| Literature DB >> 23226753 |
Wei-Dong Leng1, Xian-Tao Zeng, Yong-Ji Chen, Xiao-Li Duan, Yu-Ming Niu, Rong-Pei Long, Zhi-Xiao Luo.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to explore the cytochrome P450 2E1 (CYP2E1) RsaI/PstI polymorphism and risk of esophageal cancer (EC) in mainland Chinese populations. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI and VIP databases for publications on the CYP2E1 RsaI/PstI polymorphism and risk of EC was performed. and the genotype data were analyzed in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to assess the association. Sensitivity analysis, test of heterogeneity and assessment of publication bias were performed. The search yielded 17 studies including 18 trails involving 1,663 cases and 2,603 controls. The meta-analyses showed a significant association between the CYP2E1 RsaI/PstI polymorphism and risk of EC in the mainland Chinese population (c2 vs. c1: OR=0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.81; P<0.001; c2/c2 vs. c1/c1: OR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93; c2/c2 vs. c1/c1+c1/c2: OR=0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96; P=0.02; c1/c2 vs. c1/c1: OR=0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.75; P<0.001; c1/c2+c2/c2 vs. c1/c1: OR=0.48; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70; P<0.001). An increased cancer risk in all genetic models was identified following stratification by ethnicity, source of controls and tumor type. In conclusion, in all genetic models, the association between the CYP2E1 RsaI/PstI polymorphism and risk of EC in the mainland Chinese population was significant. This meta-analysis suggests that the CYP2E1 RsaI/PstI polymorphism is a risk factor for EC, and the c2 allele is a factor that lowers the possibility of EC in the mainland Chinese population and this association did not change due to ethnic differences in genetic backgrounds and the environment.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23226753 PMCID: PMC3493819 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2012.687
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Figure 1Summary of the study selection process.
Characteristics of the studies included in this meta-analysis.
| Author (Refs.) | Site | Group | Source | Sample | Genotype
| Genotyping method | P-value (HWE) for controls | Adjustment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| c1/c1 | c1/c2 | c2/c2 | ||||||||
| Lin | Linxian County, Henan Province | T | ESCC and EAC | 45 | 36 | 6 | 3 | PCR-RFLP | 0.345 | Age, gender |
| C | PB | 45 | 20 | 22 | 3 | |||||
| Tan | Linxian County, Henan Province | T | ESCC | 150 | 107 | 31 | 12 | PCR-RFLP | 0.009 | Age, gender, smoking |
| C | PB | 150 | 66 | 77 | 7 | |||||
| Shi ( | Linzhou City, Henan Province | T | EC | 116 | 74 | 37 | 5 | PCR-RFLP | 0.922 | Age, gender, smoking, fermented vegetable |
| C | HB | 106 | 46 | 48 | 12 | |||||
| Xi’an City, Shaanxi Province | T | EC | 71 | 39 | 28 | 4 | PCR-RFLP | 0.368 | ||
| C | HB | 62 | 30 | 24 | 8 | |||||
| Gao | Huai’an City, Jiangsu Province | T | EC | 144 | 83 | 44 | 13 | PCR-RFLP | 0.525 | Age, gender, tea, smoking, alcohol |
| C | PB | 233 | 140 | 75 | 14 | |||||
| Shi | Wuhan City, Hubei Province | T | EC | 98 | 72 | 19 | 7 | PCR-RFLP | 0.039 | Age, gender |
| C | HB | 120 | 54 | 45 | 21 | |||||
| Gao | Huai’an City, Jiangsu Province | T | EC | 93 | 55 | 31 | 7 | PCR-RFLP | 0.20 | Age, gender, smoking, drinking, dietary habits |
| C | PB | 196 | 121 | 62 | 13 | |||||
