Skip to main content
Medicina logoLink to Medicina
. 2024 Mar 19;60(3):506. doi: 10.3390/medicina60030506

The Role of DNA Repair (XPC, XPD, XPF, and XPG) Gene Polymorphisms in the Development of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Adriana-Stela Crișan 1,2, Florin Tripon 1,2, Alina Bogliș 1,2, George-Andrei Crauciuc 1,2, Adrian P Trifa 3, Erzsébet Lázár 4, Ioan Macarie 4, Manuela Rozalia Gabor 5, Claudia Bănescu 1,2,*
Editors: Călin Căinap, Nicolae Crisan
PMCID: PMC10972134  PMID: 38541232

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Several polymorphisms have been described in various DNA repair genes. Nucleotide excision DNA repair (NER) detects defects of DNA molecules and corrects them to restore genome integrity. We hypothesized that the XPC, XPD, XPF, and XPG gene polymorphisms influence the appearance of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). Materials and Methods: We investigated the XPC 1496C>T (rs2228000, XPC Ala499Val), XPC 2920A>C (rs228001, XPC Lys939Gln), XPD 2251A>C (rs13181, XPD Lys751Gln), XPF-673C>T (rs3136038), XPF 11985A>G (rs254942), and XPG 3507G>C (rs17655, XPG Asp1104His) polymorphisms by polymerase chain reaction–restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis in 393 MPN patients [153 with polycythemia vera (PV), 201 with essential thrombocythemia (ET), and 39 with primary myelofibrosis (PMF)] and 323 healthy controls. Results: Overall, we found that variant genotypes of XPD 2251A>C were associated with an increased risk of MPN (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.15–2.08, p = 0.004), while XPF-673C>T and XPF 11985A>G were associated with a decreased risk of developing MPN (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.42–0.76, p < 0.001; and OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.19–0.37, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: In light of our findings, XPD 2251A>C polymorphism was associated with the risk of developing MPN and XPF-673C>T and XPF 11985A>G single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) may have a protective role for MPN, while XPC 1496C>T, XPC 2920A>C, and XPG 3507G>C polymorphisms do not represent risk factors in MPN development.

Keywords: myeloproliferative neoplasms, NER, XPC, XPD, XPF, XPG, gene polymorphism

1. Introduction

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) constitute a category of clonal malignancies that may lead to the overproduction of terminally differentiated cells of one or more elements of the myeloid lineage [1,2,3]. Polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), due to their clinical, morphological, and molecular features, are organized into Philadelphia-negative classical MPNs or BCR-ABL-negative classical MPNs [4,5,6]; they are distinguished by extramedullary hematopoiesis and a predisposition for fibrosis, hemorrhage, arterial and venous thrombosis, and the possibility to change into acute leukemia [7]. JAK2 (Janus kinase 2; located on chromosome 9p24), MPL (myeloproliferative leukemia virus oncogene; located on chromosome 1p34), and CALR (calreticulin; located on chromosome 19p13.2) are specific somatic driver mutations that have been described in the major part of BCR-ABL–negative neoplasms [6,8]. The WHO (World Health Organization) diagnostic criteria for MPNs include the driver mutations; therefore in PV the JAK2 mutation frequency is 98%; in ET the JAK2, CALR, and MPL mutation frequency is 60%, 22%, and 3%, while in PMF the frequency of JAK2, CALR, and MPL mutation is 58%, 25%, and 7% [8]. Some exceptions have been reported, even though CALR and MPL mutations are normally absent in PV [6,8]. Approximately 10–15% of subjects with ET or PMF do not express any of these mutations and are called “triple-negative” [8,9].

Endogenous and exogenous sources generate constant genotoxic pressure on cells. Every day, a single human cell is subjected to tens of thousands of DNA lesions. These defects should be repaired to avoid chromosomal breakage, blocked replication, and harmful mutations. DNA repair represents a multitude of ways through which living cells can detect alterations in their DNA molecules and correct the damage to reestablish the integrity of their genome. Also, DNA repair can impede the transformation of preneoplastic cells into malignant cells [10] and plays a decisive part in defending cells against ultraviolet (UV) rays, smoking, diet, and ionizing radiation [11]. Initially, the significance of DNA repair in cancer was demonstrated in a study of subjects with xeroderma pigmentosum (XP), characterized by excessive sensitivity to UV rays [10] and by an increased risk of developing melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma when exposed to sunlight [12]. One of the most important DNA pathways is represented by nucleotide excision DNA repair (NER). NER is capable of identifying the DNA damage and removing the chemically and structurally different helix-distorting DNA lesions [13,14]. Seven proteins are considered the main participants of NER and make up the Xeroderma pigmentosum complementary group [15].

The human XPC gene is found in chromosome 3p25, comprises 16 exons and 15 introns, and codifies a protein—xeroderma pigmentosum complementation group C (XPC) [16], which is a significant DNA lesion recognition protein involved in NER [17]. The most commonly studied polymorphisms of the XPC gene are Ala499Val and Lys939Gln.

The XPC Ala499Val (1496C>T, rs2228000) gene polymorphism, with a C to T substitution in exon 8, gives rise to an Ala with Val substitution at position 499 [18]. Some researchers have shown that XPC 1496C>T is associated with the risk of breast cancer [19,20] and bladder cancer [21,22,23]. Contradictory results have been reported for hematological diseases. XPC 1496C>T has been associated with an increased risk of developing Hodgkin’s Lymphoma [24,25] but was not associated with leukemic risk in patients with PV and ET [26].

XPC Lys939Gln (2920A>C, rs2228001) is the most studied single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) of the XPC gene, and there is an exchange at codon 939 from lysine to glutamine [27]. This SNP has been associated with a high risk of different malignant disorders, such as melanoma, lung, colorectal, bladder [18,23], ovarian cancers [28], leukemia [27], and Hodgkin’s Lymphoma [24], but not with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) [29] and leukemic transformation in patients with PV, ET [26].

Excision repair cross-complementation group 2 (ERCC2) is well known as XPD and is located at chromosome 19q13.3 [30]. The XPD gene codifies a DNA helicase implicated in the NER system. Protein function and cellular responses to precise types of DNA damage are affected by XPD Lys751Gln (2251A>C, rs13181) polymorphism [31], which is one of the most widely studied polymorphisms of XPD. There is a change at codon 751 in exon 23 from lysine to glutamine [30]. XPD 2251A>C polymorphism contributes to hematological neoplasms, such as chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) [32,33], AML [29], and AML transformation [26], and some showed no association [34,35,36].

The complex formed between Xeroderma pigmentosum group F (XPF) and ERCC1 (excision repair cross complementation 1) excise the damaged DNA. The susceptibility for different malignancies is influenced by the XPF genetic variant [37]. ERCC5/XPG is found on chromosome 13q22–33 and is constituted by 14 introns and 15 exons. Its protein outcome plays a fundamental part in the NER system [38].

XPG Asp1104His (3507G>C, rs17655) includes a substitution of G with C in codon 1104 (leading to an amino acid change from aspartic acid to histidine), which may influence the DNA repair success [39]. Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the association between XPG 3507G>C polymorphism and the risk of multiple cancers [38,40,41,42], and important discrepancies have been reported.

The selected variants XPC 1496C>T, XPC 2920A>C, XPD 2251A>C, XPF-673C>T, XPF 11985A>G, and XPG 3507G>C were studied in different populations for multiple types of cancers: breast cancer [19,20], bladder cancer [18,21,22,23], ovarian cancer [28], hematological diseases such as Hodgkin’s Lymphoma [24,25], PV and ET [26], AML [29], and CML [32,33]. We aimed to evaluate the influence of the DNA repair gene in the occurrence of myeloproliferative neoplasms. We also wanted to establish the association between the studied polymorphisms of the XPC, XPD, XPF, and XPG genes and the JAK2, CALR driver mutations and to identify possible predictors in the appearance of myeloproliferative neoplasms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Ethics Considerations

A case–control study was conducted between 2019 and 2022 following the Declaration of Helsinki after obtaining ‘George Emil Palade’ University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures ethics committee approval (No. 504 from 15 November 2019 and No. 1252 from 28 January 2021). Written informed consent concerning the genetic testing was obtained from each study participant.

2.2. Patients and Controls

The present study enrolled 393 unrelated patients diagnosed with MPN according to the latest WHO classification of myeloid neoplasms [43]. The subjects were recruited from the Hematology Clinics in Targu Mures, Romania.

The estimated incidences for PV, ET, and PMF typically range as follows: 0.5 to 2.5 cases; 1.0 to 2.5 cases; and 0.1 to 1.0 cases per 100,000 population per year in Europe. The patients and controls included in the study were from the central region of the country, with an estimated adult population (>20 years old) of 1,764,765 people, according to the National Institute of Public Health, Romania, in 2021 [44].

The sample size for our study was estimated a priori through power analysis by using SPSS 23.0 (licensed) software. This analysis allowed us to determine the total sample size based on a significance level (alpha) set at 0.05 and a test power level of 80% at an effect size of 1.5. The sample size was estimated to be 696 subjects.

The control group included 323 healthy unrelated individuals without known malignancies chosen taking into account the gender and age of the patients. The subjects (patients and controls) were Caucasians from the central region of Romania. The clinical and hematological characteristics of the MPN patients were obtained from clinical records, as well as data related to the treatment. The mean age was 57.76 ± 14.43 years (range 17–85) for patients and 56.15 ± 15.3 years (range 25–94) for controls. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding gender and age distribution (Table 1). Also, we investigated the constitutional symptoms and venous and arterial thrombotic events in MPN cases included in the present study. By constitutional symptoms, we mean unexplained fever, excessive sweating, fatigue, weight loss, and early satiety. Venous thrombotic events included cerebral sinus vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and portal or mesenteric vein thrombosis. Arterial thrombotic events included unstable angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack, ischemic stroke, and peripheral arterial disease.

