Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

A systematic review and meta-analyses of the relationship between glutathione S-transferase gene polymorphisms and renal cell carcinoma susceptibility

Contributed equally
BMC Medical Genetics201819:98

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12881-018-0620-y

Received: 10 February 2018

Accepted: 25 May 2018

Published: 8 June 2018

Abstract

Background

Association of GSTM1- and GSTT1-null genotypes, GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) susceptibility was detected, and the relationship between the GSTM1/GSTT1-null genotype and clinical TNM stages of RCC was assessed, using meta-analysis method.

Methods

Association investigations according to eligibility criteria were searched and identified from the databases of Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase from establishment time of databases to July 1, 2017, and eligible reports were analyzed by meta-analysis. 95% confidence intervals (CI) were also detected, and odds ratios (OR) was used to express the results for dichotomous data.

Results

This meta-analysis indicated that there was no an association between GSTM1-null genotype, GSTT1-null genotype, GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism and RCC risk in the overall population of Caucasians or Asians. The dual GSTM1–GSTT1-null genotype was also not associated with RCC in the overall population of Caucasians. Interestingly, there was an association between the dual GSTM1-GSTT1-null genotype and the susceptibility of RCC in Asians. Relationship of the GSTM1-null genotype with clinical TNM stage of RCC was not observed in the overall population of Asians or Caucasians. In this meta-analysis, no association between the GSTT1-null genotype and clinical TNM stage of RCC was observed in Caucasians or Asians. Interestingly, GSTT1-null genotype was detected to be associated with the clinical TNM stages in patients with RCC in the overall population.

Conclusion

The dual GSTM1-GSTT1-null genotype is detected to be associated with the onset of RCC in Asians, and there is an association between the GSTT1-null genotype and the clinical TNM stages in patients with RCC in the overall population.

Keywords

Renal cell carcinoma GSTM1 GSTT1 GSTP1 Gene polymorphismMeta-analysis

Background

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is associated with high mortality, accounts for approximately 80–85% of all renal tumors, and is the most common type of adult kidney cancer with poor prognosis [1]. Approximately 30% RCC patients already have metastatic lesions upon initial diagnosis [2]. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is highly resistant to both chemotherapy and radiotherapy [3]. Early diagnosis of patients with RCC would significantly improve their prognosis and quality of life [46]. The incidence of survival is very low, since most RCC patients have developed metastases beyond the kidney tissue when the RCC is diagnosed [4, 7, 8]. Early diagnosis for the disease of RCC is very difficult, and the RCC etiology is complicated [4, 8]. Gene polymorphisms are reported to be associated with susceptibility of many diseases [913]. Current evidence also shows some gene polymorphisms to be associated with RCC risk [1417].

The glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) is a family of isozymes including GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 classes, and can catalyze the glutathione to detoxify xenobiotics [18, 19]. GSTs conjugate glutathione (GSH), a scavenger peptide, with electrophilic compounds [20, 21], and are known to play a pivotal role in the detoxification of some potential carcinogens [22, 23]. It has also been suggested that certain GST gene polymorphisms, leading to altered detoxification activity, predispose individuals to certain cancers, such as prostate cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and colorectal cancer [2426].

Previously, most epidemiologic investigations have detected a relationship between the GSTM1/GSTT-null phenotype, the GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism, and RCC risk. But, the current evidence is inadequate, for the reason that sparseness of data or inconsistencies among these reported investigations. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether the null genotype of GSTM1/GSTT1 and the GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism are associated with RCC susceptibility by ethnicity, and whether there is an association between the null genotype of GSTM1/GSTT1 and clinical TNM stages in patients with RCC by ethnicity, due to the fact that the genotype distributions of the different populations might differ from each other [27, 28]. We also evaluated the publication bias for the relationship between the GSTM1-null genotype, GSTT1-null genotype, dual GSTM1/GSTT1-null genotype, and GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism and RCC risk for the overall population.

Methods

Search strategy

Retrieval of relevant published articles were conducted in the electronic databases of Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase from establishment time of databases to July 1, 2017, and eligible investigations were recruited for our meta-analysis. Key subjects for retrieval consisted of (“glutathione S-transferases” OR “GSTs” OR “GSTM1” OR “GSTT1” OR “GSTP1”) and (“renal cell carcinoma” OR “renal cancer” OR “RCC”). Additional reports were also recruited through references which were cited in the included investigations, and references of retrieved articles from previous meta-analyses were also inspected.

Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

(1) prospective study, case-control study, and cross-sectional study; (2) there should be two comparison groups (RCC vs. control); (3) the endpoint had to be RCC; (4) the study should provide detailed data for the genotype distribution.

Exclusion criteria

(1) primary results were not on GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTP1 or outcome; (2) review articles, case reports and editorials; (3) investigated the effect of GST gene expression on disease.

Quality appraisal

In order to evaluate the quality of the recruited investigations that met the inclusive criteria mentioned above, a quality score criteria based on seven aspects of a genetic association investigations was used (Additional file 1: Table S1). The quality score form was instituted by Thakkinstian et al. in 2005 [29]. Its range of this form spanned from zero (the worst quality) to 12 (the best quality). Investigations were categorized to be “high quality” when the quality score was more than seven; otherwise, studies were regarded as “low quality”. Quality appraisal was implemented by two researchers who were independently responsible for the literature retrieval, and discussions were held until every aspect was entirely consistent by comparison.

Data extraction and data synthesis

The following information from each eligible study was excerpted by two investigators independently: the surname of first author, publication year and the sample size of RCC cases and controls for GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 genotypes. Frequencies of genotypes for GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1 were calculated for each case group and control group. The results were compared, and discussion was performed when there was disagreement. Consistency of data extracted by the two researchers was tested and any disagreement was resolved through discussion.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using Cochrane Review Manager Version 5.3 (Cochrane Library, UK). Fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel method) was used to estimate the pooled statistic. The heterogeneity among the included studies was detected using I 2 . On the other hand, when the P-value from the heterogeneity test was less than 0.1, a random effects model (DerSimonian-Laird method) was conducted. Odds ratios (OR) were used for results of dichotomous data, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were also counted. A P < 0.05 was regarded as statistical significance for the pooled OR. Publication bias was graphically judged from the Begg adjusted rank correlation test [30] and the Egger regression asymmetry test [31], when the number of the included studies was more than six.

Results

Study characteristics

Fifteen investigations [3246] were recruited into our meta-analysis to assess the association between the GSTM1-null genotype and the susceptibility of RCC (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Data was extracted by the sequences of the surname of first author, publication year and the sample size of RCC cases and controls for the GSTM1 genotype (Table 1). The 15 included reports contained 3782 cases and 5223 controls. The average GSTM1-null genotype distribution frequency in controls was 49.83%, and the average genotype distribution frequency of the GSTM1-null genotype in patients with RCC was 48.63%, indicating the average GSTM1-null genotype distribution frequency in RCC patients was similar to that in the control group (control/RCC = 1.02), suggesting that the GSTM1-null genotype was unrelated to RCC.
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Flow chart of the study search and selection

Table 1

Characteristics of studies evaluating the effects of GSTM1 and GSTT1 null genotypes on RCC risk

Gene

Author, Year

Country

Ethnicity

Source of controls

Quality

Case

Control

Locus

    

Score

+

Total

+

Total

GSTM1

Bruning 1997

Germany

Caucasian

Population-based

6

18

27

45

31

17

48

Longuemaux 1999

France

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

89

84

173

117

94

211

Sweeney 2000

USA

Mix

Population-based

9

63

63

126

255

250

505

Buzio 2003

Italy

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

50

50

100

108

92

200

Moore 2007

Europe

Caucasian

Hospital-based

9

424

487

911

555

677

1232

Wiesenhütter 2007

Germany

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

51

47

98

167

157

324

Karami 2008

Europe

Caucasian

Hospital-based

9

303

321

624

433

454

887

Coric 2010

Serbia

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

46

30

76

86

96

182

De Martino 2010

Austria

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

80

67

147

59

53

112

Ahmad 2012

India

Asian

Population-based

11

102

94

196

116

134

250

Salinas-Sanchez 2012

Spain

Caucasian

Hospital-based

6

57

76

133

78

115

193

Jia 2014

China

Asian

Population-based

NC

22

28

50

30

30

60

Coric 2016

Serbia

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

87

109

196

137

137

274

Abid 2016

Pakistan

Asian

Hospital-based

8

224

378

602

171

248

419

Coric 2017

Serbia

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

169

136

305

163

163

326

GSTT1

Bruning 1997

Germany

Caucasian

Population-based

6

3

42

45

11

37

48

Longuemaux 1999

France

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

25

148

173

40

171

211

Sweeney 2000

USA

Mix

Population-based

9

36

90

126

93

412

505

Buzio 2003

Italy

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

11

89

100

35

165

200

Moore 2007

Europe

Caucasian

Hospital-based

9

167

744

911

209

1023

1232

Wiesenhütter 2007

Germany

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

19

79

98

59

265

324

Karami 2008

Europe

Caucasian

Hospital-based

9

129

499

628

161

752

913

Coric 2010

Serbia

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

21

55

76

52

130

182

De Martino 2010

Austria

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

27

120

147

23

89

112

Salinas-Sanchez 2012

Spain

Caucasian

Hospital-based

6

22

110

132

25

138

163

Ahmad 2012

India

Asian

Population-based

11

125

71

196

106

144

250

Jia 2014

China

Asian

Population-based

NC

30

18

48

25

35

60

Coric 2016

Serbia

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

44

152

196

71

203

274

Abid 2016

Pakistan

Asian

Hospital-based

8

72

482

554

49

330

379

Coric 2017

Serbia

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

79

226

305

89

237

326

GSTM1-GSTT1

Bruning 1997

Germany

Caucasian

Population-based

6

1

44

45

6

42

48

Sweeney 2000

USA

Mix

Population-based

9

17

109

126

49

456

505

Moore 2007

Europe

Caucasian

Hospital-based

9

82

829

911

99

1133

1232

Karami 2008

Europe

Caucasian

Hospital-based

9

363

260

623

508

372

880

Salinas-Sanchez 2012

Spain

Caucasian

Hospital-based

6

7

126

133

8

185

193

Ahmad 2012

India

Asian

Population-based

11

71

125

196

54

196

250

Jia 2014

China

Asian

Population-based

NC

14

34

48

10

50

60

Coric 2016

Serbia

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

24

20

44

36

35

71

Abid 2016

Pakistan

Asian

Hospital-based

8

29

524

553

17

333

350

NC not clear

Fifteen studies [3246] were recruited into our meta-analysis to detect the association of the GSTT1-null genotype with RCC susceptibility (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Those 15 investigations contained 3735 cases and 5179 controls. The average GSTT1-null genotype distribution frequency in controls was 23.02%and the average GSTT1-null genotype distribution frequency in RCC cases was 24.62%. Therefore, the average distribution frequency of the GSTT1-null genotype in control group was similar to that in cases (control/RCC = 0.94), suggesting that the GSTT1-null genotype was also unrelated to RCC.

Nine studies [32, 34, 36, 38, 4145] were recruited into our meta-analysis to assess the relationship of the dual-null genotype, of individuals lacking both GSTM1 and GSTT1, and the susceptibility of RCC (Fig. 1 and Table 1). The nine investigations contained 2679 cases and 3589 controls. The average GSTM1–GSTT1 dual-null genotype distribution frequency in cases with RCC was 23.71% compared to the average frequency of 20.66% in the controls. The average dual-null genotype of GSTM1–GSTT1 distribution frequency in RCC patients was slightly increased when compared with that in control group (RCC/control = 1.15).

Eight studies [33, 34, 36, 37, 41, 44, 46, 47] were included in our study to detect the association of the null genotype of GSTP1 with the susceptibility of RCC (Fig. 1 and Table 2). These 8 investigations contained 2197 cases and 3323 controls. The average A allele distribution frequency in controls was 70.44%, and the average A allele distribution frequency in RCC cases was 69.11%. The average A allele distribution frequency of GSTP1 in control group was similar when compared with that in the RCC group (control/RCC = 1.02), suggesting a lack of association of the GSTP1 A allele with RCC.
Table 2

Characteristics of studies evaluating the effects of GSTP1 gene polymorphism on RCC risk

Author, Year

Country

Ethnicity

Source of controls

Quality Score

Case

Control

AA

AG

GG

Total

AA

AG

GG

Total

Longuemaux 1999

France

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

71

67

22

160

93

75

21

189

Sweeney 2000

USA

Mix

Population-based

9

58

56

16

130

213

216

62

491

Wiesenhütter 2007

Germany

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

49

43

7

99

134

144

47

325

Moore 2007

Europe

Caucasian

Hospital-based

9

425

390

95

910

577

548

107

1232

Wang 2011

China

Asian

Hospital-based

9

143

55

9

207

173

54

9

236

Ahmad 2012

India

Asian

Population-based

11

71

99

26

196

126

103

21

250

Coric 2016

Serbia

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

44

194

115

274

Coric 2017

Serbia

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

74

301

141

326

Four studies [34, 40, 41, 45] were included in our meta-analysis to detect the relationship of GSTM1 with clinical TNM stage of RCC (Fig. 1 and Table 3). Those four investigations contained 501 cases and 423 controls. The average GSTM1-null genotype distribution frequency in stage I + II was 47.33%, and the average GSTM1-null genotype distribution frequency in stage III + IV was 55.76%. The average GSTM1-null genotype distribution frequency in stage I + II was slightly reduced than that in stage III + IV (I + II/III + IV = 0.85).
Table 3

Characteristics of studies evaluating the effects of GSTM1 and GSTT1 null genotypes on clinical TNM stages of RCC

Gene

Author, Year

Country

Ethnicity

Source of controls

Quality

Stage I + II

Stage III + IV

Locus

Score

+

Total

+

Total

GSTM1-TNM

Sweeney 2000

USA

Mix

Population-based

9

50

55

105

15

8

23

De Martino 2010

Austria

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

45

29

74

35

38

73

Ahmad 2012

India

Asian

Population-based

11

53

77

130

49

17

66

Abid 2016

Pakistan

Asian

Hospital-based

8

77

115

192

93

168

261

GSTT1-TNM

Sweeney 2000

USA

Mix

Population-based

9

29

76

105

6

17

23

De Martino 2010

Austria

Caucasian

Hospital-based

8

12

62

74

15

58

73

Ahmad 2012

India

Asian

Population-based

11

72

58

130

53

13

66

Salinas-Sanchez 2012

Spain

Caucasian

Hospital-based

6

39

40

79

25

11

36

Abid 2016

Pakistan

Asian

Hospital-based

8

21

161

182

36

200

236

Five studies [34, 4042, 45] were recruited into this meta-analysis to assess the association between GSTT1 and clinical TNM stages of RCC (Fig. 1 and Table 3). Those five studies contained 570 cases and 434 controls. The average GSTT1-null genotype distribution frequency in stage I + II was 37.15%, compared to the average frequency of 49.1% in stage III + IV patients. The average GSTT1-null genotype distribution frequency in stage I + II was notably reduced than the average GSTT1-null genotype distribution frequency in stage III + IV (I + II/III + IV = 0.76).

Relationship between the GSTM1-null genotype and the susceptibility of RCC

The GSTM1-null genotype was found to be not associated with RCC susceptibility in the collective populations, Asians and Caucasians, hospital-based controls, or population-based controls (collective populations: OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.92–1.09, P = 0.91; Caucasians: OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92–1.12, P = 0.72; Asians: OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78–1.17, P = 0.65; hospital-based controls: OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.92–1.11, P = 0.85; population-based controls: OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.57–1.33, P = 0.52; Fig. 2 for the overall population; Table 4). When only the high-quality investigations were recruited for meta-analysis, this association was also not found (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.93–1.11, P = 0.72; Table 4).
Figure 2
Fig. 2

Association between GSTM1 null genotype and RCC susceptibility in the overall population. CI: confidence interval

Table 4

Meta-analysis of the association of GSTM1- and GSTT1-null genotypes and GSTP1 with RCC risk and the relationship between GSTM1, GSTT1 and clinical TNM stages of RCC

Genetic contrasts

Group and subgroups

Studies Number

Q test P-value

Model selected

OR (95%CI)

P

GSTM1

 - vs +

Overall

15

0.23

Fixed

1.00 (0.92,1.09)

0.91

Caucasian

11

0.16

Fixed

1.02 (0.92,1.12)

0.72

Asian

3

0.23

Fixed

0.95 (0.78,1.17)

0.65

Hospital-based

11

0.43

Fixed

1.01 (0.92,1.11)

0.85

Population-based

4

0.06

Random

0.87 (0.57,1.33)

0.52

High quality

12

0.42

Fixed

1.02 (0.93,1.11)

0.72

GSTT1

 - vs +

Overall

15

0.0006

Random

1.09 (0.90,1.33)

0.38

Caucasian

11

0.30

Fixed

1.00 (0.88,1.13)

0.97

Asian

3

0.005

Random

1.73 (0.91,3.28)

0.09

Hospital-based

11

0.68

Fixed

1.01 (0.90,1.14)

0.84

Population-based

4

0.01

Random

1.62 (0.90,2.91)

0.11

High quality

12

0.002

Random

1.09 (0.90,1.32)

0.39

Dual-null genotype for GSTM1/GSTT1

 - vs +

Overall

9

0.08

Random

1.26 (1.00,1.59)

0.05

Caucasian

5

0.48

Fixed

1.05 (0.89,1.23)

0.58

Asian

3

0.22

Fixed

1.72 (1.24,2.38)

0.001

Hospital-based

5

0.97

Fixed

1.07 (0.91,1.25)

0.43

Population-based

4

0.12

Fixed

1.70 (1.25,2.32)

0.0007

High quality

6

0.10

Fixed

1.17 (1.01,1.36)

0.03

GSTP1

 A vs G

Overall

6

0.02

Random

0.93 (0.77,1.11)

0.41

Caucasian

3

0.06

Random

1.02 (0.80,1.31)

0.85

Asian

2

0.27

Fixed

0.72 (0.58,0.90)

0.003

Hospital-based

4

0.10

Fixed

0.97 (0.87,1.08)

0.59

Population-based

2

0.02

Random

0.82 (0.52,1.29)

0.39

High quality

6

0.02

Random

0.93 (0.77,1.11)

0.41

 AA vs AG + GG

Overall

8

<0.00001

Random

0.74 (0.55,1.00)

0.05

Caucasian

5

<0.00001

Random

0.72 (0.46,1.13)

0.15

Asian

2

0.19

Fixed

0.66 (0.50,0.88)

0.004

Hospital-based

6

<0.00001

Random

0.74 (0.51,1.07)

0.11

Population-based

2

0.02

Random

0.77 (0.41,1.42)

0.40

High quality

8

<0.00001

Random

0.74 (0.55,1.00)

0.05

 GG vs AG + AA

Overall

6

0.22

Fixed

1.14 (0.93,1.40)

0.22

Caucasian

3

0.07

Random

0.98 (0.58,1.66)

0.95

Asian

2

0.51

Fixed

1.49 (0.90,2.49)

0.12

Hospital-based

4

0.16

Fixed

1.10 (0.87,1.40)

0.43

Population-based

2

0.21

Fixed

1.26 (0.83,1.91)

0.28

High quality

6

0.22

Fixed

1.14 (0.93,1.40)

0.22

GSTM1-TNM

 - vs +

Overall

4

<0.0001

Random

0.72 (0.30,1.70)

0.45

Caucasian

1

Fixed

1.68 (0.88,3.24)

0.12

Asian

2

<0.0001

Random

0.55 (0.11,2.70)

0.46

Hospital-based

2

0.39

Fixed

1.32 (0.95,1.83)

0.10

Population-based

2

0.23

Fixed

0.30 (0.18,0.51)

<0.0001

High quality

4

<0.0001

Random

0.72 (0.30,1.70)

0.45

GSTT1-TNM

 - vs +

Overall

5

0.19

Fixed

0.56 (0.41,0.78)

0.0006

Caucasian

2

0.36

Fixed

0.56 (0.31,1.01)

0.06

Asian

2

0.06

Random

0.48 (0.21,1.12)

0.09

Hospital-based

3

0.55

Fixed

0.64 (0.42,0.97)

0.03

Population-based

2

0.05

Random

0.54 (0.16,1.87)

0.33

High quality

4

0.13

Fixed

0.59 (0.41,0.85)

0.004

Relationship between the GSTT1-null genotype and the susceptibility of RCC

Association of GSTT1 null genotype with RCC risk was not found in the overall population, Caucasians and Asians, hospital-based controls, population-based controls (overall population: OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.90–1.33, P = 0.38; Caucasians: OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.88–1.13, P = 0.97; Asians: OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 0.95–3.28, P = 0.09; hospital-based controls: OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.90–1.14, P = 0.84; population-based controls: OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.90–2.91, P = 0.11; Fig. 3 for the overall population; Table 4). When only the high-quality investigations were included for meta-analysis, an association was also not found (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.90–1.32, P = 0.39; Table 4).
Figure 3
Fig. 3

Association between the GSTT1-null genotype and RCC susceptibility in the overall population. CI: confidence interval

