4.1 Article

TERT rs2736100 polymorphism contributes to lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis including 49,869 cases and 73,464 controls

期刊

TUMOR BIOLOGY
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 5569-5574

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13277-014-1734-2

关键词

Lung cancer; Telomerase reverse transcriptase; Meta-analysis; Polymorphism

类别

资金

  1. Shanghai Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [11411951202]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81170025]
  3. National Ministry of Science and Technology [2011ZX09302-003-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some studies investigated the association of TERT rs2736100 polymorphism with lung cancer (LC). But the results were not consistent. We performed a meta-analysis to examine the association between rs2736100 and LC. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched. Data were extracted, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A total of 19 studies including 49,869 cases and 73,464 controls were involved in this meta-analysis. Overall, a significant association between TERT rs2736100 polymorphism and LC risk was observed (OR = 1.23, 95 % CI 1.18-1.28, P < 0.00001). This polymorphism was also significantly associated with LC risk in Asians (OR = 1.27, 95 % CI 1.22-1.33, P < 0.00001), Caucasians (OR = 1.14, 95 % CI 1.10-1.18, P < 0.00001), female patients (OR = 1.37, 95 % CI 1.24-1.51, P < 0.00001), male patients (OR = 1.23, 95 % CI 1.15-1.31, P < 0.00001), adenocarcinoma patients (OR = 1.35, 95 % CI 1.28-1.41, P < 0.00001), squamous cell carcinoma patients (OR = 1.13, 95 % CI 1.04-1.21, P = 0.002), small cell lung cancer patients (OR = 1.09, 95 % CI 1.03-1.16, P = 0.004), current smokers (OR = 1.22, 95 % CI 1.17-1.27, P < 0.00001), former smokers (OR = 1.14, 95 % CI 1.08-1.21, P < 0.0001), and never smokers (OR = 1.37, 95 % CI 1.31-1.43, P < 0.00001), respectively. This meta-analysis suggested that TERT rs2736100 polymorphism was a risk factor for LC.

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

4.1
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