Table 1.

Distribution of demographic data of MPN patients and controls.

Variable MPN Patients
(n = 393)
Controls
(n = 323)
p-Value
Gender
Male gender [n (%)] 188 (47.8) 155 (48) 0.96
Female gender [n (%)] 205 (52.2) 168 (52)
Age
Age at diagnosis, years; median 60 (17–85) 56.15 (25–94)
≥60 [n (%)] 199 (50.6) 194 (49.4) 0.11
<60 [n (%)] 194 (49.4) 179 (55.4)

n—number of patients; p-values obtained using ANOVA test; p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Regarding treatment, most patients received hydroxyurea (HU), and a small proportion received other cytotoxic agents, anagrelide, or interferon (IFN). Patients who received only HU and other cytotoxic agents were included in the “agents alone or in combination” group, and those who received anagrelide or interferon were included in the “no exposure” group because these drugs are considered non-leukemogenic [26].

2.3. SNP Selection

NER may identify and eliminate changes in DNA structure. SNPs of the genes in-volved in the NER may generate differences in DNA repair ability between peoples, and thereby they may affect the susceptibility to MPN. Therefore, SNPs in this research were selected according to their inadequate DNA repair capacity in the NER pathway and the risk allele frequency >0.05 in the European population [45].

The selection criteria of investigated SNPs included a variant allele frequency higher than 0.05 and also considered the reported association with different types of malignancies.

The highest population Minor Allele Frequencies (MAFs) for the SNPs investigated were as follows: XPC 1496C>T (rs2228000, MAF—0.48), XPC 2920A>C (rs2228001, MAF—0.49), XPD 2251A>C (rs13181, MAF—0.45), XPF-673C>T (rs3136038, MAF—0.49), XPF 11985A>G (rs254942, MAF—0.25), and XPG 3507G>C (rs17655, MAF—0.5).

The allele frequency in all populations and in the European population, as well as the most severe consequence and clinical significance of these SNPs, are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Data about ID, allele frequencies, clinical significance of the investigated SNPs.

Gene Polymorphism rs ID MAF Risk Allele Frequency ALL Risk Allele Frequency in Europe Most Severe Consequence Clinical Significance
WT-Allele Variant WT-Allele Variant
XPC 1496C>T rs2228000 0.48 G—0.77 A—0.23 G—0.74 A—0.26 Missense variant Benign
XPC 2920A>C rs2228001 0.49 G—0.32 T—0.66 G—0.40 T—0.60 Missense variant Benign, likely benign
XPD 2251A>C rs13181 0.45 T—0.76 G—0.24 T—0.64 G—0.36 Stop gained Benign, likely benign
XPF-673C>T rs3136038 0.49 C—0.66 T—0.34 C—0.66 T—0.34 TF binding site -
XPF 11985A>G rs254942 0.25 G—0.05 A—0.95 G—0.02 A—0.98 Splice region variant Benign
XPG 3507G>C rs17655 0.5 G—0.64 C—0.36 G—0.75 C—0.25 Missense variant Benign

WT—wild type, MAF—minor allele frequency.

2.4. Sample Collection and Processing

Peripheral venous blood samples were collected from each participant in the study (cases and controls) in EDTA (ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid) tubes. Blood samples were used for genomic DNA extraction performed with the Quick-gDNA MiniPrep kits (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA, USA) and PureLink Genomic DNA Mini kits (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). The polymerase chain reaction–restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) method was used in establishing the genotypes of XPC 1496C>T, XPC 2920A>C, XPD 2251A>C, XPF-673C>T, XPF 11985A>G, and XPG 3507G>C, as previously described [13,27,37,46,47,48]. After the PCR reaction, digestion was performed with specific restriction enzymes (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), followed by agarose gel electrophoresis (2%) (Table 3). The genotypes distinguished by PCR-RFLP are presented in Figure 1.

Table 3.

PCR-RFLP description (restriction enzyme, genotypes, length of the PCR products after digestion, and primers used).

Gene Polymorphism Restriction Enzyme Used Base Pair Change Genotype Length (bp) Primers Sequences
XPC 1496C>T (XPC Ala499Val, rs2228000) Cfr42I (SacII) C→T CC 131, 21 Fw: TAA GGA CCC AAG CTT GCC CG
Rev: CCC ACT TTT CCT CCT GCT CAC AG
CT 152, 131, 21
TT 152
XPC 2920A>C (XPC Lys939Gln, rs2228001) Pvu II A→C AA 281 Fw: GAT GCA GGA GGT GGA CTC TCT
Rev: GTA GTG GGG CAG CAG CAA CT
AC 281, 150, 131
CC 150, 131
XPD 2251A>C (XPD Lys751Gln, rs13181) Pst I A→C AA 224, 100 Fw: TC CTG TCC CTA CTG GCC ATT C
Rev: GT GGA CGT GAC AGT GAG AAA T
AC 224, 158, 100, 66
CC 158, 100, 66
XPF-673C>T (rs3136038) EcoRI C→T CC 114, 23 Fw: GGG AGG CAA ACA GAG GTC TGA ATT
Rev: TGC GAT TAC TCC CCA TCC TTC TT
CT 137, 114, 23
TT 137
XPF 11985A>G (rs254942) RsaI A→G AA 129 Fw: GGA GTC AAG AAA CAG CCA ACC TAG TA
Rev: AGG AAG ACA GGA TGA CAG CCA G
AG 129, 104, 25
GG 104, 25
XPG 3597G>C (XPG Asp1104His, rs17655) NlaIII (Hin1 II) G→C GG 271 Fw: GAC CTG CCT CTC AGA ATC ATC
Rev: CCT CGC ACG TCT TAG TTT CC
GC 271, 227, 44
CC 227, 44

PCR-RFLP—Polymerase chain reaction–restriction fragment length polymorphism; FW—Forward, Rev—Reverse.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

The electropherograms of the XPC 1496C>T (rs2228000), XPC 2920A>C (rs2228001), XPD 2251A>C (rs13181), XPF-673C>T (rs3136038), XPF 11985A>G (rs254942), and XPG 3507G>C (rs17655) polymorphisms genotypes distinguished by PCR-RFLP. The product sizes after PCR amplification are as follows: (a) 152 bp. (b) 281 bp. (c) 324 bp. (d) 137 bp. (e) 129 bp. (f) 271 bp.

JAK2 V617F and CALR mutations were performed as presented in previous papers [7,49,50]. CALR mutations were analyzed only in subjects negative for the JAK2 V617F mutation; however, there were a few cases in which the mutant clone was in a small percentage, and testing was also performed for CALR mutations.

2.5. Statistical Methods

Numerical, continuous, and quantitative variables were described using mean ± standard deviation (SD) (minimum-maximum). Qualitative and categorical (nominal/ordinal) variables were described as absolute and relative frequencies (%) and were evaluated by Fisher’s exact test (two-sided) and the chi-square test to determine statistically significant differences between the two groups.

The normality of data distributions for genotype categories was analyzed by the One-Sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test with Lilliefors Significance Correction. The statistical significance threshold was considered below 0.05 (p-value < 0.05). The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the risk determined by the variant alleles. The univariate logistic regression model was used to analyze the predictive quality of the independent variables in the study. For the independent variables in the logistic regression model, the statistical significance threshold was considered below 0.05 (p-value < 0.05), with 95% confidence intervals for Exp (B) statistics. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 23.0 (licensed) software.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Characteristics

Following the review of medical records, data were extracted regarding demographic characteristics, laboratory parameters, driver mutation status, clinical variables such as palpable splenomegaly, the presence of arterial and venous thrombosis, and leukemic progression (Table 4). The 393 patients with MPN included in the study were divided as follows: 153 with PV, 201 with ET, and 39 with PMF.

Table 4.

Demographic characteristics, laboratory parameters, driver mutation status, clinical variables of MPN patients.

