Table 1.
Commonly evaluated genetic variants which may influence lung cancer susceptibility.
| Author | OR | 95% CI | Genotype analyzed | Other associations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carcinogen metabolism | |||||
| CYP1A1 | |||||
| T3801C | Hung et al. | 1.49 | (0.67–3.30) | T/C+C/C versus T/T | |
| Lee et al. | 1.1 | (0.86–1.39) | T/C+C/C versus T/T | Significant in squamous histology | |
| Chen et al. | 1.19* | (1.11–1.28) | C versus T | Significant in East Asian > Caucasians; squamous | |
| A2455G (Ile>Val) | Hung et al. | 2.21* | (1.12–4.37) | Ile/Val+Val/Val versus Ile/Ile | |
| Chen et al. | 1.2* | (1.08–1.33) | G versus A | Only significant in East Asian ethnicity | |
| Shi et al. | 1.61* | (1.24–2.08) | Ile/Val+Val/Val versus Ile/Ile | ||
| CYP2E1 | |||||
| RsaI/Pst1 | Zhan et al. | 0.73* | (0.63–0.85) | c2/c2 versus c1/c1 | Only significant in Asians and squamous histology |
| Wang et al. | 0.80* | (0.72–0.89) | c1/c2 versus c1/c1 | Not significant for c2/c2 versus c1/c1; significant in Asians | |
| DraI | Wang et al. | 0.58* | (0.41–0.81) | CC versus DD | |
| GSTM1 | |||||
| Null | Hung et al. | 1.2 | (0.89–1.63) | Null versus present | |
| Lee et al. | 1.11 | (0.95–1.29) | Null versus present | Significant in squamous histology | |
| McWilliams et al. | 1.41* | (1.23–1.61) | Null versus present | ||
| Houlston et al. | 1.13* | (1.04–1.25) | Null versus present | ||
| Benhamou et al. | 1.08 | (0.98–1.18) | Null versus present | ||
| Ye et al. | 1.18* | (1.14–1.23) | Null versus present | ||
| Carlsten et al. | 1.22* | (1.14–1.30) | Null versus present | Significant only in East Asian ethnicity | |
| Langevin et al. | 1.17* | (1.10–1.25) | Null versus present | ||
| GSTP1 | |||||
| A323G | Ye et al. | 1.04 | (0.99–1.09) | G versus A | |
| Langevin et al. | 1.03 | (0.97–1.09) | AG+GG versus AA | Significant in East Asian ethnicity | |
| Cote et al. | 1.04 | (0.97–1.10) | AG+GG versus AA | Asians, non-smokers, adenocarcinoma in pooled analysis | |
| GSTT1 | |||||
| Null | Langevin et al. | 1.07 | (0.97–1.17) | Null versus present | |
| Raimondi et al. | 1.07 | (0.96–1.19) | Null versus present | Significance in Asians in meta- but not pooled analysis | |
| Wang et al. | 1.36* | (1.09–1.69) | Null versus present | ||
| Lee et al. | 1.02 | (0.84–1.24) | Null versus present | ||
| NAT1 | |||||
| Fast acetylator | Zienolddiny et al. | 3.75* | (2.58–5.51) | Fast versus slow | |
| NAT2 | |||||
| Slow acetylator | Borlak et al. | 1.04 | (0.96–1.14) | Slow versus fast | |
| Cui et al. | 1.02 | (0.90–1.16) | Slow versus fast | ||
| MEH | |||||
| T113C Tyr>His (exon 3) | Kiyohara et al. | 0.83 | (0.61–1.12) | His/His versus Tyr/Tyr | Significantly decreased risk in white population |
| A139G His>Arg (exon 4) | Kiyohara et al. | 1.35 | (0.94–1.92) | Arg/Arg versus His/His | |
| NQO1 | |||||
| Exon 6 C>T (Pro187Ser) | Kiyohara et al. | 0.9 | (0.77–1.06) | Pro/Ser+Ser/Ser versus Pro/Pro | Significantly decreased risk in Japanese population |
| Chao et al. | 0.97 | (0.86–1.10) | CT+TT versus TT | ||
| MPO | |||||
