| Literature DB >> 29111564 |
Ana Sheila Cypriano1, Gilda Alves2,3, Antonio Augusto Ornellas2,4, José Scheinkman5, Renata Almeida6, Luciano Scherrer7, Claudia Lage1.
Abstract
Susceptibility to cancer ensues in individuals carrying malfunctioning DNA repair mechanisms. The impact of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) in key DNA repair mechanisms on risk for prostate cancer was investigated in this case-control study. Samples consisted of 110 patients with confirmed prostate cancer and 200 unaffected men, from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. XPD/Lys751Gln (rs13181), APEX1/Asp148Glu (rs1130409), and RAD51/G135C (rs1801320) SNPs were analyzed by PCR-RFLP. Allelic and genotypic frequencies were calculated and compared by Chi-Square test. The association between SNPs and clinical/epidemiological data was considered significant by Odds Ratio analysis, with IC95% and a p-value≤0.05. Only the XPD/Lys751Gln SNP significantly increased susceptibility to disease in southeastern Brazilian men, with p≤0.001 [OR=2.36 (1.46-3.84)], with no association with APEX1 or RAD51 SNPs. Combined XPD+RAD51 SNPs were highly associated with the disease, p≤0.005 [OR=3.40 (1.32-9.20)]. A Chi-Square significant association between XPD/Lys751Gln and Gleason score was also observed (OR=9.31; IC95%=1.19-428.0; p=0.022). Epidemiological inquiries revealed that exposure to pesticides significantly impacted the risk for prostate cancer in this population. DNA repair dysfunctions seem to prevail among workers exposed to chemical byproducts to cancer in this specific tissue. Non-invasive genotyping SNPs may help assessment of prostate cancer risk in environmentally exposed populations.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29111564 PMCID: PMC5738611 DOI: 10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2017-0039
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genet Mol Biol ISSN: 1415-4757 Impact factor: 1.771
Exposure to occupationally-borne and other risk factors between case and control groups.
| Risk Factors | Groups | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controls, n (%) | Cases, n (%) | ||
| Organic solvents | 43 (21.3) | 9 (8.3) | |
| Chronic diseases | 91 (45.7) | 45 (41.3) | |
| Pesticides | 7 (3.5) | 23 (21.1) | |
| Combustion products | 5 (2.5) | 10 (9.2) |
|
| Combustion + solvent | 3 (1.5) | 1 (0.9) | |
| None | 50 (25.2) | 21 (19.2) | |
|
| 199 | 109 | |
Notes: p-value: descriptive level of the chi-square (Pearson). Only one p-value refers to a statistical model that indistinguishably compares all variables listed between control and patients’ groups.
this particular environmental agent was highly significant (p < 0.05) in terms of risk for prostate cancer in exposed men.
each patient was allocated in just one category, the one to which he declared to have been exposed to for longer periods.
SNPs and clinic-pathological characteristics in prostate cancer patients. Results shown in bold were statistically significant.