Characteristics Patients with
PV (n = 153)
Patients with
ET (n = 201)
Patients with PMF
(n = 39)
All Patients
(n = 393)
Age at diagnosis, years, median (range) 59 (17–80) 60 (18–85) 59 (34–76) 60 (17–85)
< 30 [n (%)] 10 (6.54) 7 (3.49) - 17 (4.32)
30–49 [n (%)] 29 (18.95) 48 (23.89) 7 (17.95) 84 (21.38)
50–69 [n (%)] 85 (55.55) 94 (46.77) 27 (69.23) 206 (52.42)
≥ 70 [n (%)] 29 (18.96) 52 (25.87) 5 (12.82) 86 (21.88)
Gender
Male [n (%)] 94 (61.43) 75 (37.31) 19 (48.71) 188 (47.83)
Female [n (%)] 59 (38.57) 126 (62.69) 20 (51.29) 205 (52.17)
Blood counts
Hemoglobin (g/dL), median (range) 17.2 (7.7–22.7) 13.2 (4.8–20) 10 (5.9–14.5) 14.4 (4.8–22.7)
Hemoglobin < 10 g/dL [n (%)] 3 (1.96) 35 (17.41) 19 (48.72) 57 (14.50)
Hemoglobin 10–16.5 g/dL [n (%)] 54 (35.30) 160 (79.61) 20 (51.28) 234 (59.53)
Hemoglobin > 16.5 g/dL [n (%)] 96 (62.74) 6 (2.98) - 106 (26.97)
Hematocrit value, median (range) 50.91 (24.3–73.4) 39.5 (6.29–55.6) 31.7 (18.9–46.3) 43.4 (6.29–73.4)
Hematocrit > 49 [n (%)] 89 (58.17) 13 (6.47) 0 102 (25.95)
Hematocrit ≤ 49 [n (%)] 64 (41.83) 188 (93.53) 39 (100) 291 (74.05)
Red blood cells median (range) 5.74 (2.7–9.3) 4.37 (1.86–9) 3.41 (2.22–5.63) 4.71 (1.86–9.3)
Platelets (×109/L), median (range) 282 (77–1619) 720 (34–3160) 260 (4–1167) 543 (4–3160)
Platelets < 100 × 109/L [n (%)] 3 (1.97) 1 (0.49) 8 (20.51) 13 (3.3)
Platelets 100–450 × 109/L [n (%)] 113 (73.85) 16 (7.96) 25 (64.11) 154 (39.19)
Platelets > 450 × 109/L [n (%)] 37 (24.18) 184 (91.55) 6 (15.38) 226 (57.51)
Leukocytes (×109/L), median (range) 9.88 (3.44–182.3) 9.51 (3.59–113.83) 9.5 (0.6–82.30) 9.67 (0.6–182.3)
Leukocytes < 11 × 109/L [n
(%)]
88 (57.51) 125 (62.19) 22 (56.41) 235 (59.8)
Leukocytes ≥ 11 × 109/L [n
(%)]
65 (42.48) 76 (37.81) 17 (43.58) 158 (40.20)
Leukocytes 11–15 × 109/L [n
(%)]
30 (19.6) 44 (21.89) 6 (15.38) 80 (22.36)
Leukocytes ≥ 15 × 109/L [n
(%)]
35 (22.87) 32 (15.92) 11 (28.20) 78 (19.84)
Leukocytes 15–25 × 109/L [n (%)] 24 (15.7) 19 (9.45) 5 (12.82) 48 (12.21)
Leukocytes ≥ 25 × 109/L [n
(%)]
11 (7.19) 13 (6.47) 6 (15.39) 30 (7.63)
LDH median U/L (range) 284 (102–2015) 308 (113–2197) 379 (130–3098) 307 (102–3098)
Driver mutational status
JAK2 mutation [n (%)] 69 (45.09) 88 (43.78) 17 (43.59) 174 (44.27)
CALR mutation [n (%)] 1 (0.65) 37 (18.4) 8 (20.51) 46 (11.7)
2x-negative [n (%)] 68 (44.44) 72 (35.8) 13 (33.33) 153 (38.93)
Constitutional symptoms [n (%)] 73 (47.71) 99 (49.25) 25 (64.1) 197 (50.12)
Palpable splenomegaly [n (%)] 66 (43.13) 66 (32.83) 29 (74.35) 161 (40.96)
History of any thrombosis [n (%)] 47 (30.71) 61 (30.34) 10 (25.64) 118 (30.02)
History of venous thrombosis [n (%)] 22 (14.37) 22 (10.94) 8 (20.51) 52 (13.23)
History of arterial thrombosis [n (%)] 32 (20.91) 43 (21.39) 5 (12.82) 80 (20.35)
History of bleeding [n (%)] 6 (3.92) 14 (6.96) 5 (12.82) 25 (6.35)
Leukemic transformations [n (%)] 8 (5.22) 15 (7.46) 9 (23.07) 32 (8.11)

n—number of patients.

3.2. Distribution of Investigated XPC, XPD, XPF, and XPG SNPs in MPN Patients and Controls

Both the cases and the controls included in the study were successfully genotyped by PCR-RFLP. The genotype and allele frequencies of XPC 1496C>T, XPC 2920A>C, XPD 2251A>C, XPF-673C>T, XPF 11985A>G, and XPG 3507G>C and their association with the risk of developing MPN are shown in Table 5. There were no differences in the frequencies of the genotypes or the alleles of the XPC 1496C>T SNP between the control group and the MPN group (p = 0.91 for CT, p = 0.88 for TT, and p = 0.9 for T allele).

Table 5.

Genotypes distribution of XPC, XPD, XPF, and XPG polymorphisms in MPN patients and controls.

MPN Patients n-393 (%) Controls n-323 (%) Crude OR (95% CI) p-Value
XPC 1496C>T (rs2228000, Ala499Val)
CC 180 (45.8) 148 (45.8) Ref. Ref.
CT 134 (34.1) 108 (33.4) 1.02 (0.731–1.425) 0.907
TT 79 (20.1) 67 (20.7) 0.969 (0.655–1.434) 0.877
CT + TT 213 (54.2) 175 (54.1) 1.001 (0.745–1.345) 0.996
C allele 494 (62.84) 404 (62.53) Ref. Ref.
T allele 292 (37.15) 242 (37.46) 0.986 (0.795–1.224) 0.903
XPC 2920A>C (rs2228000, XPC Lys939Gln)
AA 104 (26.5) 79 (24.5) Ref. Ref.
AC 204 (51.9) 179 (55.4) 0.866 (0.607–1.234) 0.425
CC 85 (21.6) 65 (20.1) 0.993 (0.642–1.536) 0.976
AC + CC 289 (73.5) 244 (75.5) 0.9 (0.641–1.262) 0.541
A allele 412 (52.41) 337 (52.17) Ref. Ref.
C allele 374 (47.58) 309 (47.83) 0.99 (0.804–1.219) 0.925
XPD 2251A>C (rs13181, XPD Lys751Gln)
AA 147 (37.4) 155 (48) Ref. Ref.
AC 185 (47.1) 104 (32.2) 1.876 (1.349–2.608) <0.001
CC 61 (15.5) 64 (19.8) 1.005 (0.662–1.525) 0.981
AC + CC 246 (62.6) 168 (52) 1.544 (1.145–2.082) 0.004
A allele 479 (60.94) 414 (64.08) Ref. Ref.
C allele 307 (39.05) 232 (35.91) 1.144 (0.922–1.418) 0.222
XPF-673C>T (rs3136038)
CC 212 (53.9) 128 (39.6) Ref. Ref.
CT 106 (27) 129 (39.9) 0.496 (0.354–0.696) <0.001
TT 75 (19.1) 66 (20.4) 0.686 (0.461–1.020) 0.062
CT + TT 181 (46.1) 195 (60.3) 0.56 (0.416–0.755) <0.001
C allele 530 (67.43) 385 (59.59) Ref. Ref.
T allele 256 (32.56) 261 (40.4) 0.712 (0.573–0.884) 0.002
XPF 11985A>G (rs254942)
AA 313 (79.6) 164 (50.8) Ref. Ref.
AG 62 (15.8) 109 (33.7) 0.298 (0.207–0.429) <0.001
GG 18 (4.6) 50 (15.5) 0.189 (0.107–0.334) <0.001
AG + GG 80 (20.4) 159 (49.2) 0.264 (0.190–0.366) <0.001
A allele 688 (87.53) 437 (67.64) Ref. Ref.
G allele 98 (12.46) 209 (32.35) 0.297 (0.227–0.389) <0.001
XPG 3507G>C (rs17655, XPG Asp1104His)
GG 236 (60.1) 191 (59.1) Ref. Ref.
GC 144 (36.6) 118 (36.5) 0.988 (0.725–1.346) 0.937
CC 13 (3.3) 14 (4.3) 0.752 (0.345–1.637) 0.471
GC + CC 157 (39.9) 132 (40.8) 0.963 (0.713–1.299) 0.803
G allele 616 (78.37) 500 (77.4) Ref. Ref.
C allele 170 (21.62) 146 (22.6) 0.9452 (0.7356–1.215) 0.658

Ref.—reference; n—number of patients; p-values obtained from chi-square test, p-value < 0.05 was considered significant and is indicated in italics.

The clinical characteristics of MPN patients according to XPC, XPD, XPF, and XPG SNPs are presented in Table 4. For the XPC 1496C>T SNP, there was an association between the variant genotypes (CC + CT) and hematocrit (Htc > 48% in women (p = 0.048; OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.24−1). We found no associations between the XPC 1496C>T SNP and the clinical and hematological characteristics of the MPN patients (p > 0.05) (Table 6).

Table 6.

Patient features at diagnosis according to the XPC, XPD, XPF, and XPG genotypes.

