| Literature DB >> 36245993 |
Yufeng Zhang1,2, Yue Teng3, Yuanjie Zhu1,2, Yi Wu1,2, Yuting Wen1,2, Xinjian Liu1,2, Dake Li3.
Abstract
Abnormalities of the ERCC1 gene can affect DNA repair pathways, thereby having a vital effect on genomic stability. A growing amount of case-control studies have focused on making an investigation of the association between ERCC1 rs11615 polymorphism and cervical cancer susceptibility. However, the controversial results have raised concerns. To draw a more accurate conclusion, six studies were elaborately selected from the electronic databases for this meta-analysis, with 753 cervical cancer cases and 851 healthy controls. We applied pooled ORs combined with 95% CIs to test the potential associations. Significant associations were revealed in Chinese populations (T vs C: OR = 1.557 and 95%CI = 1.234-1.966; TT vs CC: OR = 3.175 and 95%CI = 1.754-5.748; TT/CT vs CC: OR = 1.512 and 95%CI = 1.126-2,031; and TT vs CT/CC: OR = 2.836 and 95%CI = 1.592-5.051). Even when the studies deviating from HWE were excluded, an increased cervical cancer susceptibility was observed in Chinese. These results disclose that there is an obvious correlation between the risk of cervical cancer and ERCC1 rs11615 polymorphism, especially in Chinese populations, and the T variant is the risky one. Also, our findings need further studies to validate.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36245993 PMCID: PMC9568358 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1790993
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.501
Figure 1The detailed process of literature selection and inclusion.
The result of NOS.
| Study | Selection | Comparability | Exposure | Scores | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adequate definition of cases | Representativeness of cases | Selection of controls | Definition of controls | Consider comparability of cases and controls | Survey and evaluation methods of exposure | Using same method for ascertaining exposure of cases and controls | No response rates | ||
| Das et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ |
| |
| Zhang et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ |
|
| Wu et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ |
|
| Han et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ |
|
| Zhang et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ |
|
| Xiong et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ |
|
Characteristics of the included studies.
| Study | Year | SNP | Country | Ethnicity | Cases | Controls | Genotype method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Das et al. | 2021 | rs11615 | Bangladesh | Asians | 210 | 200 | PCR-RFLP |
| Zhang et al. | 2017 | rs11615 | China | Asians | 95 | 121 | MALDI-TOF |
| Wu et al. | 2014 | rs11615 | China | Asians | 48 | 48 | PCR-RFLP |
| Han et al. | 2012 | rs11615 | Korea | Asians | 229 | 204 | PCR-RFLP |
| Zhang et al. | 2012 | rs11615 | China | Asians | 80 | 175 | PCR |
| Xiong et al. | 2010 | rs11615 | China | Asians | 91 | 103 | PCR-RFLP |
The frequency distribution of alleles and genotypes.
| Study | Cases | Controls | Cases | Controls |
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC | CT | TT | CC | CT | TT | C | T | C | T | ||
| Das et al. | 155 | 45 | 10 | 120 | 60 | 20 | 355 | 65 | 300 | 100 | 0.0047 |
| Zhang et al. | 43 | 42 | 10 | 62 | 55 | 4 | 128 | 62 | 179 | 63 | 0.0474 |
| Wu et al. | 25 | 16 | 7 | 31 | 15 | 2 | 66 | 30 | 77 | 19 | 0.9133 |
| Han et al. | 131 | 85 | 13 | 115 | 78 | 11 | 347 | 111 | 308 | 100 | 0.6349 |
| Zhang et al. | 39 | 34 | 7 | 105 | 61 | 9 | 112 | 48 | 271 | 79 | 0.9709 |
| Xiong et al. | 47 | 31 | 13 | 66 | 32 | 5 | 125 | 57 | 164 | 42 | 0.6627 |
The main results of the meta-analysis.
