论文部分内容阅读
目的:通过Meta分析方法探讨X线修复交叉互补基因3 XRCC3 Thr241Met(rs861539)多态性与淋巴瘤易感性的关系。方法:通过检索2016年4月之前PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,Web of Science and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database的相关文献,我们进行了一项荟萃分析以研究它们之间的关系。结果:在这项荟萃分析中,最后我们纳入了854例病例组和1 081例对照组。结果显示XRCC3的5种基因模型与淋巴瘤的风险之间无统计学意义(TT vs.CC,OR=1.05,95%CI=0.79~1.38,P=0.75;TT+CT vs.CC,OR=1.01,95%CI=0.84~1.22,P=0.88;TT vs.CT+CC,OR=1.02,95%CI=0.80~1.32,P=0.86;T vs.C,OR=1.01,95%CI=0.89~1.16,P=0.84;CT vs.CC,OR=1.08,95%CI=0.79~1.48,P=0.62)。结论:Meta分析结果表明:尚没有足够的证据证明XRCC3 Thr241Met(rs861539)多态性与淋巴瘤的风险之间有联系。
Objective: To investigate the relationship between XRCC3 Thr241Met (rs861539) polymorphism and susceptibility to lymphoma by Meta-analysis. METHODS: By searching the literature of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database by April 2016, we conducted a meta-analysis to study the relationship between them. Results: In this meta-analysis, we finally included 854 cases and 1 081 controls. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the 5 gene models of XRCC3 and the risk of lymphoma (TT vs. CC, OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.79-1.38, P = 0.75; 1.01, 95% CI = 0.84-1.22, P = 0.88; TT vs. CT + CC, OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.80-1.32, P = 0.86; T vs. C, OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.89-1.16, P = 0.84; CT vs. CC, OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.79-1.48, P = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis results indicate that there is insufficient evidence to support the association between the ThR241Met polymorphism of XRCC3 and the risk of lymphoma.