Characteristics All Patients
[n (%)]
XPC 1496C>T XPC 2920A>C XPD 2251A>C XPF-673C>T XPF 11985A>G XPG 3507G>C
CC Variant
TT + CT
p-Value AA Variant
CC + AC
p-Value AA Variant TT + AC p-Value CC Variant
TT + CT
p-Value AA Variant
GG + AG
p-Value GG Variant
CC + GC
p-Value
Mutations
JAK2+ 174 (44.27) 86 88 0.2 42 132 0.35 60 114 0.29 96 78 0.66 140 34 0.72 105 69 0.92
JAK2− 219 (55.72) 94 125 62 157 87 132 116 103 173 46 131 88
CALR+ 46 (11.7) 21 25 0.98 12 34 0.95 18 28 0.8 28 18 0.32 40 6 0.19 30 16 0.45
CALR− 347 (88.29) 159 188 92 255 129 218 184 163 273 74 206 141
Subtype
PV 153 (38.93) 73 80 0.71 38 115 0.84 58 95 0.85 86 67 0.76 121 32 0.47 96 57 0.62
ET 201 (51.14) 88 113 55 146 73 128 106 95 158 43 116 85
MPF 39 (9.92) 19 20 11 28 16 23 20 19 34 5 24 15
Gender
Male 188 (47.8) 83 105 0.53 49 139 0.86 69 119 0.78 104 84 0.6 144 44 0.15 119 69 0.21
Female 205 (52.2) 97 108 55 150 78 127 108 97 169 36 117 88
Constitutional symptoms
Present 197 (50.12) 93 104 0.58 58 139 0.18 74 123 0.95 111 86 0.34 157 40 0.98 114 83 0.38
Absent 196 (49.87) 87 109 46 150 73 123 101 95 156 40 122 74
Palpable splenomegaly
Present 161 (40.96) 73 88 0.88 41 120 0.71 54 107 0.19 117 115 0.09 134 27 0.14 104 57 0.13
Absent 232 (59.03) 107 125 63 169 93 139 95 66 179 53 132 100
Exposure to cytoreductive agents
Agents alone or in combination 160 (40.71) 80 80 0.17 46 114 0.4 56 104 0.41 91 69 0.33 139 21 0.003 100 60 0.41
No exposure 233 (59.28) 100 133 58 175 91 142 121 112 174 59 136 97
Blood emissions
Yes 24 20 0.22 11 33 0.82 10 34 0.03 25 19 0.69 37 7 0.44 31 13 0.14
No 349 (88.8) 156 193 93 256 137 212 187 162 276 73 205 144
Aspirine
Yes 150 (38.16) 67 83 0.72 50 100 0.02 43 107 0.005 77 73 0.42 117 33 0.53 90 60 0.99
No 243 (61.83) 113 130 54 189 104 139 135 108 196 47 146 97
Interferon Alfa
Yes 5 (1.27) 3 2 0.52 3 2 0.09 3 2 0.29 3 2 0.79 5 0 0.26 2 3 0.36
No 388 (98.78) 177 211 101 287 144 244 209 179 308 80 234 154
Hemoglobin in Males
Hemoglobin
> 16.5 g/dL
75 (19.08) 29 46 0.22 24 51 0.13 31 44 0.28 39 36 0.46 58 86 0.85 46 29 0.65
Hemoglobin ≤ 16.5 g/dL 113 (28.75) 54 59 25 88 38 75 65 48 17 27 73 40
Hemoglobin in Females
Hemoglobin > 16 g/dL 35 (8.91) 19 16 0.37 3 32 0.007 16 19 0.31 23 12 0.09 29 6 0.94 19 16 0.71
Hemoglobin ≤ 16 g/dL 170 (43.26) 78 92 52 118 62 108 85 85 140 30 98 72
Hematocrit in Males
Hematocrit
> 49%
118 (30.03) 26 41 0.26 23 44 0.05 28 39 0.34 34 33 0.31 51 90 0.98 38 29 0.13
Hematocrit ≤ 49% 67 (17.05) 56 62 25 93 41 77 69 49 16 28 80 38
Hematocrit in Females
Hematocrit
> 48%
39 (9.92) 24 15 0.048 4 35 0.009 17 22 0.43 23 16 0.38 33 6 0.69 20 19 0.42
Hematocrit ≤ 48% 166 (42.24) 73 93 51 115 61 105 85 81 136 30 97 69
Platelets (×109/L)
Platelets
> 450 × 109/L
227 (57.76) 104 122 0.92 56 170 0.38 86 140 0.76 120 106 0.7 181 45 0.8 128 98 0.11
Platelets ≤ 450 × 109/L 166 (42.23) 76 91 48 119 61 106 92 75 132 35 108 59
Leukocytes (×109/L)
Leukocytes ≥ 11 × 109/L 80 (20.35) 39 41 0.81 18 62 0.85 30 50 0.73 42 38 0.99 61 19 0.41 54 26 0.008
Leukocytes ≥ 25 × 109/L 48 (12.21) 21 27 9 39 21 27 25 23 41 7 22 26
Leukocytes ≥ 15 × 109/L 30 (7.63) 13 17 7 23 11 19 16 14 25 5 13 17
Leukemic transformations
Yes 32 (8.14) 12 20 0.33 10 22 0.52 15 17 0.23 16 16 0.64 21 11 0.04 21 11 0.5
No 361 (91.85) 168 193 94 267 132 229 196 165 292 69 215 146
Nonmyeloid malignancies
Yes 28 (7.12) 12 16 0.75 13 15 0.01 8 20 0.32 16 12 0.73 19 9 0.19 18 10 0.64
No 365 (92.87) 168 197 91 274 139 226 196 169 294 71 218 147
Smoking habits
Yes 118 (30.02) 58 60 0.38 31 87 0.955 44 74 0.98 72 46 0.07 101 17 0.06 70 48 0.85
No 275 (69.97) 122 153 73 202 103 172 140 135 212 63 166 109
Alcohol habits
Regular 8 (2.03) 2 6 0.06 2 6 0.31 3 5 0.99 4 4 0.88 5 3 0.41 3 5 0.35
Social 33 (17.3) 39 29 13 55 25 43 35 33 56 12 39 29
Never 144 (80.66) 139 178 89 228 119 198 173 144 252 65 194 123
Exposure to noxes
Yes 44 (11.19) 19 25 0.71 10 255 0.55 18 26 0.61 26 18 0.47 37 7 0.44 22 22 0.15
No 349 (88.8) 161 188 94 34 129 220 186 163 276 73 214 135
History of bleeding
Yes 25 (6.36) 12 13 0.82 7 18 0.86 7 18 0.32 9 16 0.06 22 3 0.28 8 17 0.003
No 368 (93.63) 168 200 97 271 140 228 203 165 291 77 228 140
History of any thrombosis
Yes 118 (30.02) 54 64 0.99 31 87 0.96 53 65 0.04 61 57 0.56 94 24 1 66 52 0.28
No 275 (69.97) 126 149 73 202 94 181 151 124 219 56 170 105
History of venous thrombosis
Yes 52 (13.23) 21 31 0.4 13 39 0.8 24 28 0.16 24 28 0.23 38 14 0.21 30 22 0.71
No 86 (86.76) 159 182 91 250 123 218 188 153 275 66 206 135
History of arterial thrombosis
Yes 80 (20.35) 41 39 0.27 20 60 0.74 34 46 0.29 41 39 0.59 67 13 0.31 46 34 0.6
No 313 (79.64) 139 174 84 229 113 200 171 142 246 67 190 123

p-values obtained from chi-square tests and p-values < 0.05 were considered significant and are indicated in italics.

We did not observe a difference in the distribution of alleles or genotypes following the genotyping of the XPC 2920A>C polymorphism (p = 0.93 for C allele, p = 0.43 for AC, and p = 0.98 for CC). There was an association between aspirin use (p = 0.02; OR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.36–0.9), hemoglobin value in women over 16 g/dL (p = 0.007; OR = 4.7; 95% CI = 1.38–16.04), hematocrit > 48% in women (p = 0.009; OR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.08–1.36), the presence of non-myeloid neoplasms (p = 0.01; OR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.18–0.84), and XPC 2920A>C SNP (Table 6). No associations were found between this polymorphism, gender, leukocytes, the presence of constitutional symptoms, and other characteristics (Table 6) (p > 0.05).

The heterozygous AC genotype (XPD 2251A>C SNP) presented an increased risk of developing MPN compared to controls (OR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.35–2.61; p < 0.001). Also, variant genotypes (heterozygous plus homozygous) were associated with an increased risk of MPN (OR = 1.54; 95% CI = 1.15–2.08; p = 0.004). No difference was observed in the allele frequencies of XPD 2251A>C SNP between the two groups (p = 0.22).

A significant difference was observed in the allele frequency (OR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.57–0.788; p = 0.002) between the two groups (XPF-673C>T SNP). None of the patients’ features (Table 6) were associated with the XPF-673C>T SNP. Variant genotypes were associated with a decreased risk of PV, ET, and PMF (heterozygous CT−OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.35–0.7; p < 0.001; CT + TT−OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.42–0.76; p < 0.001).

The heterozygous, homozygous variants and the combination of the two (AG, GG, and AG + GG) were associated with a decreased risk of MPN (OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.21–0.43; p < 0.001, OR = 0.19; 95% CI = 0.11–0.33; p < 0.00, and OR = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.19–0.37; p < 0.001) (XPF 11985A>G SNP). The variant allele of the XPF 11985A>G SNP may play a protective role against developing MPN (OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.23–0.39; p < 0.001).

No difference was observed in the frequencies of the genotypes of the XPG 3507G>C SNP between the MPN subjects and the controls (p = 0.47 for CC, and p = 0.94 for GC). The variant C allele was 22.6% in the control group and 21.62% in the patients’ group, and there was not a significant difference (p = 0.66). Leukocyte value ≥ 11 × 109/L (p = 0.008) and bleeding history (p = 0.003; OR = 4.46; 95% CI = 1.46–8.23) were associated with variant genotypes of the XPG 3507G>C SNP (Table 6).

3.3. Possible Predictors for Patients Outcome

Considering that somatic mutations (JAK2, CALR) that occur in the neoplastic clone may maintain a chronic inflammatory state, prothrombotic status and constitutional symptoms have an increased susceptibility to secondary cancers and autoimmune disorders [51]; previous thrombotic events, age, leukocytosis, and the presence of JAK2V617F are predictive of MPN-associated thrombotic complications [52]. Also considering the fact that an increased rate of thrombosis is brought on by conventional cardiovascular risk factors [53], we analyzed the possible predictors for the outcome of the investigated MPN cases. The results of the logistic regression regarding the relationship between possible predictors and patients’ outcomes are presented in Table 7 and Table 8.

Table 7.

Results of the logistic regression regarding the relationship between possible predictors and patient outcome (MPN group).

Possible Predictors MPN
n (%) p-value Crude OR (95% CI)
Age ≥ 60 years 199 (50.6) 0.11 1.28 (0.95–1.71)
Gender (male) 188 (47.8) 0.97 1.006 (0.75–1.35)
XPC Ala499Val (variant) 213 (54.2) 0.97 0.99 (0.74–1.34)
XPC Lys939Gln (variant) 289 (73.5) 0.54 1.11 (0.79–1.56)
XPD Lys751Gln (variant) 246 (62.6) 0.004 0.65 (0.48–0.87)
XPF-673C>T (variant) 181 (46.1) <0.001 1.78 (1.32–2.41)
XPF 11985A>G (variant) 80 (20.4) <0.001 3.79 (1.32–2.41)
XPG Asp1104His (variant) 157 (39.9) 0.8 1.039 (0.77–1.40)

Reference categories: Age < 60 years; gender = female; XPC 1496C>T variant—TT + CT; XPC 2920A>C variant—CC + CT; XPD 2251A>C variant—CC + AC; XPF-673C>T variant—TT + CT; XPF 11985A>G variant—GG + AG; XPG 3507G>C variant—CC + GA; p-value < 0.05 was considered significant and is indicated in italics.

