RESUMEN
ABSTRACT Objective: To assess the susceptibility of the hOGG1 genetic polymorphism for bladder cancer and evaluate the impact of smoking exposure. Materials and Methods: Articles included in PubMed, Medline and Springer databases were retrieved using the following key words: “human 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase”, “OGG”, “OGG1”, “hOGG1”, “genetic variation”, “polymorphism” , “bladder cancer”, and “bladder carcinoma” to Meta-analysis was performed to detect whether there were differences between the bladder cancer group and the control group about the distribution of genotypes of the hOGG1 gene. Results: The results showed that there are no significant associations between the hOGG1 326Cys polymorphism and bladder cancer: GG vs. CC (OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.85–1.40, p=0.480); GC vs. CC (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.85–1.28, p=0.662); GG+GC vs. CC (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.89–1.21, p=0.619); GG vs. GC+CC(OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.78–1.33, p=0.888); G vs. C (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.91–1.13, p=0.818). In the smoker population, no significant associations between the hOGG1 326Cys polymorphism and bladder cancer were observed for all the models. However, individuals carrying the hOGG1 Cys326Cys genotype have increased risk for bladder cancer compared to those carrying the hOGG1 Ser326Ser genotype in the non-smoker Asian population. Conclusion: The hOGG1 326Cys polymorphisms aren't a risk factor for bladder cancer, especially in the smoker population. But GG genotype is a risk factor for bladder cancer to the non-smoker Asian population compared with CC genotype.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess the susceptibility of the hOGG1 genetic polymorphism for bladder cancer and evaluate the impact of smoking exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles included in PubMed, Medline and Springer databases were retrieved using the following key words: "human 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosyl¬ase", "OGG", "OGG1", "hOGG1", "genetic variation", "polymorphism" , "bladder cancer", and "bladder carcinoma" to Meta-analysis was performed to detect whether there were differences between the bladder cancer group and the control group about the distribution of genotypes of the hOGG1 gene. RESULTS: The results showed that there are no significant associations between the hOGG1 326Cys polymorphism and bladder cancer: GG vs CC (OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.85- 1.40, p=0.480); GC vs CC (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.85-1.28, p=0.662); GG+GC vs CC (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.89-1.21, p=0.619); GG vs GC+CC (OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.78-1.33, p=0.888); G vs C (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.91-1.13, p=0.818). In the smoker population, no significant associations between the hOGG1 326Cys polymorphism and bladder cancer were observed for all the models. However, individuals carrying the hOGG1 Cys326Cys genotype have increased risk for bladder cancer compared to those carrying the hOGG1 Ser326Ser genotype in the non-smoker Asian population. CONCLUSION: The hOGG1 326Cys polymorphisms aren't a risk factor for bladder cancer, especially in the smoker population. But GG genotype is a risk factor for bladder cancer to the non-smoker Asian population compared with CC genotype.