Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20935063›Full record

SynthesisCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2010

Smoking and selected DNA repair gene polymorphisms in controls: systematic review and meta-analysis.

M Elizabeth Hodgson, Charles Poole, Andrew F Olshan, Kari E North, Donglin Zeng, Robert C Millikan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

M Elizabeth HodgsonDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. m.elizabeth.hodgson@gmail.com
Charles Poole
Andrew F Olshan
Kari E North
Donglin Zeng
Robert C Millikan

Funding

UNC-CH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH &SUSCEPTIBILITYP30ES010126 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Melissa A. Troester · 2001 to 2026
$36.3M
Carolina Population CenterR24HD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MORGAN, SAMUEL PHILIP · 2005 to 2014
$10.0M
TRAINING GRANT IN CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGYT32CA009330 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI OLSHAN, ANDREW · 1985 to 2010
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009330NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD050924NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES010126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen the case-only study design is used to estimate statistical interaction between genetic (G) and environmental (E) exposures, G and E must be independent in the underlying population, or the case-only estimate of interaction (COR) will be biased. Few studies have examined the occurrence of G-E association in published control group data.

methodsTo examine the assumption of G-E independence in empirical data, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of G-E associations in controls for frequently investigated DNA repair genes (XRCC1 Arg399Gln, Arg194Trp, or Arg280His, XPD Lys751Gln, and Asp312Asn, and XRCC3 Thr241Met), and smoking (ever/never smoking, current/not current smoker, smoking duration, smoking intensity, and pack-years).

resultsAcross the 55 included studies, single nucleotide polymorphisms SNP-smoking associations in controls (OR(z)) were not reliably at the null value of 1.0 for any SNP-smoking combinations. Two G-E combinations were too heterogeneous for summary estimates: XRCC1 399 and ever-never smoking (N = 21), and XPD 751 and pack-years (N = 12). OR(z) ranges for these combinations were: [OR(z) (95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.7 (0.4, 1.2)-1.9 (1.2, 2.8) and 0.8 (0.5, 1.3)-2.3 (0.8, 6.1), respectively). Estimates for studies considered homogeneous (Cochran's Q P-value <0.10) varied 2- to 5-fold. No study characteristics were identified that could explain heterogeneity.

conclusionsWe recommend the independence assumption be evaluated in the population underlying any potential case-only study, rather than in a proxy control group(s) or pooled controls. IMPACT: These results suggest that G-E association in controls may be population-specific. Increased access to control data would improve evaluation of the independence assumption.

Indexed as

Polymorphism, Single NucleotideResearch DesignSmokingDNA RepairDNA Repair EnzymesEnvironmental ExposureHumansNeoplasmsDNA Repair Enzymes

Identifiers

PMID20935063
PMCPMC3108462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.