Table 8.

Results of the logistic regression regarding the relationship between possible predictors and patient outcome (PV, ET, PMF groups).

Possible Predictors PV Patients with PV (%) PV Patients with ET (%) ET Patients with PMF (%) PMF
p-Value Crude OR (95% CI) p-Value Crude OR (95% CI) p-Value Crude OR (95% CI)
Age ≥60 years 72 (47.05) 0.22 1.29 (0.86–1.94) 109 (54.22) 0.15 0.75 (0.5–1.11) 19 (52.77) 0.8 1.09 (0.56–2.11)
Gender (male) 94 (61.43) <0.001 4.42 (1.6–3.67) 75 (37.31) <0.001 0.42 (0.28–0.62) 19 (48.71) 0.91 1.04 (0.54–2.02)
JAK2 (positive) 69 (45.09) 0.88 0.97 (0.65–1.46) 88 (43.78) 0.84 1.04 (0.7–1.55) 174 (43.59) 0.93 1.03 (0.53–2)
CALR (positive) 1 (0.65) <0.001 34.67 (4.75–254.37) 37 (18.4) <0.001 0.22 (0.102–0.47) 8 (20.51) 0.08 0.47 (0.2–1.08)
Smoking habits 56 (36.6) 0.035 0.63 (0.40–0.98) 50 (24.87) 0.023 1.66 (1.07–2.56) 12 (30.76) 0.92 0.96 (0.47–1.97)
Alcohol habits 28 (18.3) 0.72 1.10 (0.66–1.85) 41 (20.40) l0.87 0.87 (0.53–1.44) 7 (17.95) 0.82 1.11 (0.47–2.61)
Hemoglobin > 16.5 g/dL 96 (62.74) <0.001 0.018 (0.008–0.041) 6 (2.98) <0.001 32.5 (13.75–76.82) - - -
Platelets > 450 × 109/L 37 (24.18) 0.41 1.77 (0.46–6.85) 184 (91.54) <0.001 0.021 (0.003–1.67) 6 (15.38) <0.001 73.67 (17.32–31.58)
Leukocytes ≥ 11 × 109/L 65 (42.48) 0.41 1.77 (0.46–6.85) 76 (37.81) 0.275 1.25 (0.84–1.88) 17 (43.58) 0.63 0.85 (0.43–1.65)
Exposure to cytoreductive agents 63 (41.17) 0.98 0.99 (0.66–1.5) 81 (40.29) 0.86 1.03 (0.69–1.55) 16 (41.02) 0.97 0.99 (0.5–1.93
Exposure to noxious substances 14 (9.15) 0.27 0.7 (0.37–1.32) 26 (12.93) 0.27 0.7 (0.37–1.32) 4 (10.25) 0.85 1.12 (0.38–3.3)
Palpable splenomegaly 66 (43.13) 0.57 0.89 (0.59–1.34) 66 (32.83) 0.001 2 (1.33–3.01) 29 (74.35) 0.53 1.27 (0.6–2.71)
History of thrombosis 47 (30.71) 0.76 0.93 (0.6–1.451) 61 (30.34) 0.89 0.97 (0.63–1.5) 10 (25.64) 0.89 0.97 (0.63–1.5)

Reference categories: Age < 60 years; gender = female; JAK2, CALR = negative; hemoglobin < 16.5 g/dL; platelets < 450 × 109/L; leukocytes < 11 × 109/L; no exposure to cytoreductive agents; no exposure to noxious substances; spleen normal size; no history of thrombosis; p-value < 0.05 was considered significant and is indicated in italics, n—number of patients.

The results of the logistic regression presented in Table 7 show that the following variables—XPD 2251A>C (p = 0.004), XPF-673C>T (p < 0.001), and XPF 11985A>G (p < 0.001)—had a dependency relationship statistically significant to the MPN patients’ outcome. The other variables were not predictors for MPN patients’ outcome.

Table 8 presents possible predictors for the subgroups (PV, ET, and PMF). In the group of patients with PV, only hemoglobin value > 16.5 g/dL p < 0.001), male gender (p < 0.001), smoking (p = 0.035), and positive CALR mutation (p < 0.001) were predictors. In the group of patients with ET, male gender (p < 0.001), hemoglobin value > 16.5 g/dL (p < 0.001, positive CALR mutation (p < 0.001, smoking (p = 0.023), palpable splenomegaly (p = 0.001), and platelets > 450 × 109/L (p < 0.001) were predictors. Platelet value > 450 × 109/L (p < 0.001) was a predictor among patients with PMF.

4. Discussion

To investigate the association between the polymorphisms of the genes involved in the NER system with the appearance of MPN, we conducted this case–control study in a Romanian population.

Allele frequencies in the patient group were similar to those reported at the European level (Table 2). No association was observed between the variant genotypes of XPC 1496C>T and MPN risk in the studied population. Similar to our findings, Thakkar et al. found no association between variant genotypes of XPC 1496C>T SNP and the risk of developing Hodgkin lymphoma in a population from South India [54]. Also, no association was observed between XPC 1496C>T polymorphism and the risk of myelodysplastic syndrome [15] and with the risk of AML conversion from ET and PV [26]. Different results were reported by Monroy et al., who reported that the heterozygous CT genotype had been associated with an increased risk of Hodgkin lymphoma (OR = 1.77; 95% CI =1.17–2.68) [25].

In this study, we noticed that XPC 2920A>C is not a risk factor for developing MPN. Similar results were obtained by Kim et al. in patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma [55], and in another study with cases with Hodgkin lymphoma subjects (p = 0.122) [54]. It was suggested that variant genotypes of XPC 2920A>C may have a protective role in non-smokers against lymphoma (p = 0.04) [56]. In a US study of a cohort of 200 subjects, no association was found between XPC 2920A>C SNP and the risk of developing Hodgkin’s disease. Despite this, the association between XRCC1 Arg/Gln and XPC Lys/Lys was found to decrease the risk of developing Hodgkin’s disease (OR = 2.14; 95% CI = 1.09−4.23) [57]. Also, in a study performed on the Romanian population, no association was reported between the variant genotypes of XPC 2920A>C and the risk of developing AML [29]. A strong association between XPC 2920A>C and XPC 1496C>T SNPs and response to imatinib treatment has been reported for 92 Caucasian patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) [58]. Different results were presented by Douzi et al. in a study in which homozygous variant genotypes of XPC 2920A>C were associated with a high risk of developing leukemia (OR = 2.484; 95% CI = 1.35–4.56) [27].

Variant genotypes (AC + CC) of XPD 2251A>C were associated with an increased risk of developing MPN (OR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.145–2.08; p = 0.004). Data similar to ours were obtained in a study on a Romanian population in which the variant genotypes of XPD were associated with an increased risk of developing AML (OR = 2.55; 95% CI = 1.53–4.25) [29]. Following a meta-analysis performed by Liu et al. on 3753 subjects, the results showed the possibility that XPD 2251A>C may be a risk factor for AML, especially for Caucasian patients with acute leukemia (OR = 1.23; 95% CI = 1.03–1.46) [59]. Another study of 156 Romanian patients with CML showed an association between variant genotypes and the risk of developing CML (OR = 1.72; 95% CI = 1.10–2.69) [33].

The study conducted on a Spanish population showed that the homozygous variant genotypes of XPD 2251A>C are associated with an increased risk of transformation to AML [26]. Exposure to cytoreductive treatments, patient age, and leukocytosis at diagnosis are considered risk factors for progression to acute leukemia in patients with PV and ET [60]. In contrast, the research conducted by Poletto et al. which included 456 Italian MFP patients did not report any association between XPD 2251A>C and the risk of leukemic transformation [34].

The data presented by Chen et al. following the case–control study in Connecticut revealed that the women with a BMI (body mass index) > 25 who carried the AA genotype of XPD 2251A>C had a significantly lower risk of developing NHL (OR = 2; 95% CI = 1.4–3) [61]. XPD 2251A>C was associated with lower overall survival for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in a study of a US population [62].

Different results from ours were obtained in a study with Asian patients, 694 with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), 378 with DLBCL, and 140 with T-cell lymphoma. No association was obtained between XPD 2251A>C and T-cell lymphoma, DLBCL, and NHL [36]. In a meta-analysis of 3095 patients with NHL and 3306 controls conducted on a Caucasian, Asian, and mixed ethnicities population, no significant association between XPD 2251A>C polymorphism and the risk of Hodgkin’s lymphoma was brought to light [30].

Dhangar et al. conducted a study of 87 Indian patients diagnosed with CML, and no association between treatment response and XPD 2251A>C was reported [32]. An analysis of leukemia subtypes in the study by Douzi et al. on a Tunisian population showed that the variant allele of XPD 2251A>C was a protective factor and was associated with a lower risk of developing CML [27]. Similar results were reported on Egyptian controls and patients with AML [36]. Moreover, no association between variant homozygous genotypes of XPD 2251A>C with various hematological malignancies such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), AML, NHL, and Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (HL) was found in a Turkish population [63].

In addition, we observed that blood emissions (p = 0.03; OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.1–4.6) and aspirin use (p = 0.005; OR = 1.86; 95% CI = 1.2–2.9) were found to be associated with XPD 2251A>C polymorphism, and history of thrombosis (p = 0.044; OR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41–0.99) was negatively associated with this SNP (Table 6). The other characteristics were not associated with this SNP (Table 6).

