| Literature DB >> 28011897 |
Ao Mo1, Yongliang Zhao1, Yan Shi1, Feng Qian1, Yingxue Hao1, Jun Chen1, Shiwei Yang1, Yuxing Jiang1, Ziyan Luo1, Peiwu Yu2.
Abstract
Gastric cancer is the most common cancer and the most frequent cause of cancer death worldwide. Several studies have identified the role of thymidylate synthase (TS) 5'- and 3'-UTR and gastric cancer susceptibility; however, the results still remain inconclusive. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to reinvestigate this correlation. In the present study, online databases were searched to retrieve relevant articles published between January 2000 and 2016. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were employed to calculate the strength of association. Overall, a total of 13 articles were screened out, including 2382 gastric cancer patients and 3171 healthy controls. We found that polymorphisms of TS 5'-UTR 2R (double repeats)/3R (triple repeats) of a 28-bp sequence (11 articles) and 3'-UTR del6/ins6 (seven articles) were not significantly associated with increased risk of gastric cancer. Subgroup analysis by ethnicity showed that 2R allele and 2R/2R genotype in TS 5'-UTR were associated with gastric cancer susceptibility in Caucasian and African populations; del6 allele, del6/del6 and del6/ins6 genotypes were correlated with gastric cancer in Caucasian population. In conclusion, our result suggested that TS polymorphisms might be the risk factors for gastric cancer risk in Caucasian population, although this association needs further study, and future large-scale researches are still required.Entities:
Keywords: gastric cancer; meta-analysis; polymorphism; thymidylate synthase gene
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28011897 PMCID: PMC5180252 DOI: 10.1042/BSR20160273
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosci Rep ISSN: 0144-8463 Impact factor: 3.840
Figure 1Flow chart of study selection process in this meta-analysis
Main characteristics of included studies in this meta-analysis
–, not available
| Mean age | Sample size | Genotyping | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First author | Year | Country | Cases | Controls | Cases | Controls | Method |
| Gao, C.M. | 2004 | China | 36–81 | 36–81 | 155 | 223 | PCR-RFLP |
| Graziano, F. | 2004 | Italy | 59 (30–83) | 58 (33–77) | 134 | 139 | PCR-RFLP |
| Zhang, J.H. | 2004 | China | 55.0 (105) | 51.3 (10.7) | 233 | 348 | PCR-RFLP |
| Tan, W. | 2005 | China | – | – | 231 | 492 | PCR-RFLP |
| Wang, L.D. | 2005 | China | 58 (40–80) | 56 (46–76) | 129 | 315 | PCR-RFLP |
| Zhang, Z.D. | 2005 | China | 58.7 (9.7) | 58.1 (10.6) | 322 | 337 | PCR-RFLP |
| Yang, L. | 2008 | China | – | – | 60 | 170 | PCR |
| Jung, H. | 2010 | Korea | 59.3 (12.4) | 45.8 (16.0) | 300 | 100 | PCR |
| Yim, D.J. | 2010 | Korea | 58.26 (12.75) | 57.18 (12.65) | 318 | 280 | PCR-RFLP |
