Table 4.
Characteristics of the studies evaluating the association between GSTP1 IIe105Val polymorphisms and treatment response.
| Study | Year | Ethnicity/country | Chemotherapeutic drugs | Poor response | Good response | OR (95% CI) | P-value* | Study quality | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Val/Val | Val/IIe | IIe/IIe | Val/Val | Val/IIe | IIe/IIe | |||||||
| Jia et al. [19] | 2016 | East-Asian/China | DDP | 22 | 77 | 80 | 16 | 28 | 21 | 0.591 (0.325, 1.074) | 0.085 | 7 |
| Xiao et al. [2] | 2016 | East-Asian/China | DDP | 33 | 30 | 56 | 45 | 36 | 62 | 0.861 (0.528, 1.404) | 0.549 | 7 |
| Bu et al. [13] | 2016 | East-Asian/China | DDP | 3 | 29 | 38 | 9 | 34 | 28 | 0.548 (0.281, 1.071) | 0.078 | 8 |
| Chen et al. [20] | 2016 | East-Asian/China | DDP | 23 | 84 | 99 | 25 | 37 | 16 | 0.279 (0.151, 0.515) | <0.001 | 8 |
| Yuan et al. [15] | 2016 | East-Asian/China | GEM+ DDP | 1 | 8 | 14 | 1 | 7 | 16 | 1.286 (0.390, 4.236) | 0.679 | 7 |
| Han Ba [11] | 2016 | East-Asian/China | DDP+ DOC/DDP+ NVB/Pt+ GEM | 3 | 33 | 46 | 12 | 36 | 26 | 0.424 (0.222, 0.809) | 0.009 | 9 |
| Xin et al. [29] | 2016 | East-Asian/China | GEM+ DDP | 6 | 7 | 20 | 4 | 11 | 36 | 1.560 (0.620, 0.923) | <0.001 | 7 |
| Zhao et al. [9] | 2015 | East-Asian/China | DDP | 5 | 40 | 55 | 16 | 54 | 36 | 0.421 (0.240, 0.739) | 0.003 | 8 |
| Wu et al. [21] | 2015 | East-Asian/China | DDP | 34 | 48 | 78 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 0.545 (0.336, 0.885) | 0.014 | 7 |
| Han et al. [16] | 2015 | East-Asian/China | DDP | 3 | 34 | 60 | 25 | 115 | 88 | 0.388 (0.238, 0.632) | <0.001 | 8 |
| Deng et al. [22] | 2015 | East-Asian/China | DDP+ GEM+ NVB+ TAX/DOC | 1 | 22 | 46 | 0 | 4 | 24 | 3.000 (0.930, 9.674) | 0.066 | 9 |
| Yuan et al. [8] | 2015 | East-Asian/China | GEM+ DDP | 1 | 8 | 14 | 1 | 7 | 16 | 1.286 (0.390, 4.236) | 0.679 | 8 |
| Zhigang et al. [7] | 2015 | East-Asian/China | TAX+ DDP/DDP/PEM + DDP | 8 | 20 | 25 | 7 | 16 | 9 | 0.438 (0.171, 1.123) | 0.086 | 7 |
| Liu et al. [12] | 2015 | East-Asian/China | GEM+ DDP | 1 | 8 | 15 | 1 | 10 | 17 | 0.927 (0.302, 2.847) | 0.895 | 8 |
| Qiying et al. [30] | 2014 | East-Asian/China | TAX+ DDP/DDP+ NVB/DDP+ GEM/DDP+ VP-16 | 0 | 19 | 44 | 0 | 8 | 18 | 0.972 (0.360, 2.619) | 0.955 | 8 |
| Joerger et al. [23] | 2012 | Caucasian/Netherlands | DDP+ GEM | 3 | 18 | 20 | 14 | 42 | 35 | 0.656 (0.312, 1.381) | 0.267 | 6 |
| Sun et al. [10] | 2010 | East-Asian/China | (DDP/CBP+ TAX/TXT/DOC)/(DDP/CBP+ GEM)/(DDP/CBP+ NVB) | 2 | 23 | 58 | 2 | 15 | 13 | 0.330 (0.139, 0.780) | 0.012 | 8 |
| Zheng et al. [24] | 2009 | East-Asian/China | DDP+ NVB | 0 | 6 | 22 | 2 | 11 | 15 | 0.315 (0.098, 1.013) | 0.053 | 7 |
| Kalikaki et al. [25] | 2009 | Caucasian/Greece | Pt/Pt-TXT-based | 0 | 30 | 48 | 0 | 12 | 25 | 1.302 (0.570, 2.973) | 0.531 | 8 |
| Booton et al. [26] | 2006 | Caucasian/UK | MMC+ IFO+ DDP/MMC+ VLB+ DDP | 12 | 23 | 25 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 1.400 (0.556, 3.528) | 0.475 | 8 |
| Jianhaoa et al. [31] | 2015 | East-Asian/China | PEM+ Platinum | 5 | 15 | 7 | 3 | 0.143 (0.026, 0.774) | 0.025 | 8 | ||
| Yapinga et al. [27] | 2012 | East-Asian/China | DDP+ NVB/DDP+ TAX/GEM+ DDPTAX/DDP | 11 | 35 | 9 | 7 | 0.244 (0.074, 0.810) | 0.021 | 6 | ||
| Zhoua et al. [14] | 2011 | East-Asian/China | Pt+ CBP+ DOC+ GEM+ NVB+ PEM | 26 | 50 | 22 | 13 | 0.307 (0.134, 0.707) | 0.005 | 7 | ||
| D+L pooled OR | 0.596 (0.468, 0.759) | <0.001 | ||||||||||
OR – odds ratio; 95% CI – 95%confidence interval; DDP – cisplatin; GEM – gemcitabine; NVB – vinorelbine; PEM – pemetrexed; TAX – taxol/paclitaxel; TXT – taxetere; DOC – docetaxel; VP-16 – etoposide; MMC – mitomycin; IFO – ifosfamide; VLB – vinblastine; Pt – platinum.
*
Integrate Val/Val with Val/IIe genotype.