Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 6;7:681. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00766-9

Table 2.

Meta-analyses combining Oulu, Tampere, Kuopio and Helsinki screening results.

Mutationa Cohortb OR 95% CI p-valuec Oulu Mut/WT Tre Mut/WT Kuo Mut/WT Hki Mut/WT
TEX15 All BC 1.0 0.6–1.8 0.959 16/1530 1/86 NA 9/977
c.8325G > A Hereditary BC 1.6 0.8–3.1 0.208 6/222 1/86 NA 9/977
rs146619272 Controls 13/1190 0/94 NA 10/1078
FANCD2 All BC 1.6 0.6–4.1 0.375 4/1376 2/731 0/668 7/2506
c.2715 + 1G > A Hereditary BC 2.6 0.8–9.1 0.131 2/226 0/87 NA 4/1171
rs201811817 Unselected BC 1.3 0.4–3.6 0.675 2/1150 2/644 0/668 4/1723
Controls 2/1226 2/765 0/156 2/1270
RNF168 All BC 0.7 0.5–1.2 0.211 12/1410 1/531 17/635 7/1163
c.640_644del5 Hereditary BC 0.9 0.4–2.0 0.757 3/225 0/87 NA 7/1163
rs777601326 Unselected BC 0.7 0.4–1.3 0.241 9/1185 1/444 17/635 NA
Controls 6/1179 4/409 13/275 11/1261

a TEX15 c.7253dupT was excluded from the meta-analysis since the mutation was present only in the Northern Finnish cohort. bAll the known BRCA1/2 carriers were excluded from the meta-analyses. cLogistic regression model, all the analyzed cohorts combined and all individual datasets exploited. CI: confidence interval, BC: breast cancer, Hki: Helsinki, Kuo: Kuopio, Mut: mutation carrier, NA: not available, OR: odds ratio, Tre: Tampere, WT: wild type.