|
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical record | wild-type | polymorphic | OR | wild-type | polymorphic | OR | wild-type | polymorphic | OR |
| (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | |||||||
| Age (n=110) | |||||||||
| 0.82 | 0.47 | 0.90 | |||||||
| (0.32 - 2.04) | (0.17 - 1.28) | (0.37 - 2.21) | |||||||
| < 60 | 12(30%) | 24(34.3%) | X2=0.212 | 24(28.6%) | 12(46.2%) | X2=2.788 | 21(31.8%) | 15(34.1%) | X2=0.062 |
| p=0.645 | p=0.095 | p=0.804 | |||||||
| > 60 | 28(70%) | 46(65.7%) | 60(71.4%) | 14(53.8%) | 45(68.2%) | 29(65.9%) | |||
| Prognosis (n=43) | X2=3.055 p=0.217 | ||||||||
| Good | 1(11.2%) | 5(14.3%) | 5(13.9%) | 1(14.3%) |
| 2(9.5%) | 4(18.2%) | X2=0.897 | |
| Bad | 4(44.4%) | 24(68.6%) | 26(72.2%) | 2(28.6%) |
| 15(71.4%) | 13(59.1%) | p=0.638 | |
| Uncertain | 4(44.4%) | 6(17.1%) | 5(13.9%) | 4(57.1%) | 4(19.1%) | 5(22.7%) | |||
| Gleason Score (n=57) | |||||||||
|
| 0.40 | 1.13 | |||||||
|
| (0.06 - 1.85) | (0.33 - 3.82) | |||||||
|
| X2=1.711 | X2=0.053 | |||||||
| < 7 | 15(93.8%) | 25(61%) |
| 25(56.8%) | 10(76.9%) | p=0.191 | 20(64.5%) | 16(61.5%) | p=0.816 |
| ≥ 7 | 1(6.2%) | 16(39%) | 19(43.2%) | 3(23.1%) | 11(35.5%) | 10(38.5%) | |||
| PSA (n=79) | |||||||||
| 1.74 | 0.53 | 0.57 | |||||||
| (0.54 - 5.46) | (0.17 - 1.64) | (0.19 - 1.69) | |||||||
| X2=1.174 | X2=1.600 | X2=1.289 | |||||||
| < 5ng/mL | 9(39.1%) | 15(26.8%) | p=0.278 | 14(25.9%) | 10(40%) | p=0.206 | 12(25.5%) | 12(37.5%) | p=0.256 |
| ≥ 5ng/mL | 14(60.9%) | 41(73.2%) | 40(74.1%) | 15(60%) | 35(74.5%) | 20(62.5%) | |||
Genotypic frequencies of XPD, RAD51 and APEX1 genotypes in 110 prostate cancer patients and 200 controls. Results shown in bold were statistically significant.
|
|
|
| Totals | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A|A | A|C | C|C | G|G | G|C | C|C | T|T | T|G | G|G | ||
| Patients n (%) | 40 (36.4) | 55 (50.0) | 15 (13.6) | 84 (76.4) | 24 (21.8) | 2 (1.8) | 66 (60.0) | 33 (30.0) | 11 (10.0) | 110 |
| (100) | ||||||||||
| Control group n (%) | 115 (57.5) | 68 (34.0) | 17 (8.5) | 157 (78.5) | 40 (20.0) | 3 (1.5) | 114 (57.0) | 84 (42.0) | 2 (1.0) | 200 (100) |
| Totals | 155 (50.0) | 123 (39.7) | 32 (10.3) | 241 (77.7) | 64 (20.6) | 5 (1.6) | 180 (58.1) | 117 (37.7) | 13 (4.2) | 310 (100) |
| OR |
| 1.13 | 0.88 | |||||||
|
| (0.64 – 1.96) | (0.55 – 1.42) | ||||||||
| (95% CI) |
|
|
| |||||||
| Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium |
|
|
| |||||||
n: number of individuals
Data performance diagnostic test calculated for each polymorphism alone and combined
| Parameters | Probabilities | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Sensitivity (%) | 63.6 (54.3-72.0) | 23.6 (16.7-32.4) | 40.0 (31.3-49.3) | 62.1 (44.0-77.3) |
| Specificity (%) | 57.5 (50.5-64.1) | 78.5 (72.3-83.6) | 57.0 (50.0-63.7) | 68.0 (54.2-79.2) |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 45.2 (37.5-53.0) | 37.7 (27.2-49.5) | 33.8 (26.3-42.3) | 52.9 (36.7-68.5) |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 74.2 (66.7-80.4) | 65.1 (58.9-70.8) | 63.3 (56.1-70.0) | 75.6 (61.3-85.7) |
| Accuracy (%) | 59.7 (54.1-65.0) | 59.0 (53.5-64.3) | 50.1 (45.4-56.5) | 65.8 (54.8-75.3) |