| Groups (quantity of studies) | Cases/controls | Genetic model | Effects model | Test of association | Test of heterogeneity | Begg's | Egger's | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Overall (6) | 753/851 | T vs C | Random | 1.199 | 0.819-1.754 | 0.351 | 80.2 | 0.000 | 1.88 | 0.060 | 1.77 | 0.152 |
| TT vs CC | Random | 1.720 | 0.757-3.908 | 0.195 | 72.3 | 0.003 | 1.50 | 0.133 | 2.98 | 0.041 | ||
| TC vs CC | Fixed | 0.992 | 0.800-1.229 | 0.938 | 44.7 | 0.108 | 0.75 | 0.452 | 1.32 | 0.256 | ||
| TT/CT vs CC | Random | 1.140 | 0.774-1.680 | 0.506 | 70.2 | 0.005 | 1.13 | 0.260 | 1.83 | 0.142 | ||
| TT vs CT/CC | Random | 1.633 | 0.789-3.379 | 0.187 | 66.1 | 0.012 | 1.50 | 0.133 | 3.00 | 0.040 | ||
|
| ||||||||||||
| China (4) | 314/447 | T vs C | Fixed | 1.557 | 1.234-1.966 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0.806 | 1.02 | 0.308 | 1.45 | 0.283 |
| TT vs CC | Fixed | 3.175 | 1.754-5.748 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0.840 | 1.02 | 0.308 | 1.17 | 0.361 | ||
| TC vs CC | Fixed | 1.308 | 0.958-1.786 | 0.091 | 0.0 | 0.893 | 0.34 | 0.734 | 0.10 | 0.927 | ||
| TT/CT vs CC | Fixed | 1.512 | 1.126-2.031 | 0.006 | 0.0 | 0.896 | 0.34 | 0.734 | 0.67 | 0.571 | ||
| TT vs CT/CC | Fixed | 2.836 | 1.592-5.051 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0.768 | 1.70 | 0.089 | 1.15 | 0.370 | ||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Conform to HWE ( | ||||||||||||
| Overall (4) | 448/530 | T vs C | Random | 1.395 | 1.015-1.918 | 0.040 | 51.9 | 0.101 | 1.02 | 0.308 | 2.60 | 0.121 |
| TT vs CC | Fixed | 1.983 | 1.176-3.344 | 0.010 | 30.8 | 0.227 | 1.02 | 0.308 | 2.04 | 0.178 | ||
| TC vs CC | Fixed | 1.175 | 0.895-1.543 | 0.245 | 0.0 | 0.561 | -0.34 | 1.000 | 1.45 | 0.284 | ||
| TT/CT vs CC | Fixed | 1.280 | 0.989-1.657 | 0.061 | 23.4 | 0.271 | 0.34 | 0.734 | 2.24 | 0.155 | ||
| TT vs CT/CC | Fixed | 1.855 | 1.113-3.093 | 0.018 | 18,5 | 0.298 | 1.02 | 0.308 | 2.07 | 0.174 | ||
|
| ||||||||||||
| China (3) | 219/326 | T vs C | Fixed | 1.647 | 1.244-2.181 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0.779 | 0.00 | 1.000 | 0.96 | 0.514 |
| TT vs CC | Fixed | 3.004 | 1.543-6.008 | 0.001 | 0.0 | 0.682 | 1.04 | 0.296 | 0.83 | 0.558 | ||
| TC vs CC | Fixed | 1.414 | 0.972-2.058 | 0.070 | 0.0 | 0.960 | 1.04 | 0.296 | -1.17 | 0.450 | ||
| TT/CT vs CC | Fixed | 1.630 | 1.146-2.319 | 0.007 | 0.0 | 0.987 | 0.00 | 1.000 | 0.80 | 0.570 | ||
| TT vs CT/CC | Fixed | 2.661 | 1.374-5.154 | 0.004 | 0.0 | 0.616 | 1.04 | 0.296 | 0.84 | 0.555 | ||
Figure 2Forest plots of the association between cervical cancer and ERCC1 rs11615. (a) A random-effects model of six studies (TT/CT vs CC). (b) A fixed-effects model of four studies conformed to HWE (TT vs CT/CC). (c) A fixed-effects model of four studies about Chinese populations (TT/CT vs CC). (d) A fixed-effects model of three studies about Chinese populations conformed to HWE (TT/CT vs CC).
Figure 3Forest plots of the association between cervical cancer and ERCC1 rs11615. (a) A random-effects model of four studies genotyped by PCR-RFLP (TT/CT vs CC). (b) A fixed-effects model of three studies conformed to HWE and was genotyped by PCR-RFLP (TT/CT vs CC). (c) A fixed-effects model of two studies about Chinese conformed to HWE and genotyped by PCR-RFLP (TT/CT vs CC).
Figure 4(a) Sensitivity analysis of six studies (TT/CT vs CC). (b, c) Funnel plots for publication bias. (b) All studies (TT/CT vs CC). (c) Studies of Chinese (excluded Das's and Han's) (TT/CT vs CC).
Figure 5(a, b) Trial sequential analyses of TT vs CC model. (a) All six literatures were included. (b) Four literatures about Chinese were included. (c, d) Trial sequential analyses of TT vs CT/CC model. (c) All six literatures were included. (d) four literatures about Chinese were included.
Figure 6The mechanism between ERCC1 rs11615 polymorphism and cervical cancer.