| Literature DB >> 31281357 |
Yan Zhao1, Erjiang Zhao2, Junhui Zhang3, Yuanyuan Chen4, Junli Ma1, Hailiang Li1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Associations between XRCC1, XRCC3, and ERCC2 gene polymorphism and prognosis have been investigated in several cancers. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the prognostic value of XRCC1, XRCC3, and ERCC2 gene polymorphism in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31281357 PMCID: PMC6594280 DOI: 10.1155/2019/2408946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
Figure 1The flow chart of included studies in this meta-analysis.
Characteristics of studies included in this meta-analysis.
| Study | Year | Country | Ethnicity | Number of patients | Age | HBV | SNP loci | scores of quality evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jung1 [ | 2012 | Korea | Asian | 708 | 53.3 ± 8.3 | + | xrcc1 rs25487 | 8 |
| Jung2 [ | 2012 | Korea | Asian | 314 | 53.3 ± 8.3 | + | xrcc1 rs25487 | 8 |
| Han [ | 2012 | China | Asian | 112 | 50.8±8.5 | mixed | xrcc1 rs25487, xrcc3 rs861539 | 7 |
| Yue [ | 2013 | China | Asian | 231 | 50.9±9.6 | mixed | xrcc1 rs25487, xrcc1 rs1799782, ercc2 rs13181, ercc2 rs1799793 | 7 |
| Wu [ | 2014 | China | Asian | 218 | 52.2 ± 8.5 | + | xrcc1 rs25487, xrcc1 rs1799782, ercc2 rs13181, ercc2 rs1799793 | 6 |
| Wang [ | 2016 | China | Asian | 308 | 53( 25–80) | Mixed | xrcc1 rs25487,ercc2 rs13181 | 7 |
| Yu [ | 2016 | China | Asian | 485 | ⩽60,418; >60,67 | + | xrcc1 rs25487 | 7 |
| Santonocito [ | 2017 | Italy | Caucasian | 89 | 66.3±10.5 | mixed | xrcc1 rs25487 | 6 |
| Guan [ | 2017 | China | Asian | 172 | 50.4±4.8 | Not reported | xrcc1 rs1799782, ercc2 rs1799793 | 6 |
| Avadanei [ | 2018 | romania | Caucasian | 50 | ⩽65,28; >65,22 | mixed | xrcc3 rs861539 | 5 |
Polymorphism involved in this study.
| Genes | Polymorphisms | NCBI SNP ID | Allele | genotypes | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XRCC1 | G28152A | rs25487 | Ga | GG | [ |
| GA | |||||
| Ab | AA | ||||
| C26304T (Arg194Trp) | rs1799782 | C | CC | [ | |
| CT | |||||
| T | TT | ||||
| ERCC2 | G934A (Asp312Asn) | rs1799793 | G | GG | [ |
| GA | |||||
| A | AA | ||||
| A2251C (Lys751Gln) | rs13181 | A | AA | [ | |
| AC | |||||
| C | CC | ||||
| XRCC3 | C722T | rs861539 | C | CC | [ |
| CT | |||||
| T | TT |
awild allele; bmutant allele.
Meta-analysis of the association between XRCC1, ERCC2, and XRCC3 and overall survival for HCC patients.
| Genetic comparisons | No. of | Test of association | Model | Test of heterogeneity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR(95% CI) | P | I2(%) | |||
| xrcc1 rs25487 | |||||
| AA vs. GG | 5 | 0.97(0.51-1.87) | R | 0.001 | 82.2 |
| GA vs. GG | 5 | 1.17(0.95-1.43) | F | 0.121 | 45.2 |
| AA+GA vs. GG | 5 | 1.25(0.83-1.88) | R | 0.002 | 76.3 |
| xrcc1 rs1799782 | |||||
| TT vs. CC | 3 | 0.72(0.48-1.08) | F | 0.849 | 0 |
| CT vs. CC | 3 | 0.88(0.63-1.22) | F | 0.853 | 0 |
| ERCC2 rs13181 | |||||
| CC vs. AA | 2 | 0.33(0.15-0.72) | F | 0.884 | 0 |
| CA vs. AA | 2 | 0.83(0.62-1.12) | F | 0.971 | 0 |
| ERCC2 rs1799793 | |||||
| AA vs. GG | 3 | 0.74(0.49-1.11) | F | 0.840 | 0 |
| GA vs. GG | 3 | 0.93(0.67-1.28) | F | 0.780 | 0 |
| XRCC3 rs861539 | |||||
| CT vs. CC | 2 | 1.64(1.11-2.42) | F | 46.4 | 12 |
HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; vs: versus; F: fixed effect model; R: random effect model.
Figure 2Forest plot for the association between XRCC1 rs25487 and overall survival for HCC patients (GA VS. GG).
Figure 3Forest plot for the association between ERCC2 rs13181 and overall survival for HCC patients (CC VS.AA).
Figure 4Forest plot for the association between XRCC3 rs861539 and overall survival for HCC patients (CT VS.CC).
Figure 5Sensitivity analysis between xrcc1 rs25487 and overall survival for HCC patients (GA VS.GG).
Figure 6Funnel plot between xrcc1 rs25487 and overall survival for HCC patients (GA VS.GG).