4.1 Review

The association between cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 and cervical cancer

Journal

TUMOR BIOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 2893-2903

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s13277-013-1457-9

Keywords

Cervical cancer; Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4; Gene polymorphism; Meta-analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) gene polymorphisms have been associated with many autoimmune diseases and malignancy susceptibility, but the relationship between CTLA-4 and cervical cancer is still controversial. Hence, a meta-analysis of the published studies for the CTLA-4 gene polymorphisms and the risk of cervical cancer was performed to evaluate the association between them. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the codominant, dominant, and recessive genetic models were assessed. The fixed or random effect pooled measure was selected on the basis of the heterogeneity test among studies. The heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the I (2). Eight studies with 2,835 cases and 2,560 controls were included. In seven studies for the CTLA-4 +49A/G polymorphism, a significant association was showed between the A allele and the increased risk of cervical cancer in the codominant (OR 1.16, 95 % CI 1.05-1.29), dominant (OR 1.18, 95 % CI 1.03-1.36), and recessive (OR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.05-1.56) models. In five studies for the CTLA-4 -318C/T polymorphism, the meta-analysis showed a significant association of the C allele with the reduced risk of cervical cancer in the codominant (OR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.66-0.94) and recessive (OR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.63-0.93) models. This meta-analysis suggested that +49A/G and -318C/T polymorphisms of the CTLA-4 gene were significantly associated with the risk of cervical cancer. However, further studies are required to draw a solid conclusion on the relation between the CTLA-4 polymorphism and the risk of cervical cancer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available