PURPOSE: To estimate the prevalence and importance of GSTT1, GSTM1, and CYP1B1 genotypes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and to identify their value as a prognostic factor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study of a group of patients diagnosed with RCC (n = 133) and a control group (n = 208) with benign conditions and no history of tumor. Controls were selected by cumulative samples and mixed pairing. All subjects pertained to the catchment area for our hospital. Sociodemographic variables, anatomical pathology features, and presence of GSTT1, GSTM1, and CYP1B1 polymorphisms by multiplex PCR and sequencing techniques. RESULTS: There were no differences in the genotype distribution of the GSTT1 and GSTM1 genes between cases and controls. In the case of CYP1B1, the GG genotype (Ala119) was more prevalent in patients with RCC (OR = 2.08; 95% CI: 1.32-2.28) and may be implicated in 34.3% (95% CI: 16.3-52.2) of RCCs. In patients with GSTT1 deletion, TNM stages III to IV were more common (39.1%); whereas in Val432 homozygous patients in CYP1B1, Fuhrman grades 3 to 4 (54.6%) were more common. Because this was a cross-sectional study, longitudinal studies are needed in the future to confirm these data. CONCLUSIONS: No relationship between GSTT1 and GSTM1 genotypes and RCC risk was observed. Homozygous subjects with Ala119 in CYP1B1 had twice the risk of RCC as homozygous for Ser119 or heterozygotes. Patients with GSTT1 deletion had tumors of more advanced stages, and those with Val432 polymorphism in CYP1B1 had tumors of higher Fuhrman grade.
PURPOSE: To estimate the prevalence and importance of GSTT1, GSTM1, and CYP1B1 genotypes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and to identify their value as a prognostic factor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study of a group of patients diagnosed with RCC (n = 133) and a control group (n = 208) with benign conditions and no history of tumor. Controls were selected by cumulative samples and mixed pairing. All subjects pertained to the catchment area for our hospital. Sociodemographic variables, anatomical pathology features, and presence of GSTT1, GSTM1, and CYP1B1 polymorphisms by multiplex PCR and sequencing techniques. RESULTS: There were no differences in the genotype distribution of the GSTT1 and GSTM1 genes between cases and controls. In the case of CYP1B1, the GG genotype (Ala119) was more prevalent in patients with RCC (OR = 2.08; 95% CI: 1.32-2.28) and may be implicated in 34.3% (95% CI: 16.3-52.2) of RCCs. In patients with GSTT1 deletion, TNM stages III to IV were more common (39.1%); whereas in Val432 homozygous patients in CYP1B1, Fuhrman grades 3 to 4 (54.6%) were more common. Because this was a cross-sectional study, longitudinal studies are needed in the future to confirm these data. CONCLUSIONS: No relationship between GSTT1 and GSTM1 genotypes and RCC risk was observed. Homozygous subjects with Ala119 in CYP1B1 had twice the risk of RCC as homozygous for Ser119 or heterozygotes. Patients with GSTT1 deletion had tumors of more advanced stages, and those with Val432 polymorphism in CYP1B1 had tumors of higher Fuhrman grade.
Authors: Andrew Feber; Paul Guilhamon; Matthias Lechner; Tim Fenton; Gareth A Wilson; Christina Thirlwell; Tiffany J Morris; Adrienne M Flanagan; Andrew E Teschendorff; John D Kelly; Stephan Beck Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Vesna M Coric; Tatjana P Simic; Tatjana D Pekmezovic; Gordana M Basta-Jovanovic; Ana R Savic Radojevic; Sanja M Radojevic-Skodric; Marija G Matic; Dejan P Dragicevic; Tanja M Radic; Ljiljana M Bogdanovic; Zoran M Dzamic; Marija S Pljesa-Ercegovac Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 3.240