谷胱甘肽S-转移酶pi(GSTP1)Ile105Val多态性与皮肤黑色素瘤发病风险相关性的Meta分析

The Association between Glutathione S-transferase pi(GSTP1)Ile105Val Polymorphism with the Risk of Cutaneous Melanoma:A Meta-analysis

目的系统评价谷胱甘肽S-转移酶pi(GSTP1)Ile105Val多态性与皮肤黑色素瘤的相关性。方法计算机检索Pub Med、EMbase、CNKI和Wan Fang Data数据库,搜集GSTP1 Ile105Val多态性与皮肤黑色素瘤相关性的病例-对照研究,检索时限截至2016年6月31日。由2位研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料和评价纳入研究的偏倚风险后,采用Rev Man 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果最终纳入4个病例-对照研究,共981例病例和796例对照。Meta分析结果显示,在显性模型(GG+GA vs.AA)下,GSTP1 Ile105Val多态性与皮肤黑色素瘤发病风险存在相关性,且差异有统计学意义[OR=1.22,95%CI(1.01,1.48),P=0.04],但在隐性、杂合子、纯合子模型下,GSTP1基因Ile105Val(A/G)多态性与皮肤黑色素瘤发病风险无相关性[GG vs.CA+AA:OR=1.18,95%CI(0.86,1.60),P=0.30;GA vs.AA:OR=1.28,95%CI(0.92,1.77),P=0.14;GG vs.AA:OR=1.20,95%CI(0.98,1.47),P=0.08]。结论当前证据显示,在显性模型下,GSTP1 Ile105Val多态性与皮肤黑色素瘤存在相关性,可能增加皮肤黑色素瘤的发病风险。

ObjectiveTo systematically review the association between glutathione S-transferase pi （GSTP1） Ile105Val （A/G） and the risk of cutaneous melanoma. MethodWe searched PubMed, EMbase, CNKI and WanFang Data to identify case-control studies which investigated the association between GSPT1 Ile105Val （A/G） polymorphism and the risk of cutaneous melanoma from their inception to June 31th 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 4 case-control studies involving 978 cutaneous melanoma cases and 796 controls were included. The results showed that： the GSPT1 Ile105Val （A/G） polymorphism was significantly associated with the risk of cutaneous melanoma in the dominant model （GG＋GA vs. AA： OR=1.22, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.48, P=0.04）, but no significant association was found in the recessive model, heterozygote model, and homozygote model （GG vs. CA＋AA： OR=1.18, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.60, P=0.30; GA vs. AA： OR=1.20, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.47, P=0.08; GG vs. AA： OR=1.28, 95%CI 0.92 to 1.77, P=0.14）. ConclusionCurrent evidence shows, The GSTP1 Ile105Val （A/G） polymorphism is associated with the risk of cutaneous melanoma. Due to limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high-quality large-scale studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.