Tumor Biology

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 1427–1432 | Cite as

Quantitative assessment of the association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk

Research Article

Abstract

Previous studies evaluating the association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk reported conflicting findings. We searched PubMed and Embase databases up to May 16, 2013 to identify eligible studies on the association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk. Finally, a total of seven case–control studies including 3,971 cases of cutaneous melanoma and 5,873 controls were included in the meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed with STATA version 11.0. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) were used to assess the strength of the association. Overall, there was no association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk under all five genetic models (Gln vs. Lys: OR = 1.11, 95 % CI = 0.98–1.26, P = 0.10; GlnGln vs. LysLys: OR = 1.26, 95 % CI = 0.98–1.61, P = 0.07; LysGln vs. LysLys: OR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.88–1.22, P = 0.64; GlnGln/LysGln vs. LysLys: OR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 0.92–1.31, P = 0.29; GlnGln vs. LysLys/LysGln: OR = 1.19, 95 % CI = 0.99–1.43, P = 0.06). Subgroup analysis in Caucasians showed that there was an obvious association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk in Caucasians (GlnGln vs. LysLys/LysGln: OR = 1.12, 95 % CI = 1.00–1.25, P = 0.05). Sensitivity analysis by omitting one study in turns showed that the significance of the pooled ORs was not stable. In addition, there was some evidence of publication bias in the meta-analysis, and meta-analyses of the studies with large sample size did not find the obvious association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk in Caucasians. Therefore, there is little evidence for the association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk.

Keywords

XPC Lys939Gln Polymorphism Cutaneous melanoma Meta-analysis 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. 1.
    Rager EL, Bridgeford EP, Ollila DW. Cutaneous melanoma: update on prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2005;72:269–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wolff T, Tai E, Miller T. Screening for skin cancer: an update of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:194–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dean E, Lorigan P. Advances in the management of melanoma: targeted therapy, immunotherapy and future directions. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2012;12:1437–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zalaudek I, Whiteman D, Rosendahl C, Menzies SW, Green AC, Hersey P, et al. Update on melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. Annual skin cancer conference 2011, Hamilton Island, Australia, 5–6 August 2011. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011;11:1829–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griewank KG, Ugurel S, Schadendorf D, Paschen A. New developments in biomarkers for melanoma. Curr Opin Oncol. 2013;25:145–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deans AJ, West SC. DNA interstrand crosslink repair and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;11:467–80.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heil K, Pearson D, Carell T. Chemical investigation of light induced DNA bipyrimidine damage and repair. Chem Soc Rev. 2011;40:4271–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Melis JP, Luijten M, Mullenders LH, van Steeg H. The role of xpc: implications in cancer and oxidative DNA damage. Mutat Res. 2011;728:107–17.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zheng W, Cong XF, Cai WH, Yang S, Mao C, Zou HW. Current evidences on xpc polymorphisms and breast cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;128:811–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang Y, Wang X, Zhang W, Gong S. An association between xpc lys939gln polymorphism and the risk of bladder cancer: a meta-analysis. Tumour Biol. 2013;34:973–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu C, Yin Q, Hu J, Li L, Zhang Y, Wang Y. A meta-analysis of evidences on xpc polymorphisms and lung cancer susceptibility. Tumour Biol. 2013;34:1205–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blankenburg S, Konig IR, Moessner R, Laspe P, Thoms KM, Krueger U, et al. Assessment of 3 xeroderma pigmentosum group c gene polymorphisms and risk of cutaneous melanoma: a case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 2005;26:1085–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li C, Hu Z, Liu Z, Wang LE, Strom SS, Gershenwald JE, et al. Polymorphisms in the DNA repair genes xpc, xpd, and xpg and risk of cutaneous melanoma: a case-control analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:2526–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Millikan RC, Hummer A, Begg C, Player J, de Cotret AR, Winkel S, et al. Polymorphisms in nucleotide excision repair genes and risk of multiple primary melanoma: the genes environment and melanoma study. Carcinogenesis. 2006;27:610–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goncalves FT, Francisco G, de Souza SP, Luiz OC, Festa-Neto C, Sanches JA, et al. European ancestry and polymorphisms in DNA repair genes modify the risk of melanoma: a case-control study in a high uv index region in brazil. J Dermatol Sci. 2011;64:59–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oliveira C, Rinck-Junior JA, Lourenco GJ, Moraes AM, Lima CS. Assessment of the xpc (a2920c), xpf (t30028c), tp53 (arg72pro) and gstp1 (ile105val) polymorphisms in the risk of cutaneous melanoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2013;139:1199–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paszkowska-Szczur K, Scott RJ, Serrano-Fernandez P, Mirecka A, Gapska P, Gorski B, et al. Xeroderma pigmentosum genes and melanoma risk. Int J Cancer. 2013;133:1094–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Torres SM, Luo L, Lilyquist J, Stidley CA, Flores K, White KA, et al. DNA repair variants, indoor tanning, and risk of melanoma. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2013;26(5):677–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ling Zhou
    • 1
  • Yuangang Lu
    • 1
  • Guihong Yang
    • 1
  • Jinjin Wu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Dermatology, Daping HospitalThird Military Medical UniversityDapingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations