ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2016
Associations between FAS rs2234767 and FASL rs763110 polymorphisms and the risk of lung cancer: a meta-analysis of 39,736 subjects.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2016. 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.
- Genetic polymorphisms and their effects on the severity of silicosis in workers exposed to silica in Brazil.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2022Article
- miR-590-5P inhibits the progression of tongue squamous cell carcinoma by targeting FasL.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have investigated the associations between the common polymorphisms in FAS/FASL genes and lung cancer risk; however, the results remain inconsistent and inconclusive. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis to reassess the relationships between FAS rs2234767 and FASL rs763110 polymorphisms and the risk of lung cancer.
methodsEligible studies retrieved by an electronic search were pooled to calculate the strength of the associations using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
resultsA total of 13 case-control studies involving 39,736 subjects (9,237 cases and 10,838 controls on FAS rs2234767 and 8,957 cases and 10,704 controls on FASL rs763110) were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed a significant association between FAS rs2234767 polymorphism and increased risk of lung cancer (A vs G: OR =1.07, 95% CI =1.01-1.13; AA vs GG: OR =1.23, 95% CI =1.06-1.43; AA vs GA + GG: OR =1.24, 95% CI =1.08-1.43). Similar association was also observed in Asian population (AA vs GA + GG: OR =1.30, 95% CI =1.01-1.67) and in the studies with large sample size (A vs G: OR =1.07, 95% CI =1.00-1.14; AA vs GG: OR =1.30, 95% CI =1.07-1.58). However, no significant association between FASL rs763110 polymorphism and lung cancer risk was found other than in the Asian population (CC vs TC + TT: OR =1.35, 95% CI =1.01-1.80).
conclusionThe meta-analysis indicated that FAS rs2234767 polymorphism was significantly associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and FASL rs763110 polymorphism may not contribute to susceptibility to lung cancer other than in Asian population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.