p.Arg72Pro polymorphism of P53 and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis of case-control studies

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The effect of the p.Arg72Pro variant of the P53 gene on the risk of development ofbreast cancer remains variable in populations. However, the use ofstrategies such aspoolingage-matched controls with disease may provide a consistent meta-analysis. Our goal was to perform a meta-analysis in order to assess the association of p.Arg72Pro variant of P53 gene with the risk of breast cancer. METHODS: Databases such as PubMed, Genetics Medical Literature, Harvard University Library, Web of Science and Genesis Library were used to search articles. Case-control studies with age-matched on breast cancer havingevaluated the genotype frequencies of the TP53 p.Arg72Pro polymorphism were selected. The fixed and random effects (Mantel-Haenszel) were calculated using pooled odds ratio of 95% CI to determine the risk of disease. Inconsistency was calculated to determine heterogeneity among the studies. The publication bias was estimated using the funnel plot. RESULTS: Twenty-one publications with 7841 cases and 8876 controls were evaluated in this meta-analysis. Overall, our results suggested that TP53 p.Arg72Pro was associated with the risk of breast cancer for the dominant model (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.02-1.16, P = 0.01) and the additive model (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.01-1.17, P = 0.03), but not for the recessive model (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.97-1.18, P = 0.19). According to the ethnic group analysis, Pro allele was associated with the risk of breast cancer in Caucasians for the dominant model and additive model (P = 0.02), and Africans for the recessive model and additive model (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found a significant association between TP53 p.Arg72Pro polymorphism and the risk of breast cancer. Individuals carrying at least one Pro allele were more likely to have breast cancer than individuals harboring the Arg allele.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.