ReviewIranian journal of medical sciences2015
Association between the Functional Polymorphism of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Gene and Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Iranian journal of medical sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Association Between Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Gene Polymorphisms with Breast Cancer Risk in an Iranian Population.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2016Article
- Effect of APE1 and XRCC1 gene polymorphism on susceptibility to hepatocellular carcinoma and sensitivity to cisplatin.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene single-nucleotide polymorphism involved in the regulation of the protein levels has been implicated in breast cancer. However, the published studies have produced contentious and controversial results. Herein, we performed a meta-analysis (from January to October 2013); to further evaluate the association between +936 C/T polymorphism and the risk of breast cancer. By searching the EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, we identified a total of 12 case-control studies with 8,979 cancer patients and 9,180 healthy controls. The strength of the association was assessed using Odds Ratios (ORs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). We found no evidence indicating that the allelic model or the genotype models of +936 C/T polymorphism were associated with the risk of breast cancer in total population (ORCC vs. TT=1.01, 95% CI=0.96-1.06, Ph=1.00; ORCC+CT vs. TT=1.00, 95% CI=0.96-1.05, Ph=1.00; ORCC vs. CT+TT=1.02, 95% CI=0.98-1.07, Ph=0.94; OR allele C vs. allele T=1.01, 95% CI=0.98-1.04, Ph=0.99; ORCT vs. TT=1.01, 95% CI=0.93-1.09, Ph=1.00). Such lack of association with breast cancer was also observed in subgroup analyses according to ethnicity as well as in the analysis by source of controls. In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that the functionally important +936 C/T polymorphism may not be associated with breast cancer risk. Larger well-designed studies with gene-to-gene and gene-to-environment interactions are clearly required to validate the results further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25649829PMC4300476What 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.