In the present study, the variant genotypes of the XPF-673C>T polymorphism were associated with a low risk of developing MPN (OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.42–0.76). Similar results were reported previously in AML (OR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.34–0.98 [29]. Also, the TT genotype of XPF-673C>T was associated with a decreased esophageal squamous cell carcinoma risk in the Chinese population among the non-smoker group, but not among the smoker group [37]. An old study, conducted by Shao, showed that variant genotypes of XPF-673C>T SNP significantly increased the risk of lung cancer in non-smokers, but not in smoker patients [64]. In contrast to the results presented by Shao, Yu et al. did not bring to light associations between XPF-673C>T and smoking [65].

In our research, both homozygous and heterozygous XPF 11985A>G variant genotypes appear to be associated with a low risk of developing MPN (OR = 0.19; 95% CI = 0.11–0.33 and OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.21–0.43). Similar results were obtained for the heterozygous variant genotype in AML patients (OR = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.09–0.51) [29]. For XPF 11985A>G polymorphism, according to the results presented by Liu et al., no significant differences were found between patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and controls (p = 0.2 for AG genotype; p = 0.36 for GG genotype) [37]. These results are in contradiction with our findings. One explanation may be the different ethnicity (Caucasians versus Asians) and investigated disorders (MPN versus esophageal squamous cell carcinoma).

Moreover, our data showed that exposure to an HU or HU in combination with other agents has been associated with variant XPF 11985A>G genotypes (p = 0.003). Leukemic transformations were found predominantly in patients with PMF (n = 9; 23.7%), while in patients with ET and PV, there were lower percentages: 7.46% and 5.33%, respectively. Leukemic transformations have been associated with variant genotypes of the XPF 11985A>G SNP (p = 0.04) (Table 6).

In the present study, variant genotypes of XPG 3507G>C were not associated with the risk of developing MPN. Our findings are consistent with those reported by ElMahgoub following a study of 50 Egyptian patients with acute leukemia [13]. As a similarity, Ruiz-Cosano et al., following a study of 213 cases and 214 controls, reported that XPG 3507G>C polymorphism was not associated with the risk of lymphoma (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 0.8–1.7) [66]. Also, comparable results were obtained in a study with patients diagnosed with polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia in which this SNP was not associated with the risk of leukemic transformation [26]. Al Sayed Ahmed et al. showed through their study a significant difference in the distribution of allele frequency between the control group and the group of patients with classic Hodgkin’s lymphoma [67].

The association of variant homozygous genotypes of XPC 939 Gln/Gln and XPG 1104 His/His polymorphisms led to significant interaction with the risk of leukemia, especially in the case of CML (OR = 22.52; 95% CI = 5.38–94.25 [27]. The results are similar to those obtained by El-Zein et al. in a study that included 200 subjects diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma [57]. The heterozygous genotypes of XPG 3507G>C were associated with a risk of developing AML in a study performed on a Romanian population (OR = 2.36; 95% CI = 1.33–4.22) [29]. Different results were obtained in a study conducted by Bahceci et al., which found that variant genotypes of this SNP have a protective role for lymphoma (OR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.26–0.84) [56]. Contrary to the results of different studies performed on different disorders, the present research showed no association between XPC 2920A>C and the risk of developing MPN.

The results of the logistic regression (Table 7) revealed that three variables, namely XPD 2251A>C (p = 0.004), XPF-673C>T (p < 0.001), and XPF 11985A>G (p < 0.001), had a dependency relationship statistically significant to the MPN patients’ outcome. Also, male gender (p < 0.001), positive CALR mutation (p < 0.001), smoking (p = 0.023), hemoglobin value > 16.5 g/dL, platelet value > 450 × 109/L (p < 0.001), and palpable splenomegaly (p = 0.001) were predictors in the group of patients with ET, while in the group of patients with PV, only male gender (p < 0.001), positive CALR mutation (p < 0.001), smoking (p = 0.035), and hemoglobin value > 16.5 g/dL were predictors. Platelet value > 450 × 109/L (p < 0.001) was a predictor among patients with PMF (Table 8).

According to the literature, between 96% and 99% of PV patients have a JAK2 mutation, and therefore CALR mutations should be absent or very rare. It has been shown that in some cases, JAK2-V617F and CALR mutations can coexist [68]. In our study, we describe a patient with PV who was JAK2-V617F-negative but had a CALR mutation (Table 4).

Although different treatment options for MPN exist, including targeted therapy (Ruxolitinib or Jafaki, a drug that targets JAK2), chemotherapy, and immunotherapy, resistance to treatment inevitably occurs. The identification of risk alleles of genes involved in NER may lead to the development of novel target therapies that may improve the outcome of the patients. For example, Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors target DNA repair damage and are a promising treatment in lung cancer [69,70].

Mutations of the genes involved in NER were recently investigated by whole exome sequencing and were reported to be associated with different types of cancers and to have a potential impact on clinical outcomes [70]. It was reported that NER inhibition confers increased sensitivity to cisplatin (alkylating agents) and may be an additional target that could be used in combination therapies [71].

Studies with similar designs showed different results; possible causes could be etiologies and genetic backgrounds, as well as ethnic diversity. A limitation of our study is the relatively low number of MPN patients, especially in the PMF subgroup. Another weak point is the fact that the patients come from only one region of Romania.

To our knowledge, this is the first study that investigated the following six SNPs (XPC 1496C>T, XPC 2920A>C, XPD 2251A>C, XPF-673C>T, XPF 11985A>G, and XPG 3507G>C) involved in the etiology of MPN patients and also analyzed the relation between investigated polymorphisms and JAK2-V617F or CALR driver mutations.

5. Conclusions

Based on the data obtained in the current study, we consider that XPD 2251A>C may influence MPN and that XPF-673C>T and XPF 11985A>G single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) had a protective role for MPN, while XPC 1496C>T, XPC 2920A>C, and XPG 3507G>C polymorphisms do not represent risk factors in MPN development.

According to our findings, the variant XPD 2251A>C, XPF-673C>T, and XPF 11985A>G genotypes represent independent predictors for MPN. Also, CALR gene mutation, male gender, platelet value, palpable splenomegaly, smoking, and hemoglobin value represent independent predictors for patients with ET. Male gender, positive CALR mutation, smoking, and hemoglobin value were predictors for patients with PV. Platelet value was a predictor among patients with PMF.

Further research with a large cohort of patients belonging to all geographical regions of Romania should clarify the conclusions regarding the link between the six gene polymorphisms of the NER system and MPN.

Acknowledgments

Part of this work was performed using the infrastructure of Center for Advanced Medical and Pharmaceutical Research of the ‘George Emil Palade’ University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania.

Abbreviations

ALL Acute lymphoblastic leukemia
AML Acute myeloid leukemia
CALR Calreticulin
CML Chronic myeloid leukemia
ET Essential thrombocythemia
HL Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
HU Hydroxyurea
JAK2 Janus kinase 2
MAF Minor Allele Frequency
MPL Myeloproliferative leukemia virus oncogene
MPN Myeloproliferative neoplasms
NHL Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
NER Nucleotide excision repair
PMF Primary myelofibrosis
PV Polycythemia vera
PCR-RFLP Polymerase chain reaction–restriction fragment length polymorphism
SNP Single nucleotide polymorphism
WHO World Health Organization
XP Xeroderma pigmentosum
XPC Xeroderma pigmentosum complementation
UV Ultraviolet

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.-S.C. and C.B.; methodology, A.-S.C. and C.B.; software, M.R.G.; validation, C.B.; formal analysis, A.-S.C. and C.B.; investigation, A.-S.C., F.T., A.B., G.-A.C., A.P.T., E.L., I.M. and C.B.; resources, C.B.; data curation, M.R.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.-S.C. and C.B.; writing—review and editing, C.B.; visualization, A.-S.C.; supervision, C.B.; project administration, C.B.; funding acquisition, C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of ‘George Emil Palade’ University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures (No. 504 from 15 November 2019 and No. 1252 from 28 January 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [C.B.], upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

Part of the work was sustained by the project entitled “Next generation sequencing—o tehnica valoroasa pentru evaluarea impactului mutatiilor somatice aditionale la pacientii tineri cu neo-plasme mieloproliferative non-BCR-ABL” Contract No: TE 92/2020, Project code: PN-III-Pl-1.1-TE-2019-1603.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