| Shi | Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province | T | EC | 78 | 48 | 24 | 6 | PCR-RFLP | 0.141 | Age, gender, smoking, alcohol |
| C | HB | 118 | 60 | 42 | 16 | |||||
| Yin | Huai’an City, Jiangsu Province | T | EC | 106 | 52 | 49 | 5 | PCR-RFLP | 0.411 | Age, gender |
| C | HB | 106 | 55 | 45 | 6 | |||||
| Lu | Kazakh, Xinjiang Autonomous Region | T | ESCC | 104 | 81 | 20 | 3 | PCR-RFLP | <0.001 | Age, gender |
| C | PB | 104 | 25 | 74 | 5 | |||||
| Li ( | Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province | T | EC | 60 | 32 | 18 | 10 | PCR-RFLP | 0.781 | Age, gender, smoking, drinking habits |
| C | PB | 199 | 101 | 69 | 29 | |||||
| Liu | Huai’an City, Jiangsu Province | T | ESCC | 77 | 34 | 33 | 10 | PCR-RFLP | 0.91 | Age, gender |
| C | PB | 79 | 45 | 29 | 5 | |||||
| Dong | Gansu Province | T | EC | 120 | 84 | 26 | 10 | PCR-RFLP | 0.428 | Age, gender |
| C | HB | 120 | 57 | 44 | 19 | |||||
| Xia | Jingjiang City, Jiangsu Province | T | ESCC | 45 | 30 | 12 | 3 | PCR-RFLP | 0.708 | Not reported |
| C | HB | 45 | 26 | 17 | 2 | |||||
| Qin | Kazakh, Xinjiang Autonomous Region | T | EC | 120 | 94 | 23 | 3 | PCR-RFLP | 0.29 | Age, gender, dietary habits |
| C | PB and HB | 240 | 128 | 90 | 22 | |||||
| Guo | Lanzhou City, Gansu Province | T | ESCC | 80 | 57 | 16 | 7 | PCR-RFLP | <0.001 | Age, gender |
| C | PB | 480 | 225 | 180 | 75 | |||||
| Yang ( | Feicheng City, Shandong Province | T | ESCC | 27 | 19 | 8 | 0 | PCR-RFLP | 0.442 | Age, gender, alcohol, education, smoking |
| C | PB | 44 | 31 | 11 | 2 | |||||
| Zhang and Wu ( | Gansu Province | T | EC | 129 | 75 | 40 | 14 | PCR-RFLP | 0.443 | Age, gender |
| C | PB | 156 | 70 | 56 | 21 | |||||
Characteristics of studies included in this meta-analysis. T, case subjects; C, control subjects; PB, population-based; HB, hospital-based; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; EAC, esophageal adenocarcinoma; EC, esophageal cancer; HWE, Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium; PCR-RFLP, polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism.
Main results of the heterogeneity test and subgroups meta-analyses.
| Heterogeneity
| Meta-analyses
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genetic model | Study or subgroup | P-value | I2 (%) | OR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| c2 vs. c1 | Total | <0.001 | 80 | 0.64 (0.50–0.81) | 0.0003 | |
| Ethnicity | Han | <0.001 | 72 | 0.71 (0.57–0.89) | 0.002 | |
| Kazakh | 0.12 | 58 | 0.28 (0.17–0.46) | <0.001 | ||
| Source of control | PB | <0.001 | 85 | 0.65 (0.45–0.53) | 0.02 | |
| HB | 0.02 | 59 | 0.62 (0.46–0.82) | 0.0007 | ||
| Both | Single study | 0.35 (0.23–0.55) | <0.001 | |||
| Tumor type | EC | <0.001 | 76 | 0.69 (0.53–0.89) | 0.005 | |
| ESCC | <0.001 | 84 | 0.56 (0.33–0.93) | 0.03 | ||
| c2/c2 vs. c1/c1 | Total | 0.03 | 42 | 0.70 (0.56–0.89) | 0.003 | |
| Ethnicity | Han | 0.04 | 42 | 0.75 (0.59–0.95) | 0.02 | |
| Kazakh | 0.35 | 0 | 0.32 (0.13–0.80) | 0.01 | ||
| Source of control | PB | 0.30 | 16 | 1.02 (0.76–1.38) | 0.89 | |
| HB | 0.69 | 0 | 0.44 (0.30–0.66) | <0.001 | ||
| Both | Single study | 0.23 (0.07–0.80) | 0.02 | |||
| Tumor type | EC | 0.05 | 46 | 0.63 (0.48–0.82) | 0.0008 | |
| ESCC | 0.19 | 31 | 0.94 (0.61–1.46) | 0.80 | ||
| c1/c2 vs. c1/c1 | Total | <0.001 | 81 | 0.54 (0.38–0.75) | 0.0003 | |
| Ethnicity | Han | <0.001 | 72 | 0.62 (0.46–0.84) | 0.002 | |
| Kazakh | 0.002 | 90 | 0.18 (0.05–0.68) | 0.01 | ||
| Source of control | PB | <0.001 | 88 | 0.52 (0.30–0.92) | 0.02 | |
| HB | 0.05 | 53 | 0.59 (0.42–0.85) | 0.004 | ||
| Both | Single study | 0.35 (0.20–0.59) | <0.001 | |||
