3.9 Article

Polymorphisms in NQO1 and the clinical course of urinary bladder neoplasms

期刊

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.1080/00365590600991946

关键词

urinary bladder neoplasms; metabolic genes; polymorphisms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Urinary bladder neoplasms differ considerably in biological potential, and tumor morphology alone cannot predict their clinical behaviors. Polymorphisms in xenobiotic metabolic genes reportedly modulate susceptibility to bladder neoplasms and may affect the clinical course and outcomes of the disease. This study was conducted to determine the effect of polymorphisms in the xenobiotic metabolic genes on the disease course and clinical outcomes of urinary bladder neoplasms. Material and methods. Patients with urinary bladder neoplasms who had been followed up for a 5-year period were genotyped for NQO1 (R139W, P187S), NAT (rapid/slow), GSTP1 (I105V), GSTT1 and GSTM1 (non-null/null) and MTHFR (A222V, E429A) polymorphisms. Results. Variant allele carriers of the NQO1 ( P187S) polymorphism showed a higher risk for high-stage disease than non-carriers at diagnosis [relative risk (RR) = 1.4; 95% CI 1.0-1.8). A higher risk for highly malignant disease (T2 +) was also observed in variant allele carriers than non-carriers of the GSTP1 (I105V) polymorphism (RR = 1.6; 95% CI 1.1 - 2.5). NQO1 (R139W) variant allele carrier patients with intermediate malignant disease (TaG3 + T1) had shorter disease-free survival than non-carriers (p = 0.05). In contrast, carriers of the variant allele for the MTHFR (A222V) polymorphism had significantly longer disease-free survival than non- carriers ( p = 0.02). Conclusions. Our data are consistent with the notion that NQO1 polymorphisms influence the course and clinical outcomes of urinary bladder neoplasms. However, our results need to be confirmed in a large study as most of the associations detected were only of marginal statistical significance, and would be lost on correction for multiple comparisons.

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

3.9
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