Individual and combined effects of GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 polymorphisms on lung cancer risk

Abstract

Thirty-five previous meta-analyses have been reported on the individual glutathione S-transferase M1 ( GSTM1 ) present/null, glutathione S-transferase T1 ( GSTT1 ) present/null, and glutathione S-transferase P1 ( GSTP1 ) IIe105Val polymorphisms with lung cancer (LC) risk. However, they did not appraise the credibility and explore the combined effects between the 3 genes and LC risk. We performed a meta-analysis and re-analysis of systematic previous meta-analyses to solve the above problems. Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were used. Moreover, we employed false-positive report probability (FPRP), Bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP), and the Venice criteria to verify the credibility of current and previous meta-analyses. Significantly increased LC risk was considered as “highly credible” or “positive” for GSTM1 null genotype in Japanese (odds ratio (OR) = 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.17–1.44, I 2 = 0.0%, statistical power = 0.997, FPRP = 0.008, BFDP = 0.037, and Venice criteria: AAB), for GSTT1 null genotype in Asians (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.12–1.36, I 2 = 49.1%, statistical power = 1.000, FPRP = 0.051, BFDP = 0.771, and Venice criteria: ABB), especially Chinese populations (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.16–1.49, I 2 = 48.9%, Statistical power = 0.980, FPRP = 0.039, BFDP = 0.673, and Venice criteria: ABB), and for GSTP1 IIe105Val polymorphism in Asians (Val vs IIe: OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.17–1.42, I 2 = 30.3%, statistical power = 0.999, FPRP = 0.003, BFDP = 0.183, and Venice criteria: ABB). Significantly increased lung adenocarcinoma (AC) risk was also considered as “highly credible” or “positive” in Asians for the GSTM1 (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.22–1.48, I 2 = 25.5%, statistical power = 0.988, FPRP < 0.001, BFDP < 0.001, and Venice criteria: ABB) and GSTT1 (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.17–1.58, I 2 = 30.2%, statistical power = 0.900, FPRP = 0.061, BFDP = 0.727, and Venice criteria: ABB) null genotype. This study indicates that GSTM1 null genotype is associated with increased LC risk in Japanese and lung AC risk in Asians; GSTT1 null genotype is associated with increased LC risk in Chinese, and GSTP1 IIe105Val polymorphism is associated with increased LC risk in Asians.

Relationship between glutathione S-transferase M1 gene polymorphism and gastric cancer

“…It has been confirmed that the GSTM1 deletion genotype is associated with the occurrence of a variety of cancers. Studies have found that the GSTM1 deletion genotype is associated with increased lung cancer risk in Japanese and increased lung adenocarcinoma risk in Asians (15). At the same time, the study confirmed that GSTM1 gene deficiency combined with smoking increased the risk of cancer by 65% compared with the simple smoking group, indicating that GSTM1 gene deficiency and smoking have a synergistic effect on promoting the occurrence of lung cancer (16).…”

“…The change of genotype may affect the inactivation ability of individuals to carcinogens and increase the risk of cancer in some individuals exposed to the adverse environment (5). GSTM1 gene deletion has been reported to be associated with susceptibility to cervical cancer (6), lung cancer (7), nasopharyngeal carcinoma (8) and liver cancer (9). However, there are few reports on the susceptibility to GC and the prognosis of patients with GC.…”

The association between single nucleotide polymorphisms and ovarian cancer risk: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

“…We set a prior probability of 0.01, an OR of 1.50, and a FPRP cutoff value of 0.20 to select the most suitable gene model for predicting OC risk. 24 , 25 , 26 Only a significant result with a FPRP <0.20 was considered credible. Our results demonstrated that Fok1 rs2228570 was more strongly associated with OC risk than SRD5A2 rs523349, ST3GAL3 rs37460, miR‐146a rs2910164, and ERCC1 rs11615.…”

“…The FPRP analysis was used to assess significant associations. We set a prior probability of 0.01, an OR of 1.50, and a FPRP cutoff value of 0.20 to select the most suitable gene model for predicting OC risk 24‐26 . Only a significant result with a FPRP <0.20 was considered credible.…”