| Literature DB >> 34976820 |
Wenchao Zhang1,2, Zhongyue Liu1,2, Zhimin Yang1,2, Chengyao Feng1, Xiaowen Zhou3, Chao Tu1,2, Zhihong Li1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have revealed the critical role of methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphisms in response to high-dose methotrexate (MTX)-induced toxicity in osteosarcoma patients. However, the conclusions remain controversial. In this setting, we performed a meta-analysis to determine their association more precisely.Entities:
Keywords: MTHFR; methotrexate; osteosarcoma; polymorphism; toxicity
Year: 2021 PMID: 34976820 PMCID: PMC8714641 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.781386
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Flow diagram for study identification with criteria in the meta-analysis (28).
Characteristics of all enrolled studies.
| Author | Year | Country | Ethnicity | Genotyping methods | Sample size | Investigated SNPs | Methotrexate dose | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Windsor ( | 2012 | United Kingdom | Caucasian | Microarray | 60 | rs1801133, rs1801131 | 12 g/m2 | 7 |
| Jabeen ( | 2015 | Norway | Caucasian | MassARRAY | 62 | rs1801133 | 12 g/m2 (mean) | 8 |
| Park ( | 2016 | Korea | Asian | MassARRAY | 37 | rs1801133, rs1801131 | 12 g/m2 | 7 |
| Lambrecht ( | 2017 | Belgium | Caucasian | PCR | 48 | rs1801133 | 12 g/m2 | 8 |
| Xie ( | 2018 | China | Asian | RT-PCR | 59 | rs1801133, rs1801131 | 10-12 g/m2 week twice | 8 |
| Xu ( | 2018 | China | Asian | TaqMan SNP Genotyping Assay | 109 | rs1801133, rs1801131 | 10 g/m2/d | 8 |
| Ren ( | 2011 | China | Asian | RT-PCR | 210 | rs1801133 | 200mg/kg | 7 |
Meta-analysis of the MTHFR polymorphisms with MTX-related toxicity.
| Comparison | Ethnicity | N | OR | Low 95%CI | High 95%CI | P | Mode | Heterogeneity | Sensitive analysis | Publication bias | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 | P | I2 | Begg’s Test p-value | Egger’s test p-value | |||||||||
| Liver toxicity | |||||||||||||
| TT vs CC | Caucasian | 1 | 0.81 | 0.38 | 1.71 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 1.000 | 0.697 |
| Asian | 3 | 3.15 | 1.30 | 7.60 | 0.011 | Fixed | 0.61 | 0.739 | 0.0% | Good | |||
| Overall | 4 | 2.04 | 0.94 | 4.41 | 0.218 | Fixed | 4.55 | 0.207 | 34.1% | Good | |||
| TC vs CC | Caucasian | 1 | 0.31 | 0.10 | 0.96 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.734 | 0.718 |
| Asian | 3 | 1.87 | 0.90 | 3.89 | 0.095 | Fixed | 3.81 | 0.149 | 47.5% | Good | |||
| Overall | 4 | 1.23 | 0.36 | 4.20 | 0.746 | Random | 10.64 | 0.014 | 71.8% | Good | |||
| TT vs. TC/CC | Caucasian | 2 | 1.03 | 0.40 | 2.65 | 0.945 | Fixed | 0.19 | 0.663 | 0.0% | Good | 1.000 | 0.856 |
| Asian | 3 | 1.58 | 0.39 | 6.45 | 0.521 | Random | 6.42 | 0.04 | 68.9% | Good | |||
| Overall | 5 | 1.38 | 0.78 | 2.42 | 0.265 | Fixed | 7.16 | 0.128 | 44.2% | Good | |||
| TT/TC vs. CC | Caucasian | 1 | 0.35 | 0.13 | 0.97 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.734 | 0.836 |
| Asian | 3 | 2.11 | 1.06 | 4.21 | 0.043 | Fixed | 1.04 | 0.595 | 0.0% | Good | |||
| Overall | 4 | 1.26 | 0.43 | 3.67 | 0.035 | Random | 9.25 | 0.024 | 67.6% | Good | |||
| T vs C | Caucasian | 1 | 0.81 | 0.38 | 1.72 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 1.000 | 0.477 |
| Asian | 3 | 1.61 | 1.07 | 2.42 | 0.024 | Fixed | 1.72 | 0.424 | 0.0% | Good | |||
| Overall | 4 | 1.37 | 0.96 | 1.97 | 0.085 | Fixed | 4.17 | 0.244 | 28.0% | Good | |||
| Kidney toxicity | |||||||||||||
| TT vs CC | Overall | 4 | 3.82 | 0.57 | 25.78 | 0.168 | Random | 12.66 | 0.005 | 76.3% | Good | 0.734 | 0.748 |
| TC vs CC | Overall | 4 | 2.63 | 1.31 | 5.29 | 0.007 | Fixed | 5.57 | 0.125 | 47.8% | Good | 0.308 | 0.340 |