Association of the dual GSTM1–GSTT1-null genotype with the susceptibility of RCC

There was no an association between the dual-null genotype of individuals lacking both GSTM1– and GSTT1 and RCC risk in the overall population, Caucasians, or hospital-based controls (overall population: OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.00–1.59, P = 0.05; Caucasians: OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.89–1.23, P = 0.58; hospital-based controls: OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.91–1.25, P = 0.43; Fig. 4 for the overall population; Table 4). When only the high-quality studies were recruited for meta-analysis, this association was also not found (OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01–1.36, P = 0.03; Table 4). However, stratification into Caucasians and Asians revealed that the dual GSTM1-GSTT1-null genotype was associated with the onset of RCC in Asians, when compared to population-based controls (Asians: OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.24–2.38, P = 0.001; population-based controls: OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.25–2.32, P = 0.0007; Table 4).
Figure 4
Fig. 4

Association between dual-null genotype of GSTM1–GSTT1 with RCC risk in the overall population. CI: confidence interval

Association between the GSTP1 a/G gene polymorphism and RCC susceptibility

The GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism was not associated with RCC risk in the overall population, Asians and Caucasians, hospital-based controls, or population-based controls (overall population: A allele: OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.77–1.11, P = 0.41; AA genotype: OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55–1.00, P = 0.05; GG genotype: OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.93–1.14, P = 0.22; Table 4). When only the high-quality studies were recruited for the meta-analysis, this relationship was also not found (A allele: OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.77–1.11, P = 0.41; AA genotype: OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55–1.00, P = 0.05; GG genotype: OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.93–1.14, P = 0.22; Table 4).

Relationship between the GSTM1-null genotype and clinical TNM stages of RCC

GSTM1-null genotype was not associated with the clinical TNM stages of RCC in the overall population, Caucasians, Asians, or hospital-based controls (overall population: OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.30–1.70, P = 0.45; Caucasians: OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 0.88–3.24, P = 0.12; Asians: OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.11–2.70, P = 0.46; hospital-based controls: OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 0.95–1.83, P = 0.10; Table 4). When only the high-quality studies were recruited for meta-analysis, this association was also not found (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.30–1.70, P = 0.45; Table 4). Interestingly, the GSTM1-null genotype was associated with the clinical TNM stages of RCC when the meta-analysis was compared to population-based controls (OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.18–0.51, P<0.0001; Table 4).

Association of the GSTT1-null genotype with clinical TNM stages in patients with RCC

The GSTT1-null genotype was not associated with clinical TNM stage of RCC in Caucasians or Asians vs. population-based controls (Caucasians: OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.31–1.01, P = 0.06; Asians: OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.21–1.12, P = 0.09; population-based controls: OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.16–1.87, P = 0.33; Table 4). When only high-quality studies were included for the meta-analysis, association of the GSTT1-null genotype with clinical TNM stage of RCC was found (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41–0.85, P = 0.004; Table 4). Interestingly, the GSTT1-null genotype was found to be associated with the clinical TNM stages in patients with RCC in the overall population, and when the meta-analysis included hospital-based controls (overall populations: OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.41–0.78, P = 0.0006; hospital-based controls: OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42–0.97, P = 0.03; Table 4).

Evaluation of publication bias

A publication bias test was performed for the association of the GSTM1-null genotype, GSTT1-null genotype, GSTM1-null/GSTT1-null genotype, and GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism with RCC risk, when compared to the overall population. No publication biases for the relationship between the GSTM1-null genotype or GSTT1-null genotype and RCC risk was determined in the overall population (GSTM1: Begg P = 0.692, Egger P = 0.400; GSTT1: Begg P = 0.166, Egger P = 0.095; GSTM1-null/GSTT1-null genotype: Begg P = 0.917, Egger P = 0.628; GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism: Begg P = 0.902, Egger P = 0.290; Fig. 5).
Figure 5
Fig. 5

Publication bias A: GSTM1-null genotype; B: GSTT1-null genotype; C: dual null genotype for GSTM1/GSTT1; D: GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism. Each point represents a separate study for the indicated association. Log or represents natural logarithm of OR. Vertical line represents the mean effects size

Discussion

In this study, we found that the average GSTM1-null genotype distribution frequency in patients with RCC is similar with the average GSTM1-null genotype distribution frequency in the control group, indicating that the GSTM1-null genotype is not associated with RCC susceptibility. We performed the meta-analysis in further depth, and still found that there is no an association between null genotype for GSTM1 and RCC risk in the overall population of Caucasians and Asians, hospital-based controls, population-based controls, high-quality studies. Publication bias was also tested and not found for GSTM1. Our results indicate that the GSTM1-null genotype does not predict the susceptibility of RCC. The sample size in our meta-analysis was larger than other meta-analyses [43, 4851].

The average GSTT1-null genotype distribution frequency in patients with RCC was also similar to the average GSTT1-null genotype distribution frequency in the control group, indicating that the null genotype for GSTM1 is also not associated with RCC susceptibility. For confirmation, a meta-analysis was performed and showed that there was no an association between null genotype of GSTM1 and the RCC susceptibility in the overall population, Caucasians and Asians, hospital-based controls, population-based controls. When only the high-quality studies were recruited for meta-analysis, this association was also not found. Publication bias was also tested and not found for GSTT1. Our results indicate that the GSTT1-null genotype does not predict the RCC susceptibility. The sample size in our meta-analysis was larger than other meta-analyses [43, 4850].

The average GSTM1-null/GSTT1-null genotype distribution frequency in patients with RCC is slightly increased. This could indicate that the dual-null genotype, of individuals lacking both GSTM1 and GSTT1, might be associated with the susceptibility of RCC. However, further meta-analysis to detect the risk of the GSTM1-null/GSTT1-null genotype for RCC susceptibility showed no association between the GSTM1-null/GSTT1-null genotype and RCC susceptibility in the overall population of Caucasians, compared to hospital-based controls, when only high-quality studies were recruited in the meta-analysis. However, the dual-null genotype was associated with the onset of RCC in Asians, when compared to population-based controls. There was no publication bias for this meta-analysis. As above, the sample size in our meta-analysis was larger than other meta-analyses [48, 50].

The association of the GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism with the susceptibility of RCC was also characterized. The average A allele distribution frequency of GSTP1 in patients with RCC was similar when compared with that in control group, suggesting that there was no association of the GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism with RCC susceptibility. We also conducted a meta-analysis and confirmed that the GSTP1 A/G gene polymorphism is not associated with RCC risk in the overall population of Caucasians and Asians examined, and regardless of whether controls were hospital-based or population-based, and whether high quality studies were solely used. No publication bias was found in this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the sample size in this meta-analysis was notable larger than other meta-analyses [43, 49].

We have also assessed the relationship between GSTM1 and clinical TNM stages in patients with RCC. The average GSTM1-null genotype distribution frequency in stage I + II is slightly lower when compared with that in stage III + IV RCC (I + II/III + IV = 0.85). This might indicate that the GSTM1-null genotype is associated with RCC TNM stage. However, meta-analysis of the high-quality studies indicates no association of GSTM1-null genotype with clinical TNM stages of RCC is present in the overall population of Caucasians and Asians, compared to hospital-based controls. Interestingly, the GSTM1-null genotype is associated with the clinical TNM stages of RCC when the meta-analysis included controls from the population. The sample size of our meta-analysis is notable larger than other meta-analyses [29]. However, more studies are required for confirmation.

The relationship between GSTT1 and clinical TNM stages of RCC is also assessed. The average GSTT1-null genotype distribution frequency in stage I + II is notably lower when compared with that in stage III + IV RCC (I + II/III + IV = 0.76). This might indicate a lack of association of the GSTT1-null genotype with clinical TNM stages of RCC in Caucasians and Asians, when compared to population-based controls (Table 4). When only the high-quality studies were included for meta-analysis, this association was also found (Table 4). Interestingly, the GSTT1-null genotype is found to be associated with the clinical TNM stages in patients with RCC in the overall population when the meta-analysis includes hospital-based controls. The GSTT1-null genotype is also found to be associated with the clinical TNM stages in patients with RCC in the overall population, when compared to hospital-based controls, and in the meta-analysis including high quality studies. Again, the sample size of our meta-analysis is larger than a previous meta-analysis [49]. However, more studies should be performed.

Cheng et al. [50] conducted a meta-analysis that included six investigations for GSTM1, six reports for GSTT1, and four studies for the dual-null genotype for GSTM1 and GSTT1, and reported that no association was found between the GSTM1-null/GSTT1-null genotype and RCC susceptibility. The authors also performed a GSTM1-GSTT1 interaction analysis and indicated that the dual GSTM1/GSTT1-null genotype was not significantly associated with the susceptibility of RCC. Liu et al. [51] performed a meta-analysis on eight studies and showed that the GSTM1-null genotype was not significantly associated with susceptibility of RCC. Yang et al. [49] conducted a meta-analysis recruited 10 studies of GSTM1, 10 reports of GSTT1, and five studies of GSTP1, and reported that GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1 gene polymorphisms were not associated with the development of the RCC disease. Jia et al. [43] performed a meta-analysis on 10 studies of GSTM1, 10 reports of GSTT1, five studies of dual GSTM1-GSTT1-null genotype, six studies of GSTP1, and concluded that GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 gene polymorphisms were not to be associated with the risk of RCC. Also, GSTM1-GSTT1 interaction analysis indicated that the dual null genotype for GSTM1/GSTT1 was notably associated with an increased RCC susceptibility. Huang et al. [48] analyzed eight studies of GSTM1, eight studies of GSTT1, three studies of GSTM1 gene polymorphism and clinical TNM stages, and four studies on GSTM1 and GSTT1 gene polymorphism and clinical TNM stages, and indicated that GSTM1 and GSTT1 gene polymorphisms were not markedly associated with RCC susceptibility in a recessive model. However, comparison of the wild-type genotype versus the dual GSTM1-GSTT1-null genotype showed a positive association with the susceptibility of RCC. The authors also identified an association of wild-type GSTT1 with low RCC TNM stages. A strong association between GST genotypes and polymorphism and risk of renal cancer is not there in the total population. The conclusion of all these studies is that GST genotypes and polymorphisms cannot be used as biomarkers for early diagnosis.

In this meta-analysis, there are some limitations. First, there was heterogeneity among the recruited studies for the reason that the patients and controls were from different races, and the controls were population-based or hospital-based. Second, geographic origin might affect the relationship between GSTs gene polymorphism and RCC susceptibility, and we did not conduct a sub-group analysis. Furthermore, the quality of the recruited articles was different. These factors might prevent us from drawing a more robust conclusion. In addition, although our sample size is larger than prior meta-analyses, but more original studies continue to be needed to draw a more robust conclusion. More well-designed investigations should be conducted in the future.

Conclusion

The results in this study support that there is an association of the dual GSTM1-GSTT1-null genotype with RCC susceptibility in Asians, and there is an association between the GSTT1-null genotype and clinical TNM stage of RCC in the overall population. However, more association studies are required to be conducted to further clarify these relationships.

