4.5 Article

CCND1 G870A polymorphism contributes to breast cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis

Journal

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
Volume 116, Issue 3, Pages 571-575

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-008-0195-y

Keywords

CCND1; Polymorphism; Breast Cancer; Meta-analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Program for Chang jiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University
  2. Innovative Key Grant of Ministry of Education of China [705023]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cyclin D1 (CCND1), a key cell cycle regulatory protein that governs the cell cycle progression from G1 to S phase, can promote cell proliferation or induce growth arrest and apoptosis. Since the identification of a well-characterized functional polymorphism, G870A in exon 4 of CCND1, several molecular epidemiological studies were conducted in recent years to evaluate the association between G870A and breast cancer risk in diverse populations. However, the results remain conflicting rather than conclusive. This meta-analysis on 5,371 cases with breast cancer and 5,336 controls from 7 published case-control studies showed that the variant allele 870A was associated with a significantly increased risk of breast cancer (AA vs. GG: OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.06-1.32; AG vs. GG: OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.01-1.23; AA/AG vs. GG: OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.04-1.25) without any between-study heterogeneity. In the stratified analysis by race, we found that the increased breast cancer risk associated with G870A polymorphism was more evident in Caucasians (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.01-1.28, P = 0.88 for heterogeneity test), but not significant in Asians (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.85-1.42, P = 0.05 for heterogeneity test). The results suggest that CCND1 G870A polymorphism may contribute to breast cancer development, especially in Caucasians. Additional well-designed large studies were required for the validation of this association in different 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available