기관회원 [로그인]
소속기관에서 받은 아이디, 비밀번호를 입력해 주세요.
개인회원 [로그인]

비회원 구매시 입력하신 핸드폰번호를 입력해 주세요.
본인 인증 후 구매내역을 확인하실 수 있습니다.

회원가입
서지반출
Lack of Any Association of GST Genetic Polymorphisms with Susceptibility to Ovarian Cancer - a Meta-analysis
[STEP1]서지반출 형식 선택
파일형식
@
서지도구
SNS
기타
[STEP2]서지반출 정보 선택
  • 제목
  • URL
돌아가기
확인
취소
  • Lack of Any Association of GST Genetic Polymorphisms with Susceptibility to Ovarian Cancer - a Meta-analysis
  • Lack of Any Association of GST Genetic Polymorphisms with Susceptibility to Ovarian Cancer - a Meta-analysis
저자명
Han. Li-Yuan,Liu. Kui,Lin. Xia-Lu,Zou. Bao-Bo,Zhao. Jin-Shun
간행물명
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP
권/호정보
2014년|15권 15호|pp.6131-6136 (6 pages)
발행정보
아시아태평양암예방학회
파일정보
정기간행물|ENG|
PDF텍스트
주제분야
기타
이 논문은 한국과학기술정보연구원과 논문 연계를 통해 무료로 제공되는 원문입니다.
서지반출

기타언어초록

Objective: Epidemiology studies have reported conflicting results between glutathione S-transferase Mu-1 (GSTM1), glutathione S-transferase theta-1 (GSTT1) and glutathione S-transferase pi-1 (GSTP1) and ovarian cancer (OC) susceptibility. In this study, an updated meta-analysis was applied to determine whether the deletion of GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1 has an influence on OC susceptibility. Methods: A published literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index Expanded database for articles published in English. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated using random or fixed effects models. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochrane Q test and $I^2$ statistics. Sub-group analysis was conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was employed to evaluate the respective influence of each study on the overall estimate. Results: In total, 10 published studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis revealed that there was no significant association between GSTM1 null genotype and OC risk (OR=1.01, 95%CI: 0.91-1.12). Additionally, there was no significant association between GSTT1 genetic polymorphisms and OC risk (OR=0.98, 95% CI: 0.85-1.13). Similalry, no significant associations were found concerning the GSTP1 rs1695 locus and OC risk. Meanwhile, subgroup analysis did not show a significant increase in eligible studies with low heterogeneity. However, sensitivity analysis, publication bias and cumulative analysis demonstrated the reliability and stability of the current meta-analysis. Conclusions: These findings suggest that GSTs genetic polymorphisms may not contribute to OC susceptibility. Large epidemiological studies with the combination of GSTM1 null, GSTT1 null and GSTP1 Ile105Val polymorphisms and more specific histological subtypes of OC are needed to prove our findings.