa mortality for 99 individual tagging SNPs and haploytpes from 20 genes in the TLR pathway. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 99% confidence intervals (99% Cl). Global P values were estimated from a likelihood ratio test. During a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 191 PCa deaths occurred. Controlling for age and geographic location, two polymorphisms were statistically significantly associated with PCa mortality (P < 0.01). Compared with homozygous wild-type carriers of the TLR-9 polymorphism (rs187084), the HR (99% Cl) was 1.57 (1.02, 2.41) for heterozygotes and 1.02 (0.57, 1.84) for rare homozygotes (P = 0.009). For a MIC-1 SNP (rs1227732), the HR comparing carriers of at least one copy of the minor allele to wild-type homozygotes was 0.54 (99% Cl: 0.34, 0.87). Only the MIC-1 SNP remained significant after additional adjustment for treatment. No significant associations were observed for common haplotypes and PCa mortality. This study highlights the importance of studies of PCa mortality because risk factors for incidence and mortality may differ. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(6):1859-63)

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