4.5 Article

Mitochondrial DNA Copy Number and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma Risk in Two Prospective Studies

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 148-153

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0753

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH intramural research program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mitochondrial DNA copy number (mtDNA CN) may be modified by mitochondria in response to oxidative stress. Previously, mtDNA CN was associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) risk, particularly chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). We conducted a replication study in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) study and pooled with published ATBC (Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene) data. Methods: In PLCO, 292 NHL cases (95 CLL/SLL cases) and 301 controls were pooled with 142 NHL cases (47 CLL/SLL cases) and 142 controls from ATBC. Subjects answered a questionnaire and provided blood. DNA was extracted from prediagnostic peripheral white blood, and mtDNA CN assayed by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Unconditional logistic regression estimated mtDNA CN and NHL risk by odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: Greater mtDNA CN was associated with increased risk of CLL/SLL among males in PLCO (3rd vs. 1st tertile: OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.03-4.72; P-trend: 0.049) and pooled (T3 vs. T1: OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.72-5.68; P-trend: 0.0002). Association was stronger among male smokers (P-trend: < 0.0001) and essentially identical for cases diagnosed < 6, > 6-8, and > 8 years from blood draw (pooled: P-interaction: 0.65). mtDNA CN and risk of other NHL subtypes and multiple myeloma showed no association. Conclusions and Impact: Mitochondrial DNA CN was associated with risk of CLL/SLL in males/male smokers. The risk was observed among cases diagnosed as long as 8 years after blood draw. These results suggest that higher mtDNA CN may reflect a process involved in CLL/SLL development. (C)2014 AACR.

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