Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

TP53 Arg72Pro polymorphism and endometrial cancer risk: a meta-analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Medical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies investigating the relationship between TP53 Arg72Pro polymorphism and endometrial cancer risk reported conflicting results. To explore a more precise estimate of the effect of this polymorphism on endometrial carcinogenesis, a meta-analysis was performed by searching eligible studies in PubMed. Crude odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the association for codominant model (Arg/Arg vs. Pro/Pro, Arg/Pro vs. Pro/Pro), dominant model (Arg/Arg + Arg/Pro vs. Pro/Pro), and recessive model (Arg/Arg vs. Arg/Pro + Pro/Pro), respectively. Subgroup analyses were performed by Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) in controls, the specimen of cases for determining TP53 genotypes, sample size, the source of control and case groups, and ethnicity. We identified 8 case–control studies involving 2,154 subjects for this meta-analysis. Overall, no evidence of association was observed between TP53 genotypes and endometrial cancer risk in all genetic models (Arg/Arg vs. Pro/Pro: OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.69–1.39, P = 0.90; Arg/Pro vs. Pro/Pro: OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.71–1.42, P = 0.98; dominant model: OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.71–1.38, P = 0.95; recessive model: OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.80–1.41, P = 0.95). Stratified analyses also detected no significant association in any subgroup, except among those studies with controls deviated from HWE in recessive model (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.07–2.39). In conclusion, we did not observe any evidence for a role of TP53 Arg72Pro polymorphism in endometrial cancer. The reported significant association between this polymorphism and endometrial cancer risk may be due to methodological errors such as selection bias, small sample size, Type I error, and population stratification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Linkov F, et al. Endometrial hyperplasia, endometrial cancer and prevention: gaps in existing research of modifiable risk factors. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:1632–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Amant F, et al. Endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2005;366:491–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaaks R, Lukanova A, Kurzer MS. Obesity, endogenous hormones, and endometrial cancer risk: a synthetic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002;11:1531–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lane G. Obesity and gynaecological cancer. Menopause Int. 2008;14:33–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tinelli A, et al. Hormonal carcinogenesis and socio-biological development factors in endometrial cancer: a clinical review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87:1101–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kang S, Roh JW, Kim JW. Single nucleotide polymorphism: a new risk factor for endometrial cancer? Future Oncol. 2005;1:323–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Meyer LA, Westin SN, Lu KH, Milam MR. Genetic polymorphisms and endometrial cancer risk. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2008;8:1159–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Levine AJ, Finlay CA, Hinds PW. P53 is a tumor suppressor gene. Cell. 2004;116(Suppl 2):S67–9. (1 p following S69).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Soussi T, Wiman KG. Shaping genetic alterations in human cancer: the p53 mutation paradigm. Cancer Cell. 2007;12:303–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Whibley C, Pharoah PD, Hollstein M. p53 polymorphisms: cancer implications. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:95–107.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Matlashewski GJ, et al. Primary structure polymorphism at amino acid residue 72 of human p53. Mol Cell Biol. 1987;7:961–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Thomas M, et al. Two polymorphic variants of wild-type p53 differ biochemically and biologically. Mol Cell Biol. 1999;19:1092–100.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dumont P, Leu JI, Della Pietra AC III, George DL, Murphy M. The codon 72 polymorphic variants of p53 have markedly different apoptotic potential. Nat Genet. 2003;33:357–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Klug SJ, et al. TP53 codon 72 polymorphism and cervical cancer: a pooled analysis of individual data from 49 studies. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:772–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dai S, Mao C, Jiang L, Wang G, Cheng H. P53 polymorphism and lung cancer susceptibility: a pooled analysis of 32 case-control studies. Hum Genet. 2009;125:633–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang Z, et al. P53 codon 72 polymorphism contributes to breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis based on 39 case-control studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;120:509–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhou Y, et al. P53 codon 72 polymorphism and gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of the literature. Int J Cancer. 2007;121:1481–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Esteller M, García A, Martínez-Palones JM, Xercavins J, Reventós J. Susceptibility to endometrial cancer: influence of allelism at p53, glutathione S-transferase (GSTM1 and GSTT1) and cytochrome P-450 (CYP1A1) loci. Br J Cancer. 