IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0054081.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Survivin −31G>C Polymorphism and Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Liu
  • Lin Li
  • Haiyan Qi
  • Yan Gao
  • Sha Liu
  • Chongan Xu

Abstract

Background: Emerging evidence showed that common functional −31G>C polymorphism (rs9904341 G>C) in the promoter region of the survivin gene is involved in the regulation of survivin expression, thus increasing an individual’s susceptibility to gastrointestinal tract (GIT) cancer; but individually published results are inconclusive. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to derive a more precise estimation of the association between survivin −31G>C polymorphism and GIT cancer risk. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CBM databases was conducted from inception through July 1st, 2012. Crude odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the strength of association. Results: Nine case-control studies were included with a total of 2,231 GIT cancer cases and 2,287 healthy controls. The results indicated that survivin −31G>C polymorphism was associated with increased risk of GIT cancer. In the stratified analysis by cancer types, significant associations were observed between survivin −31G>C polymorphism and increased risk of colorectal and gastric cancers. However, the lack of association of survivin −31G>C polymorphism with esophageal cancer risk may be due to a lack of a sufficient number of eligible studies and the influence of different genetic and environmental factors. Conclusion: Results from the current meta-analysis suggests that survivin −31G>C polymorphism might increase the risk of GIT cancer, especially among gastric and colorectal cancers.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Liu & Lin Li & Haiyan Qi & Yan Gao & Sha Liu & Chongan Xu, 2013. "Survivin −31G>C Polymorphism and Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-9, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0054081
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054081
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054081&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0054081?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0054081. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.