| G463A | Kiyohara et al. | 0.81 | (0.64–1.02) | A/A+A/G versus GG | Significant decreased risk in Caucasians |
| Taioli et al. | 0.71* | (0.57–0.88) | A/A versus G/G | Significant only in Caucasians and ever smokers | |
| Nucleotide excision repair | |||||
| ERCC2/XPD | |||||
| Asp312Asn (G>A) | Zhan et al. | 1.24* | (1.09–1.42) | AA versus GG | Significant only in Asians and smokers |
| Feng et al. | 1.20* | (1.05–1.36) | Asn/Asn versus Asp/Asp | Significant in Asians>Caucasians and never smokers | |
| Qian et al. | 1.04 | (0.97–1.12) | AA versus GG | Significant in non-smokers | |
| Benhamou et al. | 1.18 | (0.84–1.67) | Asn/Asn versus Asp/Asp | ||
| Hung et al. | 1.09 | (0.97–1.23) | AA versus GG | ||
| Kiyohara et al. | 1.19* | (1.03–1.38) | Asn/Asn versus Asp/Asp | Significant only in Asians | |
| Lys751Gln (A>C) | Zhan et al. | 1.26* | (1.12–1.42) | CC versus AA | Significant only in Caucasians and smokers |
| Feng et al. | 1.31* | (1.17–1.46) | Gln/Gln versus Lys/Lys | Significant in Caucasians, Latinos, and never smokers | |
| Benhamou et al. | 1.18 | (0.95–1.47) | Gln/Gln versus Lys/Lys | ||
| Hung et al. | 1.19* | (1.02–1.39) | CC versus AA | ||
| Kiyohara et al. | 1.09* | (1.04–1.18) | Gln/Gln versus Lys/Lys | Significant only in Caucasians | |
| ERCC1/XPF | |||||
| C8092A | Cao et al. | 1.03 | (0.95–1.11) | A versus C | |
| Hung et al. | 1.06 | (0.88–1.29) | AA versus CC | ||
| T19007C | Cao et al. | 0.91 | (0.80–1.04) | C versus T | |
| Li et al. | 0.94 | (0.69–1.29) | C versus T | ||
| XPA | |||||
| A23G | Kiyohara et al. | 0.76* | (0.61–0.94) | GG versus AA | Not significant in Caucasian studies |
| Qian et al. | 1.28* | (1.12–1.47) | AA versus GG | Most significant in Asians | |
| Hung et al. | 1.06 | (0.82–1.37) | AA versus GG | ||
| XPC | |||||
| PAT +/− | Qiu et al. | 1.01 | (0.81–1.24) | Homozygote variant | |
| C499T (Ala499Val) | Qiu et al. | 1.16 | (0.91–1.47) | Val/Val versus Ala/Ala | |
| A939C (Lys939Gln) | Qiu et al. | 1.28* | (1.07–1.53) | Gln/Gln versus Lys/Lys | |
| ERCC5/XPG | |||||
| His1104Asp | Hung et al. | 1 | (0.81–1.25) | Asp/Asp versus His/His | |
| Base excision repair | |||||
| XRCC1 | |||||
| Arg194Trp | Wang et al. | 1.07 | (0.85–1.33) | Significant in Arg/Trp and combined Trp/Trp + Arg/Trp | |
| Zheng et al. | 1.06 | (0.89–1.27) | Trp/Trp+Arg/Trp versus Arg/Arg | ||
| Huang et al. | 1.27* | (1.07–1.50) | Trp/Trp versus Arg/Arg | ||
| Hung et al. (HuGE) | 1.05 | (0.58–1.91) | Trp/Trp versus Arg/Arg | ||
| Kiyohara et al. | 1.19 | (0.76–1.86) | |||
| Hung et al. (ILCCO) | 1.57 | (0.76–3.26) | Trp/Trp versus Arg/Arg | ||
| Arg280His | Zheng et al. | 0.63 | (0.28–1.41) | His/His+Arg/His versus Arg/Arg | |
| Hung et al. (HuGE) | 1.1 | (0.84–1.43) | For combined Arg/His+His/His | ||
| Kiyohara et al. | 1.06 | (0.91–1.23) | |||
| Hung et al. (ILCCO) | 2.06 | (0.83–5.09) | His/His vs Arg/Arg | ||
| Arg399Gln | Wang et al. | 1.06 | (0.89–1.25) | ||
| Zheng et al. | 1.16* | (1.00–1.36) | Gln/Gln+Arg/Gln versus Arg/Arg | ||
| Hung et al. (HuGE) | 1.07 | (0.93–1.23) | Gln/Gln versus Arg/Arg | ||
| Kiyohara et al. | 1.02 | (0.88–1.19) | Significant in Asians | ||
| Hung et al. (ILCCO) | 0.93 | (0.75–1.14) | Gln/Gln versus Arg/Arg | ||
| OGG1 | |||||
| Ser326Cys | Hung et al. (HuGE) | 1.24* | (1.01–1.53) | Cys/Cys versus Ser/Ser | |
| Kiyohara et al. | 1.17 | (0.88–1.56) | |||
| Hung et al. (ILCCO) | 1.34* | (1.01–1.79) | Cys/Cys vs Ser/Ser | Significant in Caucasians but not in Asians | |
| APE | |||||
| Asp148Glu (T1349G) | Hung et al. (HuGE) | 0.94 | (0.77–1.14) | Glu/Glu versus Asp/Asp | |
| Ji et al. | 1 | (0.86–1.15) | GG versus TT | Significant in smokers | |
| Kiyohara et al. | 0.97 | (0.83–1.14) | |||
| Hung et al. (ILCCO) | 0.91 | (0.78–1.06) | Glu/Glu versus Asp/Asp | ||
| Double-strand break repair | |||||
| XRCC3 | |||||
| Thr241Met | Hung et al. (ILCCO) | 0.84* | (0.71–1.00) | Met/Met versus Thr/Thr | Significant in Caucasians but not in Asians |
| Sun et al. | 0.89 | (0.65–1.22) | C/C versus T/T | ||
| Cell cycle control | |||||
| TP53 | |||||
| Arg72Pro | Matakidou et al. | 1.18 | (0.99–1.41) | Pro/Pro versus Arg/Arg | |
| Hung et al. (ILCCO) | 1.20* | (1.02–1.42) | Pro/Pro versus Arg/Arg | ||
| Yan et al. | 1.08* | (1.00–1.17) | Pro versus Arg | Significant in Asians but not Caucasians | |
| Li et al. | 1.15* | (1.04–1.23) | Pro/Pro+Pro/Arg versus Arg/Arg | Significant only in Asians, Caucasians, adeno, smokers | |
| Dai et al. | 1.14* | (1.03–1.25) | Pro/Pro+Pro/Arg versus Arg/Arg | ||
| MDM2 | |||||
| T309G | Wilkening et al. | 1.27* | (1.12–1.44) | GG versus TT | |
| Gui et al. | 1.17* | (1.02–1.34) | GG versus TT | Significant in Asians but not Caucasians | |
| Bai et al. | 1.16* | (1.01–1.34) | GG versus TT | Significant in never smokers | |
| p21 | |||||
| Ser31Arg | Lin et al. | 1.11 | (0.85–1.45) | Ser/Ser versus Arg/Arg | |
| CCND1 | |||||
| G870A | Li et al. | 1.24* | (1.08–1.44) | A versus G | Significant in Asians not Caucasians |
| Liu et al. | 1.13* | (1.03–1.24) | A versus G | Significant in Asians not Caucasians | |
| Inflammation | |||||
| IL-10 | |||||
| C819T | Peng et al. | 1.27* | (1.01–1.58) | C versus T | |
| G1082A | Peng et al. | 2.35* | (1.16–4.76) | G versus A | |
| C592A | Peng et al. | 1.17 | (0.99–1.39) | C versus A | |
| IL-6 | |||||
| G174C | Peng et al. | 0.97 | (0.90–1.05) | G versus C | |
| L-1B | |||||
| C-511T | Peng et al. | 1.23 | (0.93–1.62) | C versus T | |
| T-31C | Peng et al. | 1.1 | (0.93–1.30) | T versus C | |
| Tumor necrosis factor α | |||||
| A308G | Peng et al. | 1.33 | (0.62–2.85) | G versus A | |
| COX–2 | |||||
| T8473C | Peng et al. | 1 | (0.83–1.21) | T versus C | |
| Telomere length | |||||
| Short telomeres | Ma et al. | 2.39* | (1.18–4.88) | Short versus long | |
| Tumor microenvironment | |||||
| MMP1 | |||||
| −16071G>2G | Xiao et al. | 1.21* | (1.06–1.37) | 2G versus 1G | Significant only in Asians not in Caucasians |
| MMP2 | |||||
| −1306C>T | Peng et al. | 0.55* | (0.48–0.63) | T versus C | |
| −735C>T | Peng et al. | 0.72* | (0.61–0.85) | T versus C | |
| MMP9 | |||||
| −1562C>T | Peng et al. | 0.93 | (0.55–1.57) | T versus C | |