1997;75:1385–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Peller S, Halperin R, Schneider D, Kopilova Y, Rotter V. Polymorphisms of the p53 gene in women with ovarian or endometrial carcinoma. Oncol Rep. 1999;6:193–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Agorastos T, et al. P53 codon 72 polymorphism and correlation with ovarian and endometrial cancer in Greek women. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2004;13:277–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Niwa Y, et al. Association of p73 G4C14-to-A4T14 polymorphism at exon 2 and p53 Arg72Pro polymorphism with the risk of endometrial cancer in Japanese subjects. Cancer Lett. 2005;219:183–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ueda M, et al. Germline polymorphism of p53 codon 72 in gynecological cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100:173–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ashton KA, et al. Polymorphisms in TP53 and MDM2 combined are associated with high grade endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:109–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Nunobiki O, et al. Polymorphisms of p53 codon 72 and MDM2 promoter 309 and the risk of endometrial cancer. Hum Cell. 2009;22:101–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zubor P, et al. The p53 codon 72 exon 4 BstUI polymorphism and endometrial cancer in Caucasian women. Oncology. 2009;76:173–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Roh JW, et al. p53 and p21 genetic polymorphisms and susceptibility to endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93:499–505.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22:719–48.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Tobias A. Assessing the influence of a single study in the meta-analysis estimate. Stata Tech Bull. 1999;8:15–7.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Dual S, Tweedie R. A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000;95:89–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Saffari B, et al. Association of p53 mutations and a codon 72 single nucleotide polymorphism with lower overall survival and responsiveness to adjuvant radiotherapy in endometrioid endometrial carcinomas. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15:952–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ. 1994;309:1351–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18:2693–708.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Thakkinstian A, McElduff P, D’Este C, Duffy D, Attia J. A method for meta-analysis of molecular association studies. Stat Med. 2005;24:1291–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mitchell AA, Cutler DJ, Chakravarti A. Undetected genotyping errors cause apparent overtransmission of common alleles in the transmission/disequilibrium test. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72:598–610.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hosking L, et al. Detection of genotyping errors by Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium testing. Eur J Hum Genet. 2004;12:395–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Salanti G, Amountza G, Ntzani EE, Ioannidis JP. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in genetic association studies: an empirical evaluation of reporting, deviations, and power. Eur J Hum Genet. 2005;13:840–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Trikalinos TA, Salanti G, Khoury MJ, Ioannidis JP. Impact of violations and deviations in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium on postulated gene-disease associations. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:300–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lea IA, et al. Genetic pathways and mutation profiles of human cancers: site and exposure-specific patterns. Carcinogenesis. 2007;28:1851–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Spafford MF, et al. Detection of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma among exfoliated oral mucosal cells by microsatellite analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7:607–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Dwan K, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3081.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National 973 program of China (2004CB518605), the National 863 project of China (2006AA020501), the National Key Sci-Tech Special Project of China (2008ZX10002-020), the Project of the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Commission (03dz14086), and the National Natural Science foundation of China (30024001, 30771188).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, Fudan University, 200433, Shanghai, China

    De-Ke Jiang, Lei Yao, Wei-Hua Ren, Wen-Zhang Wang, Bo Peng & Long Yu

  2. Institute of Biomedical Science, Fudan University, 200433, Shanghai, China

    Long Yu

Authors
  1. De-Ke Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lei Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei-Hua Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wen-Zhang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bo Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Long Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Long Yu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jiang, DK., Yao, L., Ren, WH. et al. TP53 Arg72Pro polymorphism and endometrial cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Med Oncol 28, 1129–1135 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-010-9597-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-010-9597-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation