SynthesisTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2013
Comprehensive assessment of the association between DNA repair gene XRCC3 rs861539 C/T polymorphism and lung cancer risk.
Synthesis in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association between XRCC3 Thr241Met polymorphism and nasopharyngeal carcinoma risk: evidence from a large-scale case-control study and a meta-analysis.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Homologous Recombination Repair Polymorphisms and the Risk for Osteosarcoma.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A few case-control studies were performed to assess the association between X-ray repair cross-complementing group 3 (XRCC3) rs861539 C/T polymorphism and lung cancer susceptibility, but no consistent finding was reported. In the present study, we performed a meta-analysis of 14 case-control studies with a total of 7,869 lung cancer cases and 10,778 controls to provide a comprehensive assessment of the association between XRCC3 rs861539 C/T polymorphism and lung cancer risk. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) were calculated to assess the strength of the association. Overall, there was no significant association between XRCC3 rs861539 C/T polymorphism and lung cancer risk under all genetic models [OR (95 % CI) for T versus C, 1.00 (0.89-1.13), P = 0.99; OR (95 % CI) for TT versus CC, 1.07 (0.81-1.41), P = 0.62; OR (95 % CI) for TT/CT versus CC, 0.95 (0.84-1.07), P = 0.39; OR (95 % CI) for TT versus CT/CC, 1.10 (0.86-1.39), P = 0.62]. In the subgroup analyses of both Asians and Caucasians, there was still no significant association between XRCC3 rs861539 C/T polymorphism and lung cancer risk under all genetic models (All P values were more than 0.05). However, there was an obvious association between XRCC3 rs861539 C/T polymorphism and decreased risk of lung cancer in the subgroup analysis of the mixed population (All P values were less than 0.05). In addition, there was some risk of publication bias in the meta-analysis, and there was obvious discrepancy in the findings between studies with large sample size and studies with small sample size in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicates that the association between XRCC3 rs861539 C/T polymorphism and lung cancer risk is still uncertain owing to the obvious discrepancy in the findings between studies with large sample size and studies with small sample size. More studies with large sample size are needed to further assess the association.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23982880What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.