Tumor Biology

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 4107–4112 | Cite as

Associations between Fas/FasL polymorphisms and susceptibility to cervical cancer: a meta-analysis

  • Guo-qing Wang
  • Lei Bao
  • Xi-xia Zhao
  • Jun Zhang
  • Ke-jun Nan
Research Article


Genetic polymorphisms in the Fas/Fas ligand (FasL) gene were proposed to be associated with susceptibility to cervical cancer, but previous studies reported controversial findings. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the associations between Fas/FasL polymorphisms and susceptibility to cervical cancer. We carried out a literature search in PubMed and Embase databases for studies on the associations between Fas/FasL polymorphisms and susceptibility to cervical cancer. The associations were assessed by odds ratio (OR) together with its 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Eleven individual studies with a total of 6,919 subjects were finally included into the meta-analysis. Overall, there was no association between Fas 1377G > A polymorphism and susceptibility to cervical cancer (A vs. G: OR = 0.99, 95 % CI 0.88–1.12, P = 0.91; AA vs. GG: OR = 1.00, 95 % CI 0.76–1.32, P = 0.99; AA/GA vs. GG: OR = 0.95, 95 % CI 0.81–1.12, P = 0.54; AA vs. GG/GA: OR = 1.11, 95 % CI 0.85–1.43, P = 0.45). In addition, there was also no association between FasL 844 T > C polymorphism and susceptibility to cervical cancer (C vs. T: OR = 1.12, 95 % CI 0.91–1.36, P = 0.28; CC vs. TT: OR = 1.17, 95 % CI 0.90–1.51, P = 0.24; CC/TC vs. TT: OR = 1.13, 95 % CI 0.92–1.39, P = 0.24; CC vs. TT/TC: OR = 1.11, 95 % CI 0.83–1.50, P = 0.47). In subgroup analysis by ethnicity, there were also no associations between Fas/FasL polymorphisms and susceptibility to cervical cancer in Asians and Africans. In conclusion, Fas 1377G > A polymorphism and FasL 844 T > C polymorphism are both not associated with susceptibility to cervical cancer.


Cervical cancer Fas FasL Meta-analysis 


Conflicts of interest



  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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ibeanu OA. Molecular pathogenesis of cervical cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 2011;11:295–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, Rodriguez AC, Wacholder S. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet. 2007;370:890–907.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Katki HA, Kinney WK, Fetterman B, Lorey T, Poitras NE, Cheung L, et al. Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: a population-based study in routine clinical practice. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:663–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Freitas AC, Gurgel AP, Chagas BS, Coimbra EC. do Amaral CM. Susceptibility to cervical cancer: an overview. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126:304–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cotter TG. Apoptosis and cancer: the genesis of a research field. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:501–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hotchkiss RS, Strasser A, McDunn JE, Swanson PE. Cell death. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1570–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scholz M, Cinatl J. Fas/FasL interaction: a novel immune therapy approach with immobilized biologicals. Med Res Rev. 2005;25:331–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferguson TA, Griffith TS. A vision of cell death: Fas ligand and immune privilege 10 years later. Immunol Rev. 2006;213:228–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lai HC, Lin WY, Lin YW, Chang CC, Yu MH, Chen CC, et al. Genetic polymorphisms of FAS and FASL (CD95/CD95L) genes in cervical carcinogenesis: an analysis of haplotype and gene-gene interaction. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99:113–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ivansson EL, Gustavsson IM, Magnusson JJ, Steiner LL, Magnusson PK, Erlich HA, et al. Variants of chemokine receptor 2 and interleukin 4 receptor, but not interleukin 10 or Fas ligand, increase risk of cervical cancer. Int J Cancer. 2007;121:2451–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang S, Dong SM, Seo SS, Kim JW, Park SY. FAS −1377 G/A polymorphism and the risk of lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2008;180:1–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chatterjee K, Engelmark M, Gyllensten U, Dandara C, van der Merwe L, Galal U, et al. Fas and FasL gene polymorphisms are not associated with cervical cancer but differ among black and mixed-ancestry South Africans. BMC Res Notes. 2009;2:238.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li H, Guo HY, Sun T, Zhou YF, Lin DX, Zhang WH, et al. Association between Fas/Fas L genes promoter polymorphisms and pathogenic risk of cervical cancer. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2009;31:38–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.
    Habbous S, Pang V, Eng L, Xu W, Kurtz G, Liu FF, et al. p53 Arg72Pro polymorphism, HPV status and initiation, progression, and development of cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:6407–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu L, Chang K, Han J, Deng S, Chen M. Association between methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism and susceptibility to cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8:e55835.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang HL, Zhang YJ. A systemic assessment of the association between tumor necrosis factor alpha 308 G/A polymorphism and risk of cervical cancer. Tumour Biol. 2013;34:1659–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu Y, Wen QJ, Yin Y, Lu XT, Pu SH, Tian HP, et al. FASLG polymorphism is associated with cancer risk. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:2574–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang Z, Qiu L, Wang M, Tong N, Li J. The FAS ligand promoter polymorphism, rs763110 (−844C > T), contributes to cancer susceptibility: evidence from 19 case–control studies. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009;17:1294–303.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wu Z, Wang H, Chu X, Chen J, Fang S. Association between FAS-1377 G/A polymorphism and susceptibility to gastric cancer: evidence from a meta-analysis. Tumour Biol. 2013;34:2147–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guo-qing Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lei Bao
    • 3
  • Xi-xia Zhao
    • 2
  • Jun Zhang
    • 2
  • Ke-jun Nan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OncologyFirst Affiliated Hospital of Xi-an Jiaotong University School of MedicineXi-anChina
  2. 2.Department of Gynecologic OncologyShanxi Cancer HospitalXi-anChina
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyFourth Hospital of Xi-an CityXi-anChina

Personalised recommendations