| TT vs. TC/CC | Overall | 3 | 1.48 | 0.20 | 11.18 | 0.704 | Random | 12.23 | 0.002 | 83.7% | Good | 1.000 | 0.659 |
| TT/TC vs. CC | Overall | 4 | 3.43 | 0.93 | 12.66 | 0.064 | Random | 9.46 | 0.024 | 68.3% | Good | 0.734 | 0.465 |
| T vs C | Overall | 3 | 1.93 | 0.43 | 8.67 | 0.392 | Random | 19.87 | 0.000 | 89.9% | Good | 1.000 | 0.936 |
| Mucositis | |||||||||||||
| TT vs CC | Overall | 3 | 4.07 | 1.76 | 9.38 | 0.001 | Fixed | 0.60 | 0.739 | 0.0% | Good | 0.296 | 0.063 |
| TC vs CC | Overall | 3 | 2.55 | 1.20 | 5.42 | 0.015 | Fixed | 0.11 | 0.947 | 0.0% | Good | 1.000 | 0.603 |
| TT vs. TC/CC | Overall | 4 | 2.09 | 1.19 | 3.67 | 0.010 | Fixed | 3.33 | 0.344 | 9.8% | Good | 1.000 | 0.134 |
| TT/TC vs. CC | Overall | 3 | 2.97 | 1.48 | 5.96 | 0.002 | Fixed | 0.10 | 0.953 | 0.0% | Good | 1.000 | 0.385 |
| T vs C | Overall | 3 | 2.28 | 1.49 | 3.50 | 0.000 | Fixed | 1.67 | 0.434 | 0.0% | Good | 1.000 | 0.173 |
| Anemia | |||||||||||||
| TT vs CC | Overall | 2 | 1.08 | 0.33 | 3.51 | 0.092 | Fixed | 0.94 | 0.322 | 0.0% | NA | NA | NA |
| TC vs CC | Overall | 2 | 1.26 | 0.38 | 4.13 | 0.890 | Random | 2.94 | 0.087 | 66.0% | NA | NA | NA |
| TT vs. TC/CC | Overall | 3 | 1.25 | 0.64 | 2.45 | 0.521 | Fixed | 0.21 | 0.901 | 0.0% | Good | 1.000 | 0.441 |
| TT/TC vs. CC | Overall | 2 | 1.10 | 0.39 | 3.05 | 0.992 | Random | 2.48 | 0.115 | 59.7% | NA | NA | NA |
| T vs C | Overall | 2 | 1.17 | 0.63 | 2.16 | 0.617 | Fixed | 1.16 | 0.282 | 13.5% | NA | NA | NA |
NA, Not available.
Figure 2Forest plots for the association between MTX-induced liver toxicity and MTHFR rs1801133 polymorphism. (A) homozygote comparison TT vs. CC; (B) heterozygote comparison TC vs. CC; (C) recessive genetic model TT vs. TC/CC; (D) dominant genetic model TT/TC vs. CC; (E) allele contrast T vs. C.
Figure 3Forest plots for the association between MTX-induced mucositis and MTHFR rs1801133 polymorphism. (A) homozygote comparison TT vs. CC; (B) heterozygote comparison TC vs. CC; (C) recessive genetic model TT vs. TC/CC; (D) dominant genetic model TT/TC vs. CC; (E) allele contrast T vs. C.
Figure 4Forest plots for the association between MTX-induced Kidney toxicity and MTHFR rs1801133 polymorphism. (A) homozygote comparison TT vs. CC; (B) heterozygote comparison TC vs. CC; (C) recessive genetic model TT vs. TC/CC; (D) dominant genetic model TT/TC vs. CC; (E) allele contrast T vs. C.
Figure 5Forest plots for the association between MTX-induced Anemia and MTHFR rs1801133 polymorphism. (A) homozygote comparison TT vs. CC; (B) heterozygote comparison TC vs. CC; (C) recessive genetic model TT vs. TC/CC; (D) dominant genetic model TT/TC vs. CC; (E) allele contrast T vs. C.
Figure 6Sensitivity analysis in various comparisons. (A) TT vs CC in liver toxicity; (B) TC vs CC in liver toxicity; (C) TT vs. TC/CC in liver toxicity; (D) TT/TC vs. CC in liver toxicity; (E) T vs C in liver toxicity; (F) TT vs CC in kidney toxicity; (G) TC vs CC in kidney toxicity; (H) TT vs. TC/CC in kidney toxicity; (I) TT/TC vs. CC in kidney toxicity; (J) T vs. C in kidney toxicity; (K) TT vs CC in Mucositis; (L) TC vs CC in Mucositis; (M) TT vs. TC/CC in Mucositis; (N) TT/TC vs. CC in Mucositis; (O) T vs. C in Mucositis; (P) TT vs. TC/CC in Anemia.
Figure 7Publication bias in various comparisons. (A) TT vs CC in liver toxicity; (B) TC vs CC in liver toxicity; (C) TT vs. TC/CC in liver toxicity; (D) TT/TC vs. CC in liver toxicity; (E) T vs C in liver toxicity; (F) TT vs CC in kidney toxicity; (G) TC vs CC in kidney toxicity; (H) TT vs. TC/CC in kidney toxicity; (I) TT/TC vs. CC in kidney toxicity; (J) T vs. C in kidney toxicity; (K) TT vs CC in Mucositis; (L) TC vs CC in Mucositis; (M) TT vs. TC/CC in Mucositis; (N) TT/TC vs. CC in Mucositis; (O) T vs. C in Mucositis; (P) TT vs. TC/CC in Anemia.