Tumor Biology

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 351–356 | Cite as

Association between FAS 1377G>A polymorphism and breast cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis

Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Published studies on the association between FAS 1377G>A polymorphism and breast cancer susceptibility were inconclusive. To derive a more precise assessment of the association, a meta-analysis of published studies was performed. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies on the association between FAS 1377G>A polymorphism and breast cancer susceptibility. Five studies with a total of 2,905 cases and 3,090 controls were included into the meta-analysis. Overall, FAS 1377G>A polymorphism was significantly associated with increased susceptibility to breast cancer (for AA versus GG: odds ratio (OR) = 1.39, 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) 1.12–1.72, P = 0.003; for AA/GA versus GG: OR = 1.18, 95 % CI 1.06–1.32, P = 0.004; for AA versus GG/GA: OR = 1.28, 95 % CI 1.05–1.56, P = 0.015). Subgroup analysis by ethnicity found that FAS 1377G>A polymorphism was significantly associated with increased susceptibility to breast cancer in Asians (for AA versus GG: OR = 1.48, 95 % CI 1.16–1.89, P = 0.001; for AA/GA versus GG: OR = 1.24, 95 % CI 1.06–1.46, P = 0.008; for AA versus GG/GA: OR = 1.35, 95 % CI 1.08–1.69, P = 0.008), but the association was not found in Caucasians. Therefore, the findings of the meta-analysis suggest that FAS 1377G>A polymorphism is significantly associated with increased susceptibility to breast cancer in Asians.

Keywords

FAS Breast cancer Meta-analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forouzanfar MH, Foreman KJ, Delossantos AM, Lozano R, Lopez AD, Murray CJ, et al. Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2011;378:1461–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oostendorp LJ, Stalmeier PF, Donders AR, van der Graaf WT, Ottevanger PB. Efficacy and safety of palliative chemotherapy for patients with advanced breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:1053–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Platt J, Baxter N, Zhong T. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer. CMAJ. 2011;183:2109–16.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morrow M, Waters J, Morris E. MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Lancet. 2011;378:1804–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Narod SA. Hormone replacement therapy and the risk of breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8:669–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reis-Filho JS, Pusztai L. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: classification, prognostication, and prediction. Lancet. 2011;378:1812–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spencer SL, Sorger PK. Measuring and modeling apoptosis in single cells. Cell. 2011;144:926–39.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tabas I, Ron D. Integrating the mechanisms of apoptosis induced by endoplasmic reticulum stress. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13:184–90.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson NS, Dixit V, Ashkenazi A. Death receptor signal transducers: nodes of coordination in immune signaling networks. Nat Immunol. 2009;10:348–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Imai Y, Kouzmenko A, Kato S. Targeting Fas/FasL signaling, a new strategy for maintaining bone health. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2011;15:1143–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crew KD, Gammon MD, Terry MB, Zhang FF, Agrawal M, Eng SM, et al. Genetic polymorphisms in the apoptosis-associated genes FAS and FASL and breast cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 2007;28:2548–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang B, Sun T, Xue L, Han X, Lu N, Shi Y, et al. Functional polymorphisms in FAS and FASL contribute to increased apoptosis of tumor infiltration lymphocytes and risk of breast cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2007;28:1067–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krippl P, Langsenlehner U, Renner W, Koppel H, Samonigg H. Re: polymorphisms of death pathway genes FAS and FASL in esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1478–9. author reply 1479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang W, Zheng Z, Yu W, Lin H, Cui B, Cao F. Polymorphisms of the FAS and FASL genes and risk of breast cancer. Oncol Lett. 2012;3:625–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hashemi M, Fazaeli A, Ghavami S, Eskandari-Nasab E, Arbabi F, Mashhadi MA, et al. Functional polymorphisms of FAS and FASL gene and risk of breast cancer—pilot study of 134 cases. PLoS One. 2013;8:e53075.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22:719–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mahfoudh W, Bouaouina N, Gabbouj S, Chouchane L. FASL-844 T/C polymorphism: a biomarker of good prognosis of breast cancer in the Tunisian population. Hum Immunol. 2012;73:932–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurian AW, Gong GD, John EM, Johnston DA, Felberg A, West DW, et al. Breast cancer risk for noncarriers of family-specific BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: findings from the breast cancer family registry. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4505–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miao H, Verkooijen HM, Chia KS, Bouchardy C, Pukkala E, Laronningen S, et al. Incidence and outcome of male breast cancer: an international population-based study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4381–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barnes DR, Barrowdale D, Beesley J, Chen X, James PA, Hopper JL, et al. Estimating single nucleotide polymorphism associations using pedigree data: applications to breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:2610–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dahabreh IJ, Schmid CH, Lau J, Varvarigou V, Murray S, Trikalinos TA. Genotype misclassification in genetic association studies of the rs1042522 tp53 (arg72pro) polymorphism: a systematic review of studies of breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, and endometrial cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;177:1317–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang G, Zeng Y, Liu Z, Wei W. Significant association between Nijmegen breakage syndrome 1 657del5 polymorphism and breast cancer risk. Tumour Biol. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s13277-013-0830-z.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Qiu LX, Shi J, Yuan H, Jiang X, Xue K, Pan HF, et al. FAS −1,377 G/A polymorphism is associated with cancer susceptibility: evidence from 10,564 cases and 12,075 controls. Hum Genet. 2009;125:431–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang Z, Xue H, Gong W, Wang M, Yuan L, Han S. FAS promoter polymorphisms and cancer risk: a meta-analysis based on 34 case–control studies. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30:487–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OncologyShengjing Hospital of China Medical UniversityShenyangChina

Personalised recommendations