Table 2.
Meta-analysis of 8q24 variants on prostate cancer risk in Chinese population
| SNPs | N | Risk allele | Comparison | Z test of studies | P-value for homogeneity | Model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||||
| OR (95% CI) | P | Ph | I2 | |||||
| rs1447295 | 8 | A | A vs. C | 1.35 (1.19, 1.53) | <0.00001 | 0.59 | 0% | F |
| AA+AC vs. CC | 1.42 (1.23, 1.64) | <0.00001 | 0.13 | 37% | F | |||
| AA vs. AC+CC | 1.40 (0.96, 2.05) | 0.08 | 0.84 | 0% | F | |||
| rs6983267 | 5 | G | G vs. T | 1.05 (0.85, 1.29) | 0.67 | 0.08 | 52% | R |
| GG+GT vs. TT | 1.12 (0.91, 1.37) | 0.30 | 0.46 | 0% | F | |||
| GG vs. GT+TT | 1.06 (0.72, 1.58) | 0.76 | 0.05 | 58% | R | |||
| rs6983561 | 4 | C | C vs. A | 1.41 (1.21, 1.63) | <0.00001 | 0.32 | 15% | F |
| CC+AC vs. AA | 1.49 (1.23, 1.80) | <0.0001 | 0.20 | 36% | F | |||
| CC vs. AC+AA | 1.74 (1.23, 2.47) | 0.002 | 0.87 | 0% | F | |||
| rs7837688 | 2 | T | T vs. G | 1.21 (0.94, 1.55) | 0.14 | 0.38 | 0% | F |
| TT+GT vs. GG | 1.28 (0.96, 1.70) | 0.09 | 0.39 | 0% | F | |||
| TT vs. GT+GG | 1.03 (0.33, 3.24) | 0.95 | 0.55 | 0% | F | |||
| rs10090154 | 4 | T | T vs. C | 1.48 (1.22, 1.80) | <0.00001 | 0.59 | 0% | F |
| TT+TC vs. CC | 1.67 (1.34, 2.09) | <0.00001 | 0.55 | 0% | F | |||
| TT vs. TC+CC | 1.11 (0.55, 2.27) | 0.77 | 0.92 | 0% | F | |||
| rs16901979 | 4 | A | A vs. C | 1.28 (0.98, 1.67) | 0.07 | 0.03 | 67% | R |
| AA+AC vs. CC | 1.31 (0.90, 1.92) | 0.16 | 0.01 | 73% | R | |||
| AA vs. AC+CC | 1.58 (1.11, 2.24) | 0.01 | 0.71 | 0% | F | |||
SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; N, number of included studies for a certain variant; Ph, p-value of heterogeneity; F, fixed-effect model; R, random-effect model.