| Baroudi, O. | 2014 | Tunisia | 56 (30–70) | 47.02 (20–80) | 52 | 88 | PCR-RFLP |
| Pan, X. | 2014 | China | 22–76 | 18–55 | 31 | 200 | PCR-RFLP |
| Sumen, I.C. | 2014 | Turkey | 59 (37–79) | 53 (25–75) | 38 | 48 | PCR-RFLP |
| Shen, R. | 2015 | U.S.A. | 59.7 (12.7) | 59.1 (11.2) | 379 | 431 | PCR-RFLP |
Alleles and genotypes of TS 5′- and 3′-UTR polymorphisms in this meta-analysis
| First author 5′-UTR | Cases | Controls | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3R/3R | 3R/2R | 2R/2R | 3R | 2R | 3R/3R | 3R/2R | 2R/2R | 3R | 2R | HWE | |
| Graziano, F. | 38 | 76 | 18 | 152 | 112 | 31 | 74 | 31 | 136 | 136 | 0.303 |
| Zhang, J.H. | 148 | 76 | 8 | 372 | 92 | 223 | 107 | 13 | 553 | 133 | 0.97 |
| Tan, W. | 157 | 60 | 14 | 374 | 88 | 337 | 137 | 18 | 811 | 173 | 0.385 |
| Wang, L.D. | 81 | 39 | 8 | 201 | 55 | 201 | 108 | 6 | 510 | 120 | 0.139 |
| Zhang, Z.D. | 217 | 101 | 19 | 535 | 139 | 203 | 107 | 12 | 513 | 131 | 0.649 |
| Yang, L. | 31 | 26 | 3 | 88 | 32 | 103 | 54 | 8 | 260 | 70 | 0.789 |
| Jung, H. | 199 | 91 | 10 | 489 | 111 | 60 | 30 | 10 | 150 | 50 | 0.135 |
| Yim, D.J. | 211 | 89 | 18 | 511 | 125 | 194 | 79 | 7 | 467 | 93 | 0.755 |
| Baroudi, O. | 18 | 8 | 26 | 44 | 60 | 26 | 4 | 58 | 56 | 120 | 0.000 |
| Pan, X. | 20 | 8 | 3 | 48 | 14 | 146 | 48 | 6 | 340 | 60 | 0.405 |
| Sumen, I.C. | 7 | 18 | 13 | 32 | 44 | 9 | 6 | 33 | 24 | 72 | 0.000 |
| Gao, C.M. | 10 | 80 | 65 | 100 | 210 | 18 | 121 | 84 | 157 | 289 | 0.018 |
| Graziano, F. | 39 | 73 | 22 | 151 | 117 | 62 | 59 | 18 | 183 | 95 | 0.505 |
| Zhang, J.H. | 24 | 105 | 104 | 153 | 313 | 34 | 155 | 159 | 223 | 473 | 0.671 |
| Zhang, Z.D. | 53 | 143 | 141 | 249 | 425 | 30 | 139 | 153 | 199 | 445 | 0.846 |
| Yim, D.J. | 29 | 130 | 159 | 188 | 448 | 19 | 121 | 140 | 159 | 401 | 0.294 |
| Pan, X. | 3 | 10 | 18 | 16 | 46 | 22 | 90 | 88 | 134 | 266 | 0.888 |
| Shen, R. | 144 | 163 | 72 | 451 | 307 | 192 | 190 | 49 | 574 | 288 | 0.847 |
Summary of pooled ORs with CI of TS 5′- and 3′-UTR polymorphisms in gastric cancer risk in this meta-analysis
N, number of included studies; F, the fixed-effect model; R, the random-effect model.
| Test of association | Test of heterogeneity | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNP | Group | Comparisons | OR (95% CI) | Ph | Model | |||
| 5′-UTR | Total | 2R compared with 3R | 11 | 0.97 (0.81, 1.14) | 0.68 | 0.01 | 55% | R |
| 2R/2R compared with 3R/3R | 1.08 (0.68, 1.71) | 0.76 | 0.003 | 63% | R | |||
| 3R/2R compared with 3R/3R | 1.01 (0.88, 1.17) | 0.86 | 0.43 | 2% | F | |||
| 2R/2R+3R/2R compared with 3R/3R | 1.01 (0.88, 1.15) | 0.90 | 0.74 | 0% | F | |||
| 2R/2R compared with 3R/2R+3R/3R | 0.98 (0.58, 1.63) | 0.93 | <0.0001 | 73% | R | |||
| Asians | 2R compared with 3R | 8 | 1.08 (0.95, 1.21) | 0.24 | 0.23 | 25% | F | |
