| Literature DB >> 24642488 |
Jiazhuo He1, Lei Deng1, Feifei Na1, Jianxin Xue1, Hui Gao1, You Lu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies investigating the association between TGF-β1 polymorphisms and Radiation Pneumonia (RP) risk have provided inconsistent results. The aim of our study was to assess the association between the TGF-β1 genes C509T, G915C and T869C polymorphisms and risk of RP in lung cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24642488 PMCID: PMC3958356 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1The literature search and study selection procedures.
Characteristics of the included case-control studies on the TGF-β1 polymorphisms and Radiation Pneumonia (RP) risk.
| Gene | Author | Year | Ethnicity | Country | Sample Size | Case | Control | |||||||||||
| Case | Control | C | T | CC | CT | TT | CT+TT | C | T | CC | CT | TT | CT+TT | |||||
| C-509T rs1800469 | Niu | 2012 | Asian | China | 46 | 121 | 39 | 53 | 8 | 23 | 15 | 38 | 109 | 133 | 21 | 67 | 33 | 100 |
| Tucker | 2012 | Caucasian | US | 28 | 115 | 49 | 7 | 21 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 175 | 51 | 66 | 43 | 4 | 47 | |
| Voets | 2012 | Caucasian | Belgium | 59 | 150 | 88 | 30 | 31 | 26 | 2 | 28 | 209 | 91 | 70 | 69 | 11 | 80 | |
| Wang | 2010 | Asian | China | 63 | 107 | 16 | 47 | 28 | 79 | |||||||||
| Wang | 2011 | Asian | China | 38 | 96 | 40 | 36 | 13 | 14 | 11 | 25 | 88 | 104 | 30 | 28 | 38 | 66 | |
| Yuan | 2009 | Caucasian | US | 74 | 89 | 47 | 27 | 53 | 36 | |||||||||
| Zhang | 2008 | Asian | China | 29 | 141 | 35 | 23 | 9 | 17 | 3 | 20 | 140 | 142 | 35 | 70 | 36 | 106 | |
| 337 | 819 | 251 | 149 | 145 | 87 | 31 | 192 | 721 | 521 | 303 | 277 | 122 | 514 | |||||
Pooled Analysis on Association between the T869C polymorphism and the RP risk.
| Genetic Model | Number of study | Sample size | Analysis Model | I2 | Test of Association(95%CI) | ||
| case | control | P | OR | ||||
| Dominant model | 7 | 341 | 712 | F | 45 | 0.00 | 0.59 [0.45, 0.79] |
| Recessive model | 5 | 229 | 490 | F | 0 | 0.43 | 0.85 [0.57, 1.27] |
| CT vs. TT | 5 | 164 | 406 | F | 0 | 0.00 | 0.47 [0.32, 0.69] |
| CC vs. TT | 5 | 137 | 262 | F | 22 | 0.13 | 0.70 [0.45, 1.11] |
| Ethnicity | |||||||
| Asian | |||||||
| Dominant model | 3 | 150 | 330 | R | 57 | 0.33 | 0.80 [0.52, 1.25] |
| Caucasian | |||||||
| Dominant model | 3 | 161 | 352 | F | 30 | 0.00 | 0.48 [0.29, 0.78] |
Dominant model: TC+CC vs.TT; Recessive model: CC vs. TT+TC; R, Random-effects model; F, fixed-effects model;
Figure 2Forrest plot of association between the TGF-β1 T869C polymorphism and risk of RP.
(A)Meta-analysis in a fix effects model for dominant model. (B) Meta-analysis in a fix effects model for recessive model. (C) Meta-analysis in a fix effects model for CT vs. CC. (D) Meta-analysis in a fix effects model for CC vs. TT.
Figure 3Funnel plot analysis on the detection of the publication bias for the T869C polymorphism.
(A)Meta-analysis in a fix effects model for dominant model. (B) Meta-analysis in a fix effects model for recessive model. (C) Meta-analysis in a fix effects model for CT vs. CC. (D) Meta-analysis in a fix effects model for CC vs. TT. Each point represents an individual study for the indicated association.
Pooled Analysis on Association between the C509T polymorphism and the RP risk.
| C509T | |||||||
| Genetic Model | Number of study | Sample size | Analysis Model | I2 | Test of Association(95%CI) | ||
| case | control | P | OR | ||||
| Dominant model | 7 | 337 | 817 | F | 0 | 0.16 | 0.82 [0.62, 1.08] |
| Recessive model | 5 | 171 | 600 | F | 5 | 0.21 | 0.74 [0.47, 1.18] |
| CT vs. CC | 5 | 169 | 499 | F | 0 | 0.36 | 0.84 [0.58, 1.22] |
| TT vs. CC | 5 | 113 | 344 | F | 0 | 0.10 | 0.63 [0.36, 1.08] |
| Ethnicity | |||||||
| Asian | |||||||
| Dominant model | 4 | 176 | 465 | F | 0 | 0.68 | 0.92 [0.61, 1.38] |
| Recessive model | 3 | 113 | 358 | F | 48 | 0.25 | 0.75 [0.46, 1.23] |
| CT vs. CC | 3 | 84 | 251 | F | 0 | 0.92 | 1.00 [0.59, 1.70] |
| TT vs. CC | 3 | 59 | 193 | F | 11 | 0.55 | 0.70 [0.39, 1.28] |
| Caucasian | |||||||
| Dominant model | 3 | 161 | 352 | F | 0 | 0.12 | 0.73 [0.49, 1.09] |
| Recessive model | 2 | 58 | 242 | F | 0 | 0.60 | 0.69 [0.18, 2.71] |
| CT vs. CC | 2 | 84 | 251 | F | 0 | 0.99 | 1.00 [0.59, 1.70] |
| TT vs. CC | 2 | 54 | 151 | F | 0 | 0.19 | 0.39 [0.10, 1.57] |
Dominant model: CT+TT vs. CC; Recessive model: TT vs. CC+CT; Additive model: T vs. C; R, Random-effects model; F, fixed-effects model;
Pooled Analysis on Association between the G915C polymorphism and the RP risk.
| G915C | |||||||
| Genetic Model | Number of study | Sample size | Analysis Model | I2 | Test of Association(95%CI) | ||
| case | control | P | OR | ||||
| Dominant model | 7 | 453 | 710 | F | 33 | 0.69 | 0.91 [0.57, 1.46] |
| Recessive model | 5 | 200 | 593 | F | 0 | 0.29 | 1.60 [0.67, 3.80] |
| CG vs. GG | 5 | 192 | 586 | R | 67 | 0.91 | 1.07 [0.31, 3.68] |
| CC vs. GG | 5 | 322 | 428 | F | 0 | 1.00 | 1.00 [0.39, 2.56] |
| Ethnicity | |||||||
| Asian | |||||||
| Dominant model | 4 | 292 | 357 | F | 0 | 0.13 | 0.54 [0.25, 1.19] |
| Caucasian | |||||||
| Dominant model | 3 | 161 | 353 | F | 34 | 0.52 | 1.21 [0.68, 2.16] |
Dominant model: GC+CC vs. GG; Recessive model: CC vs. GG+GC; Additive model: C vs. G; R, Random-effects model; F, fixed-effects model;