ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVES</b>To investigate the association between genetic polymorphisms ofX-ray repair crosscomplementing group 1 (XRCC1) codons 194, 280, and 399 and cervical neoplasm susceptibility.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A community-based nested case-control study was conducted. The study population consisted of women living in Chiayi City, located in southwestern Taiwan, who had received pap smear screening between October, 1999, and December, 2000 (n=32,466). The potential cases were women having lesions greater than cervical intraepithelium neoplasm II (C1N2) reconfirmed by cervical biopsy. The potential controls (case: control=1∶2) were age matched (±2 yrs) and residency matched women who had had normal pap smears. In total, 100 cases (39 C1N2, 12 C1N3, 46 carcinoma in situ (CIS), and 3 invasive cancer) and 196 controls had the information on both questionnaire and data ofXRCC1 polymorphisms.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The frequency ofArg/Arg, Arg/Gln, andGln/Gln in codon 399 among cases and controls was 54% (54/100), 38% (38/100), and 8% (8/100) and 58% (114/196), 37% (73/196), and 5% (9/196), respectively, which were not significantly different. No associations were also observed betweenXRCC1 codon 194 and 280 genotypes and cervical neoplasm. While dichotomized by age (<40 vs. ≥40 yrs), smoking status (active and passive smokers vs. non-smokers), and disease status (C1N2 and C1N3 vs. CIS and invasive cancer), the results remained insignificant.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>The present findings suggest thatXRRC1 codon 194, 280 and 399 genotypes may not influence cervical neoplasm risk in the Taiwanese population.</p>
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To investigate the association between genetic polymorphisms of X-ray repair cross-complementing group 1 (XRCC1) codons 194, 280, and 399 and cervical neoplasm susceptibility. Methods: A community-based nested case-control study was conducted. The study population consisted of women living in Chiayi City, located in southwestern Taiwan, who had received pap smear screening between October, 1999, and December, 2000 (n=32,466). The potential cases were women having lesions greater than cervical intraepithelium neoplasm II (CIN2) reconfirmed by cervical biopsy. The potential controls (case : control=1 : 2) were age matched (±2 yrs) and residency matched women who had had normal pap smears. In total, 100 cases (39 CIN2, 12 CIN3, 46 carcinoma in situ (CIS), and 3 invasive cancer) and 196 controls had the information on both questionnaire and data of XRCC1 polymorphisms. Results: The frequency of Arg/Arg, Arg/Gln, and Gln/Gln in codon 399 among cases and controls was 54% (54/100), 38% (38/100), and 8% (8/100) and 58% (114/196), 37% (73/196), and 5% (9/196), respectively, which were not significantly different. No associations were also observed between XRCC1 codon 194 and 280 genotypes and cervical neoplasm. While dichotomized by age (<40 vs. ³40 yrs), smoking status (active and passive smokers vs. non-smokers), and disease status (CIN2 and CIN3 vs. CIS and invasive cancer), the results remained insignificant. Conclusions: The present findings suggest that XRRC1 codon 194, 280 and 399 genotypes may not influence cervical neoplasm risk in the Taiwanese population.