Dong Linda M, Potter John D, White Emily, Ulrich Cornelia M, Cardon Lon R, Peters Ulrike
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA.
JAMA. 2008 May 28;299(20):2423-36. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.20.2423.
Continuing advances in genotyping technologies and the inclusion of DNA collection in observational studies have resulted in an increasing number of genetic association studies.
To evaluate the overall progress and contribution of candidate gene association studies to current understanding of the genetic susceptibility to cancer.
We systematically examined the results of meta-analyses and pooled analyses for genetic polymorphisms and cancer risk published through March 2008.
We identified 161 meta-analyses and pooled analyses, encompassing 18 cancer sites and 99 genes. Analyses had to meet the following criteria: include at least 500 cases, have cancer risk as outcome, not be focused on HLA antigen genetic markers, and be published in English.
Information on cancer site, gene name, variant, point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI), allelic frequency, number of studies and cases, tests of study heterogeneity, and publication bias were extracted by 1 investigator and reviewed by other investigators.
These 161 analyses evaluated 344 gene-variant cancer associations and included on average 7.3 studies and 3551 cases (range, 508-19 729 cases) per investigated association. The summary odds ratio (OR) for 98 (28%) statistically significant associations (P value <.05) were further evaluated by estimating the false-positive report probability (FPRP) at a given prior probability and statistical power. At a prior probability level of 0.001 and statistical power to detect an OR of 1.5, 13 gene-variant cancer associations remained noteworthy (FPRP <0.2). Assuming a very low prior probability of 0.000001, similar to a probability assumed for a randomly selected single-nucleotide polymorphism in a genome-wide association study, and statistical power to detect an OR of 1.5, 4 associations were considered noteworthy as denoted by an FPRP value <0.2: GSTM1 null and bladder cancer (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6; P = 1.9 x 10(-14)), NAT2 slow acetylator and bladder cancer (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.26-1.68; P = 2.5 x 10(-7)), MTHFR C677T and gastric cancer (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.31-1.77; P = 4.9 x 10(-8)), and GSTM1 null and acute leukemia (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25; P = 8.6 x 10(-15)). When the OR used to determine statistical power was lowered to 1.2, 2 of the 4 noteworthy associations remained so: GSTM1 null with bladder cancer and acute leukemia.
In this review of candidate gene association studies, nearly one-third of gene-variant cancer associations were statistically significant, with variants in genes encoding for metabolizing enzymes among the most consistent and highly significant associations.
基因分型技术的不断进步以及在观察性研究中纳入DNA采集,导致遗传关联研究的数量不断增加。
评估候选基因关联研究对当前癌症遗传易感性认识的总体进展和贡献。
我们系统地审查了截至2008年3月发表的关于基因多态性与癌症风险的荟萃分析和汇总分析结果。
我们确定了161项荟萃分析和汇总分析,涵盖18个癌症部位和99个基因。分析必须符合以下标准:包括至少500例病例,以癌症风险为结局,不专注于HLA抗原遗传标记,且以英文发表。
一名研究人员提取了关于癌症部位、基因名称、变异、点估计值和95%置信区间(CI)、等位基因频率、研究和病例数量、研究异质性检验以及发表偏倚的信息,并由其他研究人员进行审核。
这161项分析评估了344个基因变异与癌症的关联,每个被研究的关联平均包括7.3项研究和3551例病例(范围为508 - 19729例)。通过在给定的先验概率和统计效能下估计假阳性报告概率(FPRP),对98项(28%)具有统计学意义的关联(P值<.05)的汇总比值比(OR)进行了进一步评估。在先验概率水平为0.001且检测OR为1.5的统计效能下,13个基因变异与癌症的关联仍然值得关注(FPRP <0.2)。假设先验概率极低,为0.000001,类似于全基因组关联研究中随机选择的单核苷酸多态性的概率,且检测OR为1.5的统计效能下,有4个关联被认为值得关注,FPRP值<0.2:谷胱甘肽S-转移酶M1(GSTM1)缺失与膀胱癌(OR,1.5;95% CI,1.3 - 1.6;P = 1.9×10⁻¹⁴)、N-乙酰基转移酶2(NAT2)慢乙酰化与膀胱癌(OR,1.46;95% CI,1.26 - 1.68;P = 2.5×10⁻⁷)、亚甲基四氢叶酸还原酶(MTHFR)C677T与胃癌(OR,1.52;95% CI,1.31 - 1.77;P = 4.9×10⁻⁸)以及GSTM1缺失与急性白血病(OR,1.20;95% CI,1.14 - 1.25;P = 8.6×10⁻¹⁵)。当用于确定统计效能的OR降低至1.2时,4个值得关注的关联中有2个仍然如此:GSTM1缺失与膀胱癌和急性白血病。
在本次对候选基因关联研究的综述中,近三分之一的基因变异与癌症的关联具有统计学意义,其中编码代谢酶的基因变异是最一致且高度显著的关联之一。