4.4 Article

Association between Smoking and p53 Mutation in Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis

期刊

CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 18-24

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2013.09.003

关键词

Lung cancer; meta-analysis; p53 mutation; smoking

类别

资金

  1. NSFC [30770649, 30970682]
  2. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20100061110070]
  3. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University
  4. Jilin Provincial Science and Technology Development Project [201205008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To carry out a meta-analysis on the relationship between smoking and p53 gene mutation in lung cancer patients. Materials and methods: PubMed, Web of Science, ProQest and Medline were searched by using the key words: 'lung cancer or lung neoplasm or lung carcinoma', 'p53 mutation' and 'smoking'. According to the selection criteria, 15 articles were identified and methodologically analysed by STATA 12.0 software package. Crude odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals calculated using the fixed-effects model were used to assess the strength of association between smoking and p53 mutation in lung cancer. Results: In total, 15 articles with 1770 lung cancer patients were identified; 69.6% of the patients were smokers, 30.4% were non-smokers. Overall, smokers with lung cancer had a 2.70-fold (95% confidence interval 2.04-3.59) higher risk for mutation than the non-smokers with lung cancer. In subgroup analyses, the increased risk of p53 mutation in smokers than in non-smokers was found in the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) group (odds ratio = 2.38, 95% confidence interval = 1.71-3.32) and in the NSCLC and SCLC group (odds ratio 3.82, 95% confidence interval 2.19-6.69). Conclusions: This meta-analysis strongly suggests that p53 mutation is associated with smoking-induced lung cancer. Smokers with lung cancer had a higher risk for p53 mutation than non-smokers. (c) 2013 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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