CYP1A2 rs762551多态性与肺癌患病风险相关性的Meta分析

Association Between CYP1A2 rs762551 Polymorphism and Lung Cancer Risk: a Meta-analysis

目的：许多已经发表的文献探讨了CYP1A2 rs762551多态性与肺癌患病风险的关系,但得出的结论却有很多不一致。因此,本文采用Meta分析方法对其进行评价。方法：检索PubMed数据库中相关的队列研究和病例-对照研究,检索时限为从建库至2014年2月1日。对合格的研究进行数据提取后,采用RevMan 5.2计算合并的OR值及其95%CI。结果：最终纳入7项病例-对照研究和1项巢式病例-对照研究,包括1 675例肺癌病例和2 393例对照。Meta分析显示CYP1A2 rs762551多态性与肺癌患病风险总体上没有关系[AA vs CC：（OR=0.73,95%CI=0.50~1.07）;AC vs CC：（OR=0.82,95%CI=0.62~1.09）;（AC＋AA）vs CC：（OR=0.79,95%CI=0.58~1.07）;AA vs（CC＋AC）：（OR=0.87,95%CI=0.67~1.13）]。亚组分析显示CYP1A2 rs762551多态性与基于人群的肺癌患病风险具有关联。结论：本Meta分析结果表明CYP1A2 rs762551多态性与基于人群对照的肺癌具有相关性。基于本Meta分析的局限性,结果仍需进一步开展高质量研究进行论证。

Objective Many published studies have investigated the relationship between CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism and risk of lung cancer; however,their correlation were controversial. Therefore,we performed a meta-analysis for further addressing this issue. Methods We searched the PubMed database up to February 1,2014 for cohort and case-control studies of relationship between CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism and lung cancer risk. After data extraction from included studies,meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5. 2 software to analyze odds ratio（ OR） and relevant 95% confidence interval（ CI）. Results Seven case-control studies and one nested case-control study involving in 1 675 lung cancer patients and2 393 controls were included. Overall,the meta-analysis showed that there was no association of CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism with risk of lung cancer[（ OR = 0. 73,95% CI = 0. 50 ~ 1. 07） for AA vs CC;（ OR = 0. 82,95% CI = 0. 62 ~ 1. 09）for AC vs CC;（ OR = 0. 79,95% CI = 0. 58 ~ 1. 07） for（ AC ＋ AA） vs CC; and（ OR = 0. 87,95% CI = 0. 67 ~ 1. 13） for AA vs（ CC ＋ AC） ]. Subgroups analysis indicated that there was an correlation between CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism and population-based lung cancer risk. Conclusion These results suggested that CYP1A2 rs762551 polymorphism could be associated with risk of lung cancer based on population control. Further studies should be carried out to confirm their correlation,because of the limitations of current meta-analysis.