Background
Methods
Literature review
Data extraction
Authors | Year of publication | Host ethnicity | Age (years Mean ± SD) | Samples (n) | Regimen of chemotherapy | Genotyping method | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resistant | Responder | Resistant | Responder | |||||
Sokbom K. et al. [18] | 2009 | Asian | No data | No data | 20 | 40 | Atinum-Taxane | PCR-RFLP |
Steffensen K.D. et al. [20] | 2011 | Caucasian | 54.92 ± 11.42 | 52.33 ± 10.75 | 155 | 144 | Carboplatin and Paclitaxel | PCR-DNA chip |
Smith S. et al. [16] | 2007 | Caucasian | 66.9 ± 7.8 | 68.33 ± 9.5 | 48 | 128 | carboplatin or cisplatin and paclitaxel | PCR-RFLP |
Qi B. et al. [11] | 2013 | Asian | No data | No data | 73 | 147 | Platium- Based, did not provide specific information | PCR-RFLP |
Bösmüller H. et al. [19] | 2011 | Caucasian | 59.7 ± 18.3 | 62.33 ± 13.5 | 14 | 27 | Carboplatin-Taxane | PCR-RFLP |
Steffensen K.D. et al. [17] | 2008 | Caucasian | 61.1 ± 20 | 68.4 ± 14.7 | 12 | 88 | Platium- Based, did not provide specific information | PCR-DNA chip |
Moxley K.M. et al. [10] | 2013 | Caucasian | 64.89 ± 13.2 | 71.28 ± 12.9 | 32 | 32 | Platium- Based Chemotherapy | PCR-RFLP |
Yang S. [21] | 2011 | Asian | 76.9 ± 17.6 | 72.9 ± 15.9 | 71 | 138 | Cisplatin or Carboplatin and cyclophosphamide | PCR-RFLP |
Statistical analyses
Results
The characteristics of included studies
SNP | Study | Resistant | Responder | Resistant | Responder | HWE | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C/C | C/T | T/T | C | T | C/C | C/T | T/T | C | T | Number (%) | Number (%) | Chi |
p
| ||
ERCC1 C19007T | Sokbom K. et al. [18] | 15 | 5 | 0 | 35 | 5 | 20 | 16 | 4 | 56 | 24 | 20 (50) | 40 (50) | 0.09 | 0.76 |
Steffensen K.D. et al. [20] | 16 | 72 | 67 | 104 | 206 | 15 | 71 | 58 | 101 | 187 | 155 (52) | 144 (48) | 0.98 | 0.32 | |
Smith S. et al. [16] | 11 | 22 | 15 | 44 | 52 | 23 | 60 | 45 | 106 | 150 | 48 (27) | 128 (73) | 0.15 | 0.71 | |
Qi B. et al. [11] | 38 | 26 | 9 | 102 | 44 | 78 | 67 | 2 | 223 | 71 | 73 (33) | 147 (67) | 8.76 | 0.003 | |
Bösmüller H. et al. [19] | 6 | 5 | 3 | 17 | 11 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 23 | 31 | 14 (34) | 27 (66) | 2.74 | 0.1 | |
Steffensen K.D. et al. [17] | 3 | 7 | 2 | 13 | 11 | 12 | 34 | 42 | 58 | 118 | 12 (12) | 88 (88) | 1.39 | 0.24 | |
Moxley K.M. et al. [10] | 10 | 13 | 9 | 33 | 31 | 14 | 8 | 10 | 36 | 28 | 32 (50) | 32 (50) | 8.04 | 0.005 | |
Yang S. [21] | 28 | 31 | 12 | 87 | 55 | 70 | 67 | 1 | 207 | 69 | 71 (34) | 138 (66) | 11.98 | 0.0005 |
Data synthesis by polymorphism
ERCC1 C19007T polymorphism
SNP | Genetic model | Participants (%) | OR (95% CI) | Z |
P value | I2% | Phet
| Effect model | Begg’s test p > │z│ | Egger’s test p > │t│ | Harbord test p > │t│ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ERCC1 C19007T | CC vs. CT + TT | 1169 (50) | 1.0 (0.75, 1.33) | 0 | 0.99 | 26.6 | 0.22 | Fixed | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.07 |
TT vs. CT + CC | 1169 (50) | 1.16 (0.53, 2.55) | 0.38 | 0.7 | 72.5 | 0.001 | Random | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.91 | |
CC vs. CT | 879 (39) | 1.10 (0.81, 1.49) | 0.59 | 0.56 | 0.0 | 0.66 | Fixed | 0.62 | 0.72 | 0.75 | |
CC vs. TT | 656 (28) | 0.85 (0.33, 2.22) | 0.33 | 0.74 | 72.4 | 0.001 | Random | 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.56 | |
C vs. T | 2338 (100) | 1.07 (0.75, 1.52) | 0.38 | 0.7 | 66.9 | 0.004 | Random | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.07 |