Notes

Abbreviations

GSH: 

Glutathione

GST: 

Glutathione S-transferase

RCC: 

Renal cell carcinoma

TNM: 

Tumor node metastasis

Declarations

Funding

This study was supported by Guangzhou Medical Key Discipline Construction Project.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

TZ was in charge of conceived and designed the study. ZQZ, HYL and HZZ were responsible for collection of data and performing the statistical analysis and manuscript preparation. WJX and ZJL were responsible for checking the data. All authors were responsible for drafting the manuscript, read and approved the final version.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Nephrology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China
(2)
Department of Nephrology, Huadu District People’s Hospital of Guangzhou, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

References

  1. Matak D, Brodaczewska KK, Szczylik C, Koch I, Myszczyszyn A, Lipiec M, Lewicki S, Szymanski L, Zdanowski R, Czarnecka AM. Functional significance of CD105-positive cells in papillary renal cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen Z, Zhu R, Zheng J, Chen C, Huang C, Ma J, Xu C, Zhai W. Cryptotanshinone inhibits proliferation yet induces apoptosis by suppressing STAT3 signals in renal cell carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2017;8(30):50023–33.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Liu L, Mao J, Wang Q, Zhang Z, Wu G, Tang Q, Zhao B, Li L, Li Q. In vitro anticancer activities of osthole against renal cell carcinoma cells. Biomed Pharmacother. 2017;94:1020–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Rabjerg M. Identification and validation of novel prognostic markers in Renal Cell Carcinoma. Dan Med J. 2017;64(10):B5339.Google Scholar
  5. Ni W, Song E, Gong M, Li Y, Yao J, An R. Downregulation of lncRNA SDPR-AS is associated with poor prognosis in renal cell carcinoma. Onco Targets Ther. 2017;10:3039–47.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Liu Y. The place of FDG PET/CT in renal cell carcinoma: value and limitations. Front Oncol. 2016;6:201.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Zhang F, Ma X, Li H, Guo G, Li P, Gu L, Li X, Chen L, Zhang X. The predictive and prognostic values of serum amino acid levels for clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(6):392–400.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kuusk T, Grivas N, de Bruijn R, Bex A. The current management of renal cell carcinoma. Minerva Med. 2017;108(4):357–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Panayiotou AG, Griffin MB, Tyllis T, Georgiou N, Bond D, Humphries SE, Nicolaides AN. Association of genotypes at the matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) loci with carotid IMT and presence of carotid and femoral atherosclerotic plaques. Vasc Med. 2013;18(5):298–306.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Voskarides K. Combination of 247 genome-wide association studies reveals high Cancer risk as a result of evolutionary adaptation. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35(2):473–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Voskarides K, Stefanou C, Pieri M, Demosthenous P, Felekkis K, Arsali M, Athanasiou Y, Xydakis D, Stylianou K, Daphnis E, et al. A functional variant in NEPH3 gene confers high risk of renal failure in primary hematuric glomerulopathies. Evidence for predisposition to microalbuminuria in the general population. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0174274.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Khella MS, Hamdy NM, Amin AI, El-Mesallamy HO. The (FTO) gene polymorphism is associated with metabolic syndrome risk in Egyptian females: a case- control study. BMC Med Genet. 2017;v18(1):101.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhat M, Parry M, Nissar S, Sameer A, Bhat I, Shah Z, Rasool R. Association of IL1 beta gene polymorphism and allograft functions in renal transplant recipients :a case control study from Kashmir Valley. BMC Nephrol. 2017;18(1):111.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferreira M, Teixeira A, Mauricio J, Lobo F, Morais A, Medeiros R. Hypoxia and renal cell carcinoma: the influence of HIF1A+1772C/T functional genetic polymorphism on prognosis. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(8):532. e525–32 e530View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hou Q, Li MY, Huang WT, Wei FF, Peng JP, Lou MW, Qiu JG. Association between three VEGF polymorphisms and renal cell carcinoma susceptibility: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8(30):50061–70.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Hsueh YM, Lin YC, Chen WJ, Huang CY, Shiue HS, Pu YS, Chen CH, Su CT. The polymorphism XRCC1 Arg194Trp and 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine increased susceptibility to arsenic-related renal cell carcinoma. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2017;332:1–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang J, Shen C, Fu Y, Yu T, Song J. The associations between five polymorphisms of vascular endothelial growth factor and renal cell carcinoma risk: an updated meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2017;10:1725–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Pljesa-Ercegovac M, Savic-Radojevic A, Kravic-Stevovic T, Bumbasirevic V, Mimic-Oka J, Simic T. Co-localization of GSTP1 and JNK in transitional cell carcinoma of urinary bladder. Genet Mol Biol. 2010;33(3):460–2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Pljesa-Ercegovac M, Savic-Radojevic A, Dragicevic D, Mimic-Oka J, Matic M, Sasic T, Pekmezovic T, Vuksanovic A, Simic T. Enhanced GSTP1 expression in transitional cell carcinoma of urinary bladder is associated with altered apoptotic pathways. Urol Oncol. 2011;29(1):70–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Han JH, Lee HJ, Choi HJ, Yun KE, Kang MH. Lymphocyte DNA damage and plasma antioxidant status in Korean subclinical hypertensive patients by glutathione S-transferase polymorphism. Nutr Res Pract. 