| Literature DB >> 23383041 |
Ying-Yu Ma1, Tian-Pei Guan, Hai-Bo Yao, Sheng Yu, Le-Gao Chen, Ying-Jie Xia, Xu-Jun He, Hui-Ju Wang, Xiao-Ting Jiang, Hou-Quan Tao.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, there have been a number of studies on the association between MDM2 (Murine Double Minute 2) 309 polymorphism and ovarian cancer risk. However, the results of previous reports remain controversial and ambiguous. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to explore more precisely the association between MDM2 309 polymorphism and the risk of ovarian cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23383041 PMCID: PMC3561416 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Flow chart of study study selection based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Meta-analysis of the association between MDM2 SNP309 polymorphism and ovarian cancer risk.
| Comparisons | Odds ratio | 95%Confidence Interval |
| Heterogeneity | Effects model | |
| I2 |
| |||||
| G vs T | 0.942 | 0.760–1.167 | 0.583 | 67.1% | 0.010 | Random |
| Asians | 0.774 | 0.628–0.955 | 0.017 | 0.0% | 0.327 | |
| Caucasians | 1.053 | 0.856–1.294 | 0.626 | 45.2% | 0.140 | |
| GG vs TT | 0.895 | 0.611–1.313 | 0.571 | 54.7% | 0.050 | Random |
| Asians | 0.601 | 0.395–0.914 | 0.017 | 0.0% | 0.417 | |
| Caucasians | 1.125 | 0.823–1.538 | 0.459 | 17.0% | 0.306 | |
| TG vs TT | 0.929 | 0.684–1.261 | 0.635 | 60.0% | 0.028 | Random |
| Asians | 0.702 | 0.486–1.013 | 0.059 | 0.0% | 0.806 | |
| Caucasians | 1.115 | 0.840–1.480 | 0.450 | 39.4% | 0.176 | |
| TG+GG vs TT | 0.905 | 0.657–1.246 | 0.540 | 67.7% | 0.008 | Random |
| Asians | 0.661 | 0.468–0.934 | 0.019 | 0.0% | 0.880 | |
| Caucasians | 1.091 | 0.814–1.462 | 0.560 | 47.5% | 0.126 | |
| GG vs TT+TG | 0.927 | 0.770–1.116 | 0.424 | 24.9% | 0.247 | Fixed |
| Asians | 0.763 | 0.543–1.072 | 0.119 | 37.4% | 0.206 | |
| Caucasians | 1.008 | 0.807–1.258 | 0.946 | 4.1% | 0.372 | |
Figure 2Forest plots of MDM2 309T/G polymorphism in ovarian cancer vs. normal control and subgroup analyses.
The squares and horizontal lines correspond to the study specific OR and 95% CI. The area of the squares reflects the weight (inverse of the variance). The diamond represents the summary OR and 95% CI. OR: odds ratio.
Publication bias test for MDM2 SNP309 polymorphism.
| Comparisons | Egger test | Begg test | ||
| Coefficient |
| 95% CI | ||
| G vs T | −1.427 | 0.354 | −5.209–2.356 | 0.707 |
| GG vs TT | −0.644 | 0.679 | –4.659–3.370 | 0.707 |
| TG vs TT | −2.764 | 0.014 | −4.587–0.941 | 0.707 |
| TG+GG vs TT | −2.574 | 0.063 | −5.367–0.219 | 0.707 |
| GG vs TT+TG | 0.641 | 0.656 | −3.063–4.345 | 0.707 |
MDM2 SNP309T>G Genotype Distribution and Allele Frequency in Cases and Controls.
| Author-Year | Country | Genotype (N) | Allele frequency (N, %) |
| ||||||||||
| Case | Control | Case | Control | |||||||||||
| total | TT | TG | GG | total | TT | TG | GG | T | G | T | G | |||
| Kang et al. (2006) | China | 257 | 77 | 120 | 60 | 257 | 56 | 121 | 80 | 274(53.3%) | 240(46.7%) | 233(45.3%) | 281(54.7%) | 0.422 |
| Knappskog et al. (2011) | Norway | 832 | 296 | 437 | 99 | 1337 | 561 | 617 | 159 | 1029(61.8%) | 635(38.2%) | 1739(65.0%) | 935(34.9%) | 0.591 |
| Ueda et al. (2009) | Japan | 85 | 21 | 45 | 19 | 108 | 20 | 66 | 22 | 87(51.2%) | 83(48.8%) | 106(49.1%) | 110(50.9%) | 0.021 |
| Campbell et al. (2006) | UK | 302 | 117 | 133 | 52 | 258 | 105 | 111 | 42 | 367(60.8%) | 237(39.2%) | 321(62.2%) | 195(37.8%) | 0.172 |
| Copson et al. (2006) | UK | 14 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 102 | 48 | 38 | 16 | 16(57.1%) | 12(42.9%) | 134(65.7%) | 70(34.3%) | 0.079 |
| Krekac et al. (2008) | Czech Republic | 44 | 24 | 18 | 2 | 149 | 61 | 71 | 17 | 66(75.0%) | 22(25.0%) | 193(64.8%) | 105(35.2%) | 0.591 |