  • 1.Trifa A.P., Lighezan D.L., Jucan C., Tripon F., Arbore D.R., Bojan A., Gligor-Popa Ș., Pop R.M., Dima D., Bănescu C. SH2B3 (LNK) Rs3184504 Polymorphism Is Correlated with JAK2 V617F-Positive Myeloproliferative Neoplasms. Rev. Romana Med. Lab. 2020;28:267–277. doi: 10.2478/rrlm-2020-0025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Boddu P., Chihara D., Masarova L., Pemmaraju N., Patel K.P., Verstovsek S. The Co-Occurrence of Driver Mutations in Chronic Myeloproliferative Neoplasms. Ann. Hematol. 2018;97:2071–2080. doi: 10.1007/s00277-018-3402-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bellanné-Chantelot C., Rabadan Moraes G., Schmaltz-Panneau B., Marty C., Vainchenker W., Plo I. Germline Genetic Factors in the Pathogenesis of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms. Blood Rev. 2020;42:100710. doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2020.100710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rumi E., Cazzola M. Diagnosis, Risk Stratification, and Response Evaluation in Classical Myeloproliferative Neoplasms. Blood. 2017;129:680–692. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-10-695957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Barbui T., Thiele J., Gisslinger H., Kvasnicka H.M., Vannucchi A.M., Guglielmelli P., Orazi A., Tefferi A. The 2016 WHO Classification and Diagnostic Criteria for Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Document Summary and in-Depth Discussion. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8:15. doi: 10.1038/s41408-018-0054-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lighezan D.L., Bojan A.S., Iancu M., Pop R.M., Gligor-Popa Ș., Tripon F., Cosma A.S., Tomuleasa C., Dima D., Zdrenghea M., et al. TET2 Rs1548483 SNP Associating with Susceptibility to Molecularly Annotated Polycythemia Vera and Primary Myelofibrosis. J. Pers. Med. 2020;10:259. doi: 10.3390/jpm10040259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Frawley T., O’Brien C.P., Conneally E., Vandenberghe E., Percy M., Langabeer S.E., Haslam K. Development of a Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Assay to Detect Diagnostically Relevant Mutations of JAK2, CALR, and MPL in Myeloproliferative Neoplasms. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomark. 2018;22:98–103. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2017.0203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tefferi A. Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: A Decade of Discoveries and Treatment Advances: Myeloproliferative Neoplasms. Am. J. Hematol. 2016;91:50–58. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Trifa A.P., Bănescu C., Bojan A.S., Voina C.M., Popa Ș., Vișan S., Ciubean A.D., Tripon F., Dima D., Popov V.M., et al. MECOM, HBS1L-MYB, THRB-RARB, JAK2, and TERT Polymorphisms Defining the Genetic Predisposition to Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: A Study on 939 Patients. Am. J. Hematol. 2018;93:100–106. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Benavente C., Zocchi L. DNA repair and epigenetic regulation in cancer. In: Chitkara D., Mittal A., Mahato R.I., editors. Molecular Medicines for Cancer: Concepts and Applications of Nanotechnology. 1st ed. Volume 1. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Publishers; Boca Raton, FL, USA: 2018. [(accessed on 10 December 2023)]. pp. 529–561. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9j37f638. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wu Y., Lu Z.P., Zhang J.J., Liu D.F., Shi G.D., Zhang C., Qin Z.Q., Zhang J.Z., He Y., Wu P.F., et al. Association between ERCC2 Lys751Gln Polymorphism and the Risk of Pancreatic Cancer, especially among Asians: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:50124–50132. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.15394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Carbone M., Arron S.T., Beutler B., Bononi A., Cavenee W., Cleaver J.E., Croce C.M., D’Andrea A., Foulkes W.D., Gaudino G., et al. Tumour Predisposition and Cancer Syndromes as Models to Study Gene-Environment Interactions. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2020;20:533–549. doi: 10.1038/s41568-020-0265-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.ElMahgoub I.R., Gouda H.M., Samra M.A., Shaheen I.A., ElMaraashly A.H. Polymorphisms of Xeroderma Pigmentosum Genes (XPC, XPD, and XPG) and Susceptibility to Acute Leukemia among a Sample of Egyptian Patients. J. Hematop. 2017;10:3–7. doi: 10.1007/s12308-017-0290-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rahimian E., Amini A., Alikarami F., Pezeshki S.M.S., Saki N., Safa M. DNA Repair Pathways as Guardians of the Genome: Therapeutic Potential and Possible Prognostic Role in Hematologic Neoplasms. DNA Repair. 2020;96:102951. doi: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2020.102951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Santiago S.P., Junior H.L.R., de Sousa J.C., de Paula Borges D., de Oliveira R.T.G., Farias I.R., Costa M.B., Maia A.R.S., da Nóbrega Ito M., Magalhães S.M.M., et al. New Polymorphisms of Xeroderma Pigmentosum DNA Repair Genes in Myelodysplastic Syndrome. Leuk. Res. 2017;58:73–82. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2017.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Liu Z.Q., Lu M.Y., Liu B. Polymorphisms in XPC Gene and Risk of Uterine Leiomyoma in Reproductive Women. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 2020;26:1459–1464. doi: 10.1007/s12253-019-00720-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Xie C., Zhao J., Hua W., Tan P., Chen Y., Rui J., Sun X., Fan J., Wei X., Xu X., et al. Effect of XPC Polymorphisms on the Response to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: A Meta-Analysis. OncoTargets Ther. 2019;12:3839–3848. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S202617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jiang X., Zhou L.T., Zhang S.C., Chen K. XPC Polymorphism Increases Risk of Digestive System Cancers: Current Evidence from A Meta-Analysis. Chin. J. Cancer Res. 2012;24:181–189. doi: 10.1007/s11670-012-0181-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.He B.S., Xu T., Pan Y.Q., Wang H.J., Cho W.C., Lin K., Sun H.L., Gao T.Y., Wang S.K. Nucleotide Excision Repair Pathway Gene Polymorphisms Are Linked to Breast Cancer Risk in a Chinese Population. Oncotarget. 2016;7:84872–84882. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.12744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.He J., Shi T.Y., Zhu M.L., Wang M.Y., Li Q.X., Wei Q.Y. Associations of Lys939Gln and Ala499Val Polymorphisms of the XPC Gene with Cancer Susceptibility: A Meta-Analysis: XPC Lys939Gln and Ala499Val with Cancer Susceptibility. Int. J. Cancer. 2013;133:1765–1775. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.de Verdier P.J., Sanyal S., Bermejo J.L., Steineck G., Hemminki K., Kumar R. Genotypes, Haplotypes and Diplotypes of Three XPC Polymorphisms in Urinary-Bladder Cancer Patients. Mutat. Res. 2010;694:39–44. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2010.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wang Y., Li Z., Liu N., Zhang G. Association between CCND1 and XPC Polymorphisms and Bladder Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis Based on 15 Case-Control Studies. Tumour Biol. 2014;35:3155–3165. doi: 10.1007/s13277-013-1412-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sankhwar M., Sankhwar S.N., Bansal S.K., Gupta G., Rajender S. Polymorphisms in the XPC Gene Affect Urinary Bladder Cancer Risk: A Case-Control Study, Meta-Analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:27018. doi: 10.1038/srep27018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.D’Amelio A.M., Jr., Monroy C., El-Zein R., Etzel C.J. Using Haplotype Analysis to Elucidate Significant Associations between Genes and Hodgkin Lymphoma. Leuk. Res. 2012;36:1359–1364. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2012.07.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Monroy C.M., Cortes A.C., Lopez M., Rourke E., Etzel C.J., Younes A., Strom S.S., El-Zein R. Hodgkin Lymphoma Risk: Role of Genetic Polymorphisms and Gene-Gene Interactions in DNA Repair Pathways. Mol. Carcinog. 2011;50:825–834. doi: 10.1002/mc.20747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hernández-Boluda J.C., Pereira A., Cervantes F., Alvarez-Larrán A., Collado M., Such E., Arilla M.J., Boqué C., Xicoy B., Maffioli M., et al. A Polymorphism in the XPD Gene Predisposes to Leukemic Transformation and New Nonmyeloid Malignancies in Essential Thrombocythemia and Polycythemia Vera. Blood. 2012;119:5221–5228. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-02-411215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Douzi K., Ouerhani S., Menif S., Safra I., Abbes S. Polymorphisms in XPC, XPD and XPG DNA Repair Genes and Leukemia Risk in a Tunisian Population. Leuk. Lymphoma. 2015;56:1856–1862. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2014.974045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zhao Z., Zhang A., Zhao Y., Xiang J., Yu D., Liang Z., Xu C., Zhang Q., Li J., Duan P. The Association of Polymorphisms in Nucleotide Excision Repair Genes with Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility. Biosci. Rep. 2018;38:BSR20180114. doi: 10.1042/BSR20180114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bănescu C., Iancu M., Trifa A.P., Dobreanu M., Moldovan V.G., Duicu C., Tripon F., Crauciuc A., Skypnyk C., Bogliș A., et al. Influence of XPC, XPD, XPF, and XPG Gene Polymorphisms on the Risk and the Outcome of Acute Myeloid Leukemia in a Romanian Population. Tumour Biol. 2016;37:9357–9366. doi: 10.1007/s13277-016-4815-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chen S., Zhu J.H., Wang F., Huang S.Y., Xue W.Q., Cui Z., He J., Jia W.H. Association of the Asp312Asn and Lys751Gln Polymorphisms in the XPD Gene with the Risk of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis. Chin. J. Cancer. 2015;34:108–114. doi: 10.1186/s40880-015-0001-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Strom S.S., Estey E., Outschoorn U.M., Garcia-Manero G. Acute Myeloid Leukemia Outcome: Role of Nucleotide Excision Repair Polymorphisms in Intermediate Risk Patients. Leuk. Lymphoma. 2010;51:598–605. doi: 10.3109/10428190903582804. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dhangar S., Shanbhag V., Shanmukhaiah C., Vundinti B.R. Lack of Association between Functional Polymorphism of DNA Repair Genes (XRCC1, XPD) and Clinical Response in Indian Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2019;46:4997–5003. doi: 10.1007/s11033-019-04950-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bănescu C., Trifa A.P., Demian S., Benedek Lazar E., Dima D., Duicu C., Dobreanu M. Polymorphism of XRCC1, XRCC3, and XPD Genes and Risk of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. Biomed Res. Int. 2014;2014:213790. doi: 10.1155/2014/213790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Poletto V., Villani L., Catarsi P., Campanelli R., Massa M., Vannucchi A.M., Rosti V., Barosi G. No Association between the XPD Lys751Gln (Rs13181) Polymorphism and Disease Phenotype or Leukemic Transformation in Primary Myelofibrosis. Haematologica. 2013;98:e83-4. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2013.086496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Batar B., Güven M., Bariş S., Celkan T., Yildiz I. DNA Repair Gene XPD and XRCC1 Polymorphisms and the Risk of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Leuk. Res. 2009;33:759–763. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2008.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sorour A., Ayad M.W., Kassem H. The Genotype Distribution of the XRCC1, XRCC3, and XPD DNA Repair Genes and Their Role for the Development of Acute Myeloblastic Leukemia. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomark. 2013;17:195–201. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2012.0278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Liu Y., Cao L., Chang J., Lin J., He B., Rao J., Zhang Z., Zhang X. XPF-673C>T Polymorphism Effect on the Susceptibility to Esophageal Cancer in Chinese Population. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e94136. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Zhao J., Chen S., Zhou H., Zhang T., Liu Y., He J., Zhu J., Ruan J. XPG Rs17655 G>C Polymorphism Associated with Cancer Risk: Evidence from 60 Studies. Aging. 2018;10:1073–1088. doi: 10.18632/aging.101448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Senghore T., Chien H.T., Wang W.C., Chen Y.X., Young C.K., Huang S.F., Yeh C.C. Polymorphisms in ERCC5 Rs17655 and ERCC1 Rs735482 Genes Associated with the Survival of Male Patients with Postoperative Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated with Adjuvant Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy. J. Clin. Med. 2019;8:33. doi: 10.3390/jcm8010033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Feng Y.B., Fan D.Q., Yu J., Bie Y.K. Association between XPG Gene Polymorphisms and Development of Gastric Cancer Risk in a Chinese Population. Genet. Mol. Res. 2016;15:2. doi: 10.4238/gmr.15027877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Du H., Zhang X., Du M., Guo N., Chen Z., Shu Y., Zhang Z., Wang M., Zhu L. Association Study between XPG Asp1104His Polymorphism and Colorectal Cancer Risk in a Chinese Population. Sci. Rep. 2014;4:6700. doi: 10.1038/srep06700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ming-Shiean H., Yu J.C., Wang H.W., Chen S.T., Hsiung C.N., Ding S.L., Wu P.E., Shen C.Y., Cheng C.W. Synergistic Effects of Polymorphisms in DNA Repair Genes and Endogenous Estrogen Exposure on Female Breast Cancer Risk. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2010;17:760–771. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0802-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Arber D.A., Orazi A., Hasserjian R., Thiele J., Borowitz M.J., Le Beau M.M., Bloomfield C.D., Cazzola M., Vardiman J.W. The 2016 Revision to the World Health Organization Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemia. Blood. 2016;127:2391–2405. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-03-643544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Recensământul Populației și Caselor, Om cu Om, Casă cu Casă (The Census of Population and Houses, Person by Person, House by House) [(accessed on 4 March 2024)]. Available online: https://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-rpl-2021/rezultate-definitive-caracteristici-demografice/
  • 45.Ensembl Genome Browser 111. [(accessed on 3 March 2024)]. Available online: https://www.ensembl.org/index.html.
  • 46.Berhane N., Sobti R.C., Mahdi S.A. DNA Repair Genes Polymorphism (XPG and XRCC1) and Association of Prostate Cancer in a North Indian Population. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2012;39:2471–2479. doi: 10.1007/s11033-011-0998-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Liu Y., Wang H., Lin T., Wei Q., Zhi Y., Yuan F., Song B., Yang J., Chen Z. Interactions between Cigarette Smoking and XPC-PAT Genetic Polymorphism Enhance Bladder Cancer Risk. Oncol. Rep. 2012;28:337–345. doi: 10.3892/or.2012.1759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Seedhouse C., Bainton R., Lewis M., Harding A., Russell N., Das-Gupta E. The Genotype Distribution of the XRCC1 Gene Indicates a Role for Base Excision Repair in the Development of Therapy-Related Acute Myeloblastic Leukemia. Blood. 2002;100:3761–3766. doi: 10.1182/blood-2002-04-1152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jones A.V., Kreil S., Zoi K., Waghorn K., Curtis C., Zhang L., Score J., Seear R., Chase A.J., Grand F.H., et al. Widespread Occurrence of the JAK2 V617F Mutation in Chronic Myeloproliferative Disorders. Blood. 2005;106:2162–2168. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-03-1320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Trifa A.P., Cucuianu A., Popp R.A. Familial Essential Thrombocythemia Associated with MPL W515L Mutation in Father and JAK2 V617F Mutation in Daughter. Case Rep. Hematol. 2014;2014:841787. doi: 10.1155/2014/841787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Masselli E., Pozzi G., Gobbi G., Merighi S., Gessi S., Vitale M., Carubbi C. Cytokine Profiling in Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Overview on Phenotype Correlation, Outcome Prediction, and Role of Genetic Variants. Cells. 2020;9:2136. doi: 10.3390/cells9092136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hasselbalch H.C., Elvers M., Schafer A.I. The pathobiology of thrombosis, microvascular disease, and hemorrhage in the myeloproliferative neoplasms. Blood. 2021;137:2152–2160. doi: 10.1182/blood.2020008109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Farina M., Russo D., Hoffman R. The possible role of mutated endothelial cells in myeloproliferative neoplasms. Haematologica. 2021;106:2813–2823. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2021.278499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Thakkar D.N., Kodidela S., Sandhiya S., Dubashi B., Dkhar S.A. A Polymorphism Located near PMAIP1/Noxa Gene Influences Susceptibility to Hodgkin Lymphoma Development in South India. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2017;18:2477–2483. doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.9.2477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kim H.N., Kim N.Y., Yu L., Kim Y.-K., Lee I.K., Yang D.H., Lee J.J., Shin M.H., Park K.S., Choi J.S., et al. Polymorphisms in DNA Repair Genes and MDR1 and the Risk for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014;15:6703–6716. doi: 10.3390/ijms15046703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bahceci A., Paydas S., Tanriverdi K., Ergin M., Seydaoglu G., Ucar G. DNA Repair Gene Polymorphisms in B Cell Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Tumour Biol. 2015;36:2155–2161. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-2825-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.El-Zein R., Monroy C.M., Etzel C.J., Cortes A.C., Xing Y., Collier A.L., Strom S.S. Genetic Polymorphisms in DNA Repair Genes as Modulators of Hodgkin Disease Risk. Cancer. 2009;115:1651–1659. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Guillem V.M., Cervantes F., Martínez J., Alvarez-Larrán A., Collado M., Camós M., Sureda A., Maffioli M., Marugán I., Hernández-Boluda J.-C. XPC Genetic Polymorphisms Correlate with the Response to Imatinib Treatment in Patients with Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. Am. J. Hematol. 2010;85:482–486. doi: 10.1002/ajh.21726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Liu D., Wu D., Li H., Dong M. The Effect of XPD/ERCC2 Lys751Gln Polymorphism on Acute Leukemia Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gene. 2014;538:209–216. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2014.01.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Björkholm M., Hultcrantz M., Derolf Å.R. Leukemic Transformation in Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Therapy-Related or Unrelated? Best Pract. Res. Clin. Haematol. 2014;27:141–153. doi: 10.1016/j.beha.2014.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Chen Y., Zheng T., Lan Q., Kim C., Qin Q., Foss F., Chen X., Holford T., Leaderer B., Boyle P., et al. Polymorphisms in DNA Repair Pathway Genes, Body Mass Index, and Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Am. J. Hematol. 2013;88:606–611. doi: 10.1002/ajh.23463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Wang S.S., Maurer M.J., Morton L.M., Habermann T.M., Davis S., Cozen W., Lynch C.F., Severson R.K., Rothman N., Chanock S.J., et al. Polymorphisms in DNA Repair and One-Carbon Metabolism Genes and Overall Survival in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma and Follicular Lymphoma. Leukemia. 2009;23:596–602. doi: 10.1038/leu.2008.240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Özcan A., Pehlivan M., Tomatir A.G., Karaca E., Özkinay C., Özdemir F., Pehlivan S. Polymorphisms of the DNA Repair Gene XPD (751) and XRCC1 (399) Correlates with Risk of Hematological Malignancies in Turkish Population. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011;10:8860–8870. doi: 10.5897/AJB10.1839. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Shao M., Ma H., Wang Y., Xu L., Yuan J., Wang Y., Hu Z., Yang L., Wang F., Liu H., et al. Polymorphisms in excision repair cross-complementing group 4 (ERCC4) and susceptibility to primary lung cancer in a Chinese Han population. Lung Cancer. 2008;60:332–339. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.10.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Yu D.K., Wu C., Tan W., Lin D. Functional XPF polymorphisms associated with lung cancer susceptibility in a Chinese population. Front. Med. China. 2010;4:82–89. doi: 10.1007/s11684-010-0014-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ruiz-Cosano J., Torres-Moreno D., Conesa-Zamora P. Influence of Polymorphisms in ERCC5, XPA and MTR DNA Repair and Synthesis Genes in B-Cell Lymphoma Risk. A Case-Control Study in Spanish Population. J. BUON. 2013;18:486–490. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Al Sayed Ahmed H., Raslan W.F., Deifalla A.H.S., Fathallah M.D. Overall Survival of Classical Hodgkins Lymphoma in Saudi Patients Is Affected by XPG Repair Gene Polymorphism. Biomed. Rep. 2019;10:10–16. doi: 10.3892/br.2018.1165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Broséus J., Park J.H., Carillo S., Hermouet S., Girodon F. Presence of calreticulin mutations in JAK2-negative polycythemia vera. Blood. 2014;124:3964–3966. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-06-583161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Gavande N.S., VanderVere-Carozza P.S., Hinshaw H.D., Jalal S.I., Sears C.R., Pawelczak K.S., Turchi J.J. DNA repair targeted therapy: The past or future of cancer treatment? Pharmacol. Ther. 2016;160:65–83. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2016.02.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Prosz A., Duan H., Tisza V., Sahgal P., Topka S., Klus G.T., Börcsök J., Sztupinszki Z., Hanlon T., Diossy M., et al. Nucleotide excision repair deficiency is a targetable therapeutic vulnerability in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Sci. Rep. 2023;13:20567. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-47946-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Szalat R., Samur M.K., Fulciniti M., Lopez M., Nanjappa P., Cleynen A., Wen K., Kumar S., Perini T., Calkins A.S., et al. Nucleotide excision repair is a potential therapeutic target in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2018;32:111–119. doi: 10.1038/leu.2017.182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [C.B.], upon reasonable request.


Articles from Medicina are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES