4.6 Article

Genetic Polymorphisms Involved in Carcinogen Metabolism and DNA Repair and Lung Cancer Risk in a Japanese Population

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 954-962

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31824de30f

关键词

Carcinogen metabolism; DNA repair; Epidemiology; Genetic polymorphism; Lung cancer

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan [2139019]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21390190] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Several components of overall lung carcinogenesis, carcinogen metabolic and DNA repair pathways may be involved in individual genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. Methods: We evaluated the role of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A1 rs4646903 and rs104894, glutathione S-transferase (GST) M1 and GSTT1 deletion polymorphisms, GSTP1 rs1695, x-ray repair, excision repair cross-complementing group 2 (ERCC2) rs13181, complementing defective in Chinese hamster 1 rs25487, and XRCC3 rs861539 in a case-control study comprising 462 lung cancer cases and 379 controls in a Japanese population. Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess the adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: CYP1A1 rs4646903 (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.25-2.38), rs1048943 (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.02-1.92), the GSTM1 deletion polymorphism (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.01-1.89), GSTP1 rs1695 (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.04-2.11), ERCC2 rs13181 (OR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.28-2.78), and Chinese hamster 1 rs25487 (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.12-2.13) were associated with lung cancer risk whereas the GSTT1 deletion polymorphism and XRCC3 rs861539 were not. A pertinent combination of multiple at-risk genotypes of CYP1A1 rs4646903, the GSTM1 deletion polymorphism and ERCC2 rs13181 was at a 5.94-fold (95% CI = 2.77-12.7) increased risk of lung cancer. Conclusions: A pertinent combination of multiple at-risk genotypes may detect a high-risk group. Further studies are warranted to verify our findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据