BACKGROUND: Several genes encoding for DNA repair molecules implicated in maintaining genomic integrity have been proposed as cancer-susceptibility genes. Although efforts have been made to create synopses for specific fields that summarize the data from genetic association studies, such an overview is not available for genes involved in DNA repair. METHODS: We have created a regularly updated database of studies addressing associations between DNA repair gene variants (excluding highly penetrant mutations) and different types of cancer. Using 1087 datasets and publicly available data from genome-wide association platforms, meta-analyses using dominant and recessive models were performed on 241 associations between individual variants and specific cancer types that had been tested in two or more independent studies. The epidemiological strength of each association was graded with Venice criteria that assess amount of evidence, replication, and protection from bias. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Thirty-one nominally statistically significant (ie, P < .05 without adjustment for multiple comparisons) associations were recorded for 16 genes in dominant and/or recessive model analyses (BRCA2, CCND1, ERCC1, ERCC2, ERCC4, ERCC5, MGMT, NBN, PARP1, POLI, TP53, XPA, XRCC1, XRCC2, XRCC3, and XRCC4). XRCC1, XRCC2, TP53, and ERCC2 variants were each nominally associated with several types of cancer. Three associations were graded as having "strong" credibility, another four had modest credibility, and 24 had weak credibility based on Venice criteria. Requiring more stringent P values to account for multiplicity of comparisons, only the associations of ERCC2 codon 751 (recessive model) and of XRCC1 -77 T>C (dominant model) with lung cancer had P <or= .0001 and retained P <or= .001 even when the first published studies on the respective associations were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: We have conducted meta-analyses of 241 associations between variants in DNA repair genes and cancer and have found sparse association signals with strong epidemiological credibility. This synopsis offers a model to survey the current status and gaps in evidence in the field of DNA repair genes and cancer susceptibility, may indicate potential pleiotropic activity of genes and gene pathways, and may offer mechanistic insights in carcinogenesis.
BACKGROUND: Several genes encoding for DNA repair molecules implicated in maintaining genomic integrity have been proposed as cancer-susceptibility genes. Although efforts have been made to create synopses for specific fields that summarize the data from genetic association studies, such an overview is not available for genes involved in DNA repair. METHODS: We have created a regularly updated database of studies addressing associations between DNA repair gene variants (excluding highly penetrant mutations) and different types of cancer. Using 1087 datasets and publicly available data from genome-wide association platforms, meta-analyses using dominant and recessive models were performed on 241 associations between individual variants and specific cancer types that had been tested in two or more independent studies. The epidemiological strength of each association was graded with Venice criteria that assess amount of evidence, replication, and protection from bias. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Thirty-one nominally statistically significant (ie, P < .05 without adjustment for multiple comparisons) associations were recorded for 16 genes in dominant and/or recessive model analyses (BRCA2, CCND1, ERCC1, ERCC2, ERCC4, ERCC5, MGMT, NBN, PARP1, POLI, TP53, XPA, XRCC1, XRCC2, XRCC3, and XRCC4). XRCC1, XRCC2, TP53, and ERCC2 variants were each nominally associated with several types of cancer. Three associations were graded as having "strong" credibility, another four had modest credibility, and 24 had weak credibility based on Venice criteria. Requiring more stringent P values to account for multiplicity of comparisons, only the associations of ERCC2 codon 751 (recessive model) and of XRCC1 -77 T>C (dominant model) with lung cancer had P <or= .0001 and retained P <or= .001 even when the first published studies on the respective associations were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: We have conducted meta-analyses of 241 associations between variants in DNA repair genes and cancer and have found sparse association signals with strong epidemiological credibility. This synopsis offers a model to survey the current status and gaps in evidence in the field of DNA repair genes and cancer susceptibility, may indicate potential pleiotropic activity of genes and gene pathways, and may offer mechanistic insights in carcinogenesis.
Authors: Lori C Sakoda; Melissa M Loomis; Jennifer A Doherty; Liberto Julianto; Matt J Barnett; Marian L Neuhouser; Mark D Thornquist; Noel S Weiss; Gary E Goodman; Chu Chen Journal: Int J Mol Epidemiol Genet Date: 2012-02-05
Authors: Audun Hanssen-Bauer; Karin Solvang-Garten; Karin Margaretha Gilljam; Kathrin Torseth; David M Wilson; Mansour Akbari; Marit Otterlei Journal: DNA Repair (Amst) Date: 2012-01-26
Authors: Paolo Boffetta; Deborah M Winn; John P Ioannidis; Duncan C Thomas; Julian Little; George Davey Smith; Vincent J Cogliano; Stephen S Hecht; Daniela Seminara; Paolo Vineis; Muin J Khoury Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Jennifer A Doherty; Noel S Weiss; Sherianne Fish; Wenhong Fan; Melissa M Loomis; Lori C Sakoda; Mary Anne Rossing; Lue Ping Zhao; Chu Chen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sungshim L Park; Delara Bastani; Binh Y Goldstein; Shen-Chih Chang; Wendy Cozen; Lin Cai; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Baoguo Ding; Sander Greenland; Na He; Shehnaz K Hussain; Qingwu Jiang; Yuan-Chin A Lee; Simin Liu; Ming-Lan Lu; Thomas M Mack; Jenny T Mao; Hal Morgenstern; Li-Na Mu; Sam S Oh; Allan Pantuck; Jeanette C Papp; Jianyu Rao; Victor E Reuter; Donald P Tashkin; Hua Wang; Nai-Chieh Y You; Shun-Zhang Yu; Jin-Kou Zhao; Zuo-Feng Zhang Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Luis Orlando Pérez; Andrea Crivaro; Gisela Barbisan; Lucia Poleri; Carlos Daniel Golijow Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2013-03-29 Impact factor: 3.201