| 2R/2R compared with 3R/3R | 1.42 (0.83, 2.42) | 0.19 | 0.02 | 59% | R | |||
| 3R/2R compared with 3R/3R | 0.99 (0.86, 1.15) | 0.94 | 0.83 | 0% | F | |||
| 2R/2R+3R/2R compared with 3R/3R | 1.04 (0.90, 1.20) | 0.59 | 0.67 | 0% | F | |||
| 2R/2R compared with 3R/2R+3R/3R | 1.41 (0.83, 2.40) | 0.21 | 0.01 | 60% | R | |||
| Non-Asians | 2R compared with 3R | 3 | 0.66 (0.51, 0.85) | 0.001 | 0.044 | 0% | F | |
| 2R/2R compared with 3R/3R | 0.54 (0.34, 0.88) | 0.01 | 0.84 | 0% | F | |||
| 3R/2R compared with 3R/3R | 1.82 (0.62, 5.30) | 0.27 | 0.05 | 67% | R | |||
| 2R/2R+3R/2R compared with 3R/3R | 0.78 (0.52, 1.18) | 0.24 | 0.87 | 0% | F | |||
| 2R/2R compared with 3R/2R+3R/3R | 0.44 (0.29, 0.67) | 0.0001 | 0.31 | 16% | F | |||
| 3′-UTR | del6 compared with ins6 | 7 | 1.09 (0.90, 1.33) | 0.37 | 0.003 | 70% | R | |
| del6/del6 compared with ins6/ins6 | 1.12 (0.72, 1.76) | 0.61 | 0.002 | 70% | R | |||
| Ins6/del6 compared with ins6/ins6 | 1.00 (0.73, 1.38) | 0.98 | 0.05 | 53% | R | |||
| del6/del6+del6/ins6 compared with ins6/ins6 | 1.05 (0.74, 1.49) | 0.80 | 0.009 | 65% | R | |||
| del6/del6 compared with del6/ins6+ins6/ins6 | 1.14 (0.90, 1.45) | 0.27 | 0.03 | 56% | R | |||
| Asians | del6 compared with ins6 | 5 | 0.94 (0.83, 1.06) | 0.31 | 0.15 | 40% | F | |
| del6/del6 compared with ins6/ins6 | 0.78 (0.59, 1.04) | 0.10 | 0.23 | 29% | F | |||
| ins6/del6 compared with ins6/ins6 | 0.77 (0.57, 1.03) | 0.08 | 0.58 | 0% | F | |||
| del6/del6+del6/ins6 compared with ins6/ins6 | 0.77 (0.59, 1.02) | 0.07 | 0.36 | 8% | F | |||
| del6/del6 compared with del6/ins6+ins6/ins6 | 0.98 (0.83, 1.15) | 0.79 | 0.29 | 19% | F | |||
| Caucasians | del6 compared with ins6 | 2 | 1.39 (1.17, 1.66) | 0.0002 | 0.64 | 0% | F | |
| del6/del6 compared with ins6/ins6 | 1.96 (1.35, 2.82) | 0.0003 | 0.98 | 0% | F | |||
| ins6/del6 compared with ins6/ins6 | 1.43 (0.85, 2.42) | 0.18 | 0.08 | 67% | R | |||
| del6/del6+del6/ins6 compared with ins6/ins6 | 1.44 (1.13, 1.85) | 0.003 | 0.17 | 47% | F | |||
| del6/del6 compared with del6/ins6+ins6/ins6 | 1.68 (1.20, 2.36) | 0.003 | 0.41 | 0% | F | |||
Figure 2Meta-analysis of the correlation between TS 5′-UTR polymorphism and gastric cancer susceptibility under the allelic model (A), homozygote model (B), heterozygote model (C), dominant model (D) and recessive model (E)
Figure 3Forest plot of TS 5′-UTR variant and gastric cancer risk under the allelic model (A), homologous model (B), and recessive effect (C) in the fixed-effect model in non-Asian populations (Caucasian and African)
Figure 4Forest plot of pooled OR with 95% CI for TS 3′-UTR polymorphism and gastric cancer risk under the allelic model (A), homozygote model (B), dominant model (C) and recessive model (D) in Caucasian population
Figure 5Funnel plot of TS 5′-UTR polymorphism in gastric cancer risk under the heterogeneous model