4.6 Article

A Meta-Analysis of Interleukin-10-592 Promoter Polymorphism Associated with Gastric Cancer Risk

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039868

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China 973 program [2010CB5293]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2006AA02A402]
  3. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [09DZ1950101]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We aimed to explore the role of IL-10 -592 A/C SNP in the susceptibility to gastric cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Each initially included article was scored for quality appraisal. 17 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. We adopted the most probably appropriate genetic model (recessive model). Potential sources of heterogeneity were sought out via subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and publication biases were estimated. IL-10-592 AA genotype is associated with the reduced risk of developing gastric cancer among Asians and even apparently observed among Asians high quality subgroup, suggesting IL-10-592 AA genotype may seem to be more protective from overall gastric cancer in Asian populations. IL-10-592 AA genotype is also associated with the overall reduced gastric cancer susceptibility in persons with H. pylori infection compared with controls without H. pylori infection, suggesting IL-10-592 AA genotype may seem to be more protective from overall gastric cancer susceptibility in persons infected with H. pylori. IL-10-592 AA genotype is not associated with either pathologic subtypes (intestinal or diffuse) or anatomic subtypes (non-cardia or cardia) of gastric cancer susceptibility. Genotyping methods like direct sequencing should be highly advocated to be conducted in future well-designed high quality studies among different ethnicities or populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available