• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• 제16권16호
• /
• pp.7249-7254
• /
• 2015

Background: Previous studies evaluated associations between the CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism and bladder cancer risk. However, the results were inconsistent. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of the published case-control studies to assess in detail the association between CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism and bladder cancer risk. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant studies and the pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated. Results: A total of seven articles including 3,013 cases and 2,771 controls were finally included. Overall, a significant association was found between the CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism and bladder cancer susceptibility for CC vs AA (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.69~0.99), but no significant associations were found for the other three models (AC vs AA: OR=0.91, 95% CI=0.81~1.02; the dominant model: OR=0.90, 95% CI=0.80~1.00; the recessive model: OR=0.84, 95% CI =0.72~1.00). In the subgroup analysis by ethnicity, we detected significant associations between the CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism and bladder cancer susceptibility for GA vs GG (OR = 0.78, 95% CI =0.64~0.96) and for the recessive model (OR=0.80, 95% CI=0.66~0.96) in Caucasians, but not for Asians. Conclusions: The results from the meta-analysis suggested that the CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism is a protective factor for bladder cancer, especially in Caucasians.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• 제15권14호
• /
• pp.5673-5679
• /
• 2014

Background: Previous published data on the association between CYP1A2 rs762551, rs2069514, rs2069526, and rs2470890 polymorphisms and lung cancer risk have not allowed a definite conclusion. The present meta-analysis of the literature was performed to derive a more precise estimation of the relationship. Materials and Methods: 8 publications covering 23 studies were selected for this meta-analysis, including 1,665 cases and 2,383 controls for CYP1A2 rs762551 (from 8 studies), 1,456 cases and 1,792 controls for CYP1A2 rs2069514 (from 7 studies), 657 cases and 984 controls for CYP1A2 rs2069526 (from 5 studies) and 691 cases and 968 controls for CYP1A2 rs2470890 (from 3 studies). Results: When all the eligible studies were pooled into the meta-analysis for the CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism, significantly increased lung cancer risk was observed in the dominant model (OR=1.21, 95 % CI=1.00-1.46). In the subgroup analysis by ethnicity, significantly increased risk of lung cancer was observed in Caucasians (dominant model: OR=1.29, 95%CI=1.11-1.51; recessive model: OR=1.33, 95%CI=1.01-1.75; additive model: OR=1.49, 95%CI=1.12-1.98). There was no evidence of significant association between lung cancer risk and CYP1A2 rs2069514, s2470890, and rs2069526 polymorphisms. Conclusions: In summary, this meta-analysis indicates that the CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism is linked to an increased lung cancer risk in Caucasians. Moreover, our work also points out the importance of new studies for rs2069514 associations in lung cancer, where at least some of the covariates responsible for heterogeneity could be controlled, to obtain a more conclusive understanding about the function of the rs2069514 polymorphism in lung cancer development.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• 제14권5호
• /
• pp.3155-3158
• /
• 2013

Many published studies have concerned associations between the CYP1A2 -163 C>A polymorphism and risk of lung cancer, but the results have been inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to obtain a more precise estimate. We searched the PubMed database up to March 1, 2013 for relevant cohort and case-control studies. Supplementary search was conducted manually by searching the references of the included studies and relevant meta-analyses. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software for calculation of pooled odds ratios (ORs) and relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs) after data extraction. Finally, seven case-control studies and one nested case-control study involving 1,675 lung cancer patients and 2,393 controls were included. The meta-analysis showed that there was no association of CYP1A2 -163 C>A polymorphism with risk of lung cancer overall [(OR=0.89, 95%CI= 0.74-1.07) for C vs. A; (OR=0.73, 95%CI= 0.50-1.07) for AA vs. CC ; (OR=0.82, 95%CI= 0.62-1.09) for AC vs. CC; (OR=0.79, 95%CI= 0.58-1.07) for (AC+AA) vs. CC; and (OR=0.87, 95%CI= 0.67-1.13) for AA vs. (CC+AC)]. Subgroup analysis indicated that there was an associationbetween CYP1A2 -163C>A polymorphism and lung cancer risk for population-based controls, a trend risk for SCCL (squamous cell carcinoma of lung) and Caucasians. These results suggested that -163 C>A polymorphism is likely to be associated with risk of lung cancer compared with population-based controls.