Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan 4;9(16):13068–13076. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.23964

Table 2. Meta-analysis of the association between VDR polymorphisms and CRC.

SNP Comparison Qualified studies OR (95%CI) P-value FDR Heterogeneity test Effect model
FokI F vs. f 29 1.029 (0.999–1.059) 0.057 0.057 P = 0.003, I2 = 46.8% F
FF vs. ff 1.055 (0.990–1.123) 0.097 0.211 P = 0.015, I2 = 39.8% F
FF + Ff vs. ff 1.045 (0.986–1.107) 0.141 0.211 P = 0.124, I2 = 23.9% F
Ff + ff vs. FF 0.974 (0.876–1.083) 0.625 0.625 P < 0.001, I2 = 81.5% R
BsmI B vs. b 23 0.862 (0.761–0.976) 0.019* 0.019* P < 0.001, I2 = 91.4% R
BB vs.bb 0.786 (0.636–0.972) 0.026* 0.039* P < 0.001, I2 = 85.5% R
BB + Bb vs. bb 0.824 (0.705–0.964) 0.015* 0.039* P < 0.001, I2 = 88.0% R
Bb + bb vs. BB 0.887 (0.759–1.036) 0.129 0.129 P < 0.001, I2 = 78.8% R
ApaI A vs. a 12 1.025 (0.928–1.132) 0.631 0.631 P < 0.001, I2 = 68.9% R
AA vs. aa 0.953 (0.775–1.172) 0.650 0.900 P < 0.001, I2 = 67.9% R
AA + Aa vs. aa 1.009 (0.875–1.163) 0.900 0.900 P = 0.003, I2 = 59.8% R
Aa + aa vs. AA 0.901 (0.770–1.055) 0.197 0.591 P = 0.001, I2 = 65.5% R
TaqI T vs. t 18 1.011 (0.960–1.066) 0.673 0.673 P = 0.081, I2 = 33.1% F
TT vs. tt 1.027 (0.912–1.157) 0.656 0.746 P = 0.091, I2 = 32.5% F
TT +Tt vs. tt 1.018 (0.913–1.136) 0.746 0.746 P = 0.069, I2 = 35.4% F
Tt + tt vs. TT 1.013 (0.944–1.086) 0.724 0.746 P = 0.310, I2 = 11.8% F
Cdx2 C vs. c 4 0.936 (0.828–1.058) 0.287 0.287 P = 0.352, I2 = 8.2% F
CC vs. cc 0.862 (0.627–1.186) 0.363 0.544 P = 0.193, I2 = 36.6% F
CC + Cc vs. cc 0.933 (0.723–1.204) 0.594 0.594 P = 0.176, I2 = 39.3% F
Cc + cc vs. CC 0.918 (0.783–1.077) 0.293 0.544 P = 0.777, I2 = 0.0% F

VDR, vitamin D receptor; CRC, Colorectal cancer; OR, odds ratios; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; FDR: p value from Benjamini–Hochberg method control for false discovery rate (FDR); R, random-effects model; F, fixed-effects model; *statistical significance.