| Literature DB >> 26578427 |
Wei Zeng1, Yanwei Li2, Eryong Lu1, Min Ma1.
Abstract
Many studies have investigated the association between CYP1A1 rs1048943 and rs4646903 polymorphisms and laryngeal cancer risk, but their results have been inconsistent. The PubMed and CNKI were searched for case-control studies published up to 01 July 2015. Data were extracted and pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. In this meta-analysis, we assessed 10 published studies involving comprising 748 laryngeal cancer cases and 1558 controls of the association between CYP1A1 rs1048943 and rs4646903 polymorphisms and laryngeal cancer risk. For CYP1A1 rs1048943 of the homozygote G/G and G allele carriers (A/G + G/G) versus A/A, the pooled ORs were 1.77 (95% CI = 1.28-2.81, P = 0.007 for heterogeneity) and 1.86 (95% CI = 1.45-2.40, P = 0.000 for heterogeneity). For CYP1A1 rs4646903 of the homozygote G/G and G allele carriers (A/G + G/G) versus A/A, the pooled ORs were 1.53 (95% CI = 1.31-2.21, P = 0.012 for heterogeneity) and 1.33(95% CI = 1.04-1.71, P = 0.029 for heterogeneity). In the stratified analysis by ethnicity, the significantly risks were found among Asians for both the G allele carriers and homozygote G/G. However, no significant associations were found in Caucasian population all genetic models. These results from the meta-analysis suggest that CYP1A1 rs1048943 and rs4646903 polymorphisms contribute to risk of laryngeal cancer among Asian populations.Entities:
Keywords: CYP1A1; laryngeal cancer; meta-analysis; polymorphism; rs1048943; rs4646903; susceptibility
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26578427 PMCID: PMC4727562 DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.12720
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
Figure 1The flow diagram explaining the selection of included publications in the meta‐analysis.
Distribution of CYP1A1 rs1048943 among laryngeal cancer cases and controls included in this meta‐analysis
| First author‐year | Ethnicity (country of origin) | Total sample (case/control) | Source of control | Laryngeal cancer | Controls | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA | AG | GG | AA | AG | GG | ||||
| Lei‐2002 | Asian (China) | 62/56 | HB | 17 | 36 | 9 | 30 | 22 | 4 |
| Varzim‐2003 | Caucasian (Portugal) | 88/178 | PB | 66 | 19 | 3 | 135 | 43 | 0 |
| Gajecka‐2005 | Caucasian (Poland) | 206/260 | HB | 191 | 15 | 230 | 30 | ||
| Sam‐2008 | Asian (India) | 80/220 | HB | 24 | 44 | 12 | 180 | 36 | 4 |
| Sharma‐2010 | Asian (India) | 46/201 | HB | 35 | 10 | 1 | 156 | 34 | 11 |
| Lourenco‐2011 | Mixed (Brazil) | 37/142 | HB | 25 | 12 | 104 | 38 | ||
The number of the combined AG and GG genotypes.
PB: population based; HB: hospital based. AA indicates wild‐type, AG indicates heterozygote, GG indicates variant homozygote.
Figure 2Forest plot (random‐effects model) of laryngeal cancer risk associated with CYP1A1 rs1048943 polymorphism for (AG + GG) versus AA. Each box represents the OR point estimate, and its area is proportional to the weight of the study. The diamond (and broken line) represents the overall summary estimate, with CI represented by its width. The unbroken vertical line is set at the null value (OR = 1.0).
Distribution of CYP1A1 rs4646903 among laryngeal cancer cases and controls included in this meta‐analysis
| First author‐year | Ethnicity (country of origin) | Total sample (case/control) | Source of control | Laryngeal cancer | Controls | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA | AG | GG | AA | AG | GG | ||||
| Park‐1997 | Mixed (USA) | 23/23 | HB | 18 | 5 | 21 | 2 | ||
| Morita‐1999 | Asian (China) | 69/164 | PB | 48 | 16 | 5 | 104 | 54 | 6 |
| Varzim‐2003 | Caucasian (Portugal) | 88/178 | PB | 68 | 19 | 1 | 135 | 43 | 0 |
| Li‐2004 | Asian (China) | 89/164 | HB | 33 | 24 | 32 | 77 | 60 | 27 |
| Sam‐2008 | Asian (India) | 80/220 | HB | 64 | 15 | 1 | 180 | 36 | 4 |
| Sharma‐2010 | Asian (India) | 46/201 | HB | 23 | 13 | 10 | 156 | 34 | 11 |
| Szanyi‐2012 | Caucasian (Hungary) | 48/150 | HB | 34 | 14 | 0 | 119 | 31 | 0 |
The number of the combined AG and GG genotypes.
PB: population based; HB: hospital based. AA indicates wild‐type, AG indicates heterozygote, GG indicates variant homozygote.
Summary ORs for various contrasts of CYP1A1 rs1048943 and rs4646903 polymorphisms in this meta‐analysis
| Number of studies | (AG + GG) | GG | |
|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | ||
| rs1048943 | |||
| Total | 6 | 1.86 (1.45–2.40) 0.000 | 1.77 (1.28–2.81) 0.007 |
| Caucasian | 2 | 0.81 (0.52–1.25) 0.217 | 0.93 (0.49–1.39) 0.293 |
| Asian | 3 | 3.90 (2.70–5.64) 0.000 | 3.29 (1.88–4.49) 0.006 |
| rs4646903 | |||
| Total | 7 | 1.33 (1.04–1.71) 0.029 | 1.53 (1.31–2.21) 0.012 |
| Caucasian | 2 | 1.14 (0.71–1.81) 0.269 | 1.36 (0.79–2.31) 0.193 |
| Asian | 4 | 1.39 (1.03–1.87) 0.009 | 1.52 (1.25–2.32) 0.002 |
P (Q‐test): P‐value of Q‐test for heterogeneity test; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 3Forest plot (random‐effects model) of laryngeal cancer risk associated with CYP1A1 rs4646903 polymorphism for (AG + GG) versus AA.
Figure 4Begg's funnel plot of CYP1A1 rs1048943 polymorphism and laryngeal cancer risk for (AG + GG) versus AA.
Figure 5Begg's funnel plot of CYP1A1 rs4646903 polymorphism and laryngeal cancer risk for (AG + GG) versus AA.