| Tumor type | EC | 0.004 | 62 | 0.66 (0.50–0.88) | 0.004 | |
| ESCC | <0.001 | 87 | 0.38 (0.18–0.82) | 0.01 | ||
| c2/c2 vs. c1/c1+c1/c2 | Total | 0.12 | 29 | 0.73 (0.58–0.92) | 0.008 | |
| Ethnicity | Han | 0.15 | 27 | 0.78 (0.61–0.99) | 0.04 | |
| Kazakh | 0.38 | 0 | 0.34 (0.13–0.85) | 0.02 | ||
| Source of control | PB | 0.47 | 0 | 1.03 (0.76–1.38) | 0.54 | |
| HB | 0.8 | 0 | 0.49 (0.33–0.72) | 0.0003 | ||
| Both | Single study | 0.25 (0.07–0.87) | 0.03 | |||
| Tumor type | EC | 0.14 | 33 | 0.66 (0.50–0.87) | 0.003 | |
| ESCC | 0.31 | 16 | 0.96 (0.62–1.49) | 0.87 | ||
| c1/c2+c2/c2 vs. c1/c1 | Total | <0.001 | 85 | 0.48 (0.34–0.70) | 0.0001 | |
| Ethnicity | Han | <0.001 | 81 | 0.56 (0.40–0.79) | 0.001 | |
| Kazakh | 0.003 | 85 | 0.17 (0.05–0.59) | 0.009 | ||
| Source of control | PB | <0.001 | 88 | 0.56 (0.33–0.95) | 0.03 | |
| HB | <0.001 | 82 | 0.42 (0.23–0.75) | 0.004 | ||
| Both | Single study | 0.32 (0.19–0.52) | <0.001 | |||
| Tumor type | EC | <0.001 | 82 | 0.55 (0.37–0.82) | 0.003 | |
| ESCC | <0.001 | 87 | 0.41 (0.21–0.85) | 0.02 | ||
The main results of the heterogeneity test and meta-analysis. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; EC, esophageal cancer; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; PB, population-based; HB, hospital-based.
Figure 2Forest plot of EC associated with CYP2E1 RsaI/PstI for the c2 allele compared with the c1 allele in total. CI, confidence interval; EC, esophageal cancer.
Figure 3Forest plot of EC associated with CYP2E1 RsaI/PstI for the c2/c2 genotype compared with the c1/c1 genotype in total. CI, confidence interval; EC, esophageal cancer.
Figure 4Forest plot of EC associated with CYP2E1 RsaI/PstI for the c2/c2 genotype compared with the c1/c1+c1/c2 genotype in total. CI, confidence interval; EC, esophageal cancer.
Figure 5Forest plot of EC associated with CYP2E1 RsaI/PstI for the c1/c2 genotype compared with the c1/c1 genotype in total. CI, confidence interval; EC, esophageal cancer.
Figure 6Forest plot of EC associated with CYP2E1 RsaI/PstI for the c1/c2+c2/c2 genotype compared with the c1/c1 genotype in total. CI, confidence interval; EC, esophageal cancer.
Sensitivity analysis after elimination of the studies where frequency distributions of genotypes in the controls were inconsistent with HWE.
| Heterogeneity
| Meta-analyses
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genetic model | Subgroup | P-value | I2 (%) | OR (95% CI) | P-value | Model |
| c2 vs. c1 | Total | <0.001 | 80 | 0.64 (0.50, 0.81) | 0.0003 | Random |
| AE | <0.001 | 71 | 0.76 (0.60, 0.96) | 0.02 | Random | |
| c2/c2 vs. c1/c1 | Total | 0.03 | 42 | 0.70 (0.56, 0.89) | 0.003 | Fixed |
| AE | 0.08 | 37 | 0.75 (0.57, 0.98) | 0.03 | Fixed | |
| c1/c2 vs. c1/c1 | Total | <0.001 | 81 | 0.54 (0.38, 0.75) | 0.0003 | Random |
| AE | 0.001 | 62 | 0.71 (0.54, 0.93) | 0.01 | Random | |
| c2/c2 vs. c1/c1+c1/c2 | Total | 0.12 | 29 | 0.73 (0.58, 0.92) | 0.008 | Fixed |
| AE | 0.19 | 24 | 0.77 (0.59, 1.00) | 0.05 | Fixed | |
| c1/c2+c2/c2 vs. c1/c1 | Total | <0.001 | 85 | 0.48 (0.34, 0.70) | 0.0001 | Random |
| AE | <0.001 | 80 | 0.62 (0.43, 0.89) | 0.01 | Random | |
Sensitivity analysis after elimination of the studies for which the frequency distributions of genotypes in the controls were inconsistent with HWE. AE, after elimination; HWE, Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 7Sensitivity analysis based on c2 vs. c1; a single study was removed each turn. CI, confidence interval; EC, esophageal cancer.
Figure 8Funnel plot based on the c2/c2 vs. c1/c1+c1/c2 genetic model.