• Users Online: 576
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Browse Articles Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 47

Is there any association between glutathione s-transferases m1 and glutathione s-transferases t1 gene polymorphisms and endometrial cancer risk? a meta-analysis


1 Department of Scientific Research, Jining No. 1 People's Hospital, Jining, China
2 Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China

Correspondence Address:
Jie Chen
Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, Shandong University, Jinan 250012
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_346_15

Rights and Permissions

Epidemiological evidence on the association between genetic polymorphisms in glutathione S-transferases M1 (GSTM1) and T1 (GSTT1) genes and risk of endometrial cancer (EC) has been inconsistent. In this meta-analysis, we seek to investigate the relationship between GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphisms and the risk of EC. We searched Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature database to identify eligible studies. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association were determined using a fixed- or random-effect model. Tests for heterogeneity of the results and sensitivity analyses were performed. A total of six case–control studies were included in the final meta-analysis of GSTM1 (1293 cases and 2211 controls) and GSTT1 (1286 cases and 2200 controls) genotypes. Overall, GSTM1 null genotype was not significantly associated with an increased risk of EC (OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.76–1.30, P = 0.982). Similarly, for GSTT1 deletion genotype, we observed no association under the investigated model in the overall analysis (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.64–1.30, P = 0.619). Subgroup analysis also showed no significant association between the GSTM1 null genotype and EC risk in hospital-based design (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.93–1.71, P = 0.131) and no relationship between GSTT1 null genotype with EC risk in population-based design (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.79–1.76, P = 0.407). However, GSTM1 null genotype contributed to an increased EC risk in population-based design (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60–0.97, P = 0.027), while null GSTT1 in hospital-based studies (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.52–0.93, P = 0.015). The present meta-analysis suggested that GSTs genetic polymorphisms may not be involved in the etiology of EC. Large epidemiological studies with the combination of GSTM1 null, GSTT1 null, and design-specific with the development of EC are needed to prove our findings.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1230    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded172    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal