INTRODUCTION: A debate exists about whether glutathione S-transferase (GST) polymorphisms (GST mu-1 [GSTM1] null/present genotype and GST theta-1 [GSTT1] null/present genotype) confer additional risk for cervical cancer. This meta-analysis was aimed to examine the associations between the aforementioned polymorphisms and cervical cancer risk. METHODS: Thirteen studies were eligible for GSTM1 (1616 cervical cancer cases and 1970 controls), and 12 studies were eligible for GSTT1 (1393 cases and 1766 controls). Pooled odds ratios (OR) were appropriately derived from fixed effects or random effects models. Separate analyses were conducted on Chinese and non-Chinese populations. Metaregression with publication year was also performed. RESULTS: At the overall analysis, the GSTM1 null genotype was associated with increased cervical cancer risk (pooled OR = 1.272; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.014-1.597, random effects). The association seemed confined to non-Chinese populations (pooled OR = 1.392; 95% CI, 1.003-1.932, random effects) given that the association was not significant in the subset of Chinese studies (pooled OR = 1.080; 95% CI, 0.870-1.340, fixed effects). On the other hand, at the overall analysis, the GSTT1 null genotype was not associated with increased cervical cancer risk (pooled OR = 1.301; 95% CI, 0.948-1.787, random effects). Similarly, no significant associations were detected in either non-Chinese or Chinese populations concerning the GSTT1 null genotype. CONCLUSIONS: The GSTM1 null genotype confers additional risk for cervical cancer in non-Chinese populations. The trend concerning GSTT1 has not reached significance.
INTRODUCTION: A debate exists about whether glutathione S-transferase (GST) polymorphisms (GST mu-1 [GSTM1] null/present genotype and GST theta-1 [GSTT1] null/present genotype) confer additional risk for cervical cancer. This meta-analysis was aimed to examine the associations between the aforementioned polymorphisms and cervical cancer risk. METHODS: Thirteen studies were eligible for GSTM1 (1616 cervical cancer cases and 1970 controls), and 12 studies were eligible for GSTT1 (1393 cases and 1766 controls). Pooled odds ratios (OR) were appropriately derived from fixed effects or random effects models. Separate analyses were conducted on Chinese and non-Chinese populations. Metaregression with publication year was also performed. RESULTS: At the overall analysis, the GSTM1 null genotype was associated with increased cervical cancer risk (pooled OR = 1.272; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.014-1.597, random effects). The association seemed confined to non-Chinese populations (pooled OR = 1.392; 95% CI, 1.003-1.932, random effects) given that the association was not significant in the subset of Chinese studies (pooled OR = 1.080; 95% CI, 0.870-1.340, fixed effects). On the other hand, at the overall analysis, the GSTT1 null genotype was not associated with increased cervical cancer risk (pooled OR = 1.301; 95% CI, 0.948-1.787, random effects). Similarly, no significant associations were detected in either non-Chinese or Chinese populations concerning the GSTT1 null genotype. CONCLUSIONS: The GSTM1 null genotype confers additional risk for cervical cancer in non-Chinese populations. The trend concerning GSTT1 has not reached significance.
Authors: Jonatan R Ruiz; Carmen Fiuza-Luces; Amaya Buxens; Amalia Cano-Nieto; Félix Gómez-Gallego; Catalina Santiago; Gabriel Rodríguez-Romo; Nuria Garatachea; José I Lao; María Morán; Alejandro Lucia Journal: Age (Dordr) Date: 2011-09-06
Authors: Staci L Sudenga; Sadeep Shrestha; Maurizio Macaluso; Edward E Partridge; Gary L Johanning; Chandrika J Piyathilake Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Babatunde Adedokun; Zhaohui Du; Guimin Gao; Thomas U Ahearn; Kathryn L Lunetta; Gary Zirpoli; Jonine Figueroa; Esther M John; Leslie Bernstein; Wei Zheng; Jennifer J Hu; Regina G Ziegler; Sarah Nyante; Elisa V Bandera; Sue A Ingles; Michael F Press; Sandra L Deming-Halverson; Jorge L Rodriguez-Gil; Song Yao; Temidayo O Ogundiran; Oladosu Ojengbede; William Blot; Melissa A Troester; Katherine L Nathanson; Anselm Hennis; Barbara Nemesure; Stefan Ambs; Peter N Fiorica; Lara E Sucheston-Campbell; Jeannette T Bensen; Lawrence H Kushi; Gabriela Torres-Mejia; Donglei Hu; Laura Fejerman; Manjeet K Bolla; Joe Dennis; Alison M Dunning; Douglas F Easton; Kyriaki Michailidou; Paul D P Pharoah; Qin Wang; Dale P Sandler; Jack A Taylor; Katie M O'Brien; Cari M Kitahara; Adeyinka G Falusi; Chinedum Babalola; Joel Yarney; Baffour Awuah; Beatrice Addai-Wiafe; Stephen J Chanock; Andrew F Olshan; Christine B Ambrosone; David V Conti; Elad Ziv; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Julie R Palmer; Christopher A Haiman; Dezheng Huo Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 14.919