2017;11(3):214–22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Malik MA, Gupta V, Shukla S, Kaur J. Glutathione S-transferase (GSTM1, GSTT1) polymorphisms and JOAG susceptibility: a case control study and meta-analysis in glaucoma. Gene. 2017;628:246–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Nissar S, Sameer AS, Rasool R, Chowdri NA, Rashid F. Evaluation of deletion polymorphisms of glutathione S-transferase genes and colorectal cancer risk in ethnic Kashmiri population: a case-control study. Indian J Cancer. 2016;53(4):524–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mikstacki A, Skrzypczak-Zielinska M, Zakerska-Banaszak O, Tamowicz B, Skibinska M, Molinska-Glura M, Szalata M, Slomski R. Impact of CYP2E1, GSTA1 and GSTP1 gene variants on serum alpha glutathione S-transferase level in patients undergoing anaesthesia. BMC Med Genet. 2016;17(1):40.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Baltruskeviciene E, Kazbariene B, Aleknavicius E, Krikstaponiene A, Venceviciene L, Suziedelis K, Stratilatovas E, Didziapetriene J. Changes of reduced glutathione and glutathione S-transferase levels in colorectal cancer patients undergoing treatment. Tumori. 2017; https://doi.org/10.5301/tj.5000674.
  25. Muguruma N, Okamoto K, Nakagawa T, Sannomiya K, Fujimoto S, Mitsui Y, Kimura T, Miyamoto H, Higashijima J, Shimada M, et al. Molecular imaging of aberrant crypt foci in the human colon targeting glutathione S-transferase P1-1. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):6536.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang W, Liu F, Wang C, Tang Y, Jiang Z. Glutathione S-transferase A1 mediates nicotine-induced lung cancer cell metastasis by promoting epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Exp Ther Med. 2017;14(2):1783–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Della Torre OH, Paes LA, Henriques TB, de Mello MP, EHRV C, Dalgalarrondo P, Guerra-Júnior G, Santos-Júnior AD. Dopamine D2 receptor gene polymorphisms and externalizing behaviors in children and adolescents. BMC Med Genet. 2018;19(1):65.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Yao J, Qi XL, Zhang Y. The Alu-insertion progesterone receptor gene polymorphism is not associated with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. BMC Med Genet. 2018;19(1):16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Thakkinstian A, McEvoy M, Minelli C, Gibson P, Hancox B, Duffy D, Thompson J, Hall I, Kaufman J, Leung TF, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between {beta}2-adrenoceptor polymorphisms and asthma: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162(3):201–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–101.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Bruning T, Lammert M, Kempkes M, Thier R, Golka K, Bolt HM. Influence of polymorphisms of GSTM1 and GSTT1 for risk of renal cell cancer in workers with long-term high occupational exposure to trichloroethene. Arch Toxicol. 1997;71(9):596–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Longuemaux S, Delomenie C, Gallou C, Mejean A, Vincent-Viry M, Bouvier R, Droz D, Krishnamoorthy R, Galteau MM, Junien C, et al. Candidate genetic modifiers of individual susceptibility to renal cell carcinoma: a study of polymorphic human xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes. Cancer Res. 1999;59(12):2903–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sweeney C, Farrow DC, Schwartz SM, Eaton DL, Checkoway H, Vaughan TL. Glutathione S-transferase M1, T1, and P1 polymorphisms as risk factors for renal cell carcinoma: a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2000;9(4):449–54.Google Scholar
  35. Buzio L, De Palma G, Mozzoni P, Tondel M, Buzio C, Franchini I, Axelson O, Mutti A. Glutathione S-transferases M1-1 and T1-1 as risk modifiers for renal cell cancer associated with occupational exposure to chemicals. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60(10):789–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Moore LE, Brennan P, Karami S, Hung RJ, Hsu C, Boffetta P, Toro J, Zaridze D, Janout V, Bencko V, et al. Glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms, cruciferous vegetable intake and cancer risk in the central and eastern European kidney Cancer study. Carcinogenesis. 2007;28(9):1960–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wiesenhutter B, Selinski S, Golka K, Bruning T, Bolt HM. Re-assessment of the influence of polymorphisms of phase-II metabolic enzymes on renal cell cancer risk of trichloroethylene-exposed workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2007;81(2):247–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Karami S, Boffetta P, Rothman N, Hung RJ, Stewart T, Zaridze D, Navritalova M, Mates D, Janout V, Kollarova H, et al. Renal cell carcinoma, occupational pesticide exposure and modification by glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms. Carcinogenesis. 2008;29(8):1567–71.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Coric V, Pljesa-Ercegovac M, Matic M, Krivic B, Suvakov S. The role of GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphism in patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Med Biochemist. 2010;29(3):204–10.Google Scholar
  40. De Martino M, Klatte T, Schatzl G, Remzi M, Waldert M, Haitel A, Stancik I, Kramer G, Marberger M. Renal cell carcinoma Fuhrman grade and histological subtype correlate with complete polymorphic deletion of glutathione S-transferase M1 gene. J Urol. 2010;183(3):878–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ahmad ST, Arjumand W, Seth A, Kumar Saini A, Sultana S. Impact of glutathione transferase M1, T1, and P1 gene polymorphisms in the genetic susceptibility of north Indian population to renal cell carcinoma. DNA Cell Biol. 2012;31(4):636–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Salinas-Sanchez AS, Sanchez-Sanchez F, Donate-Moreno MJ, Rubio-del-Campo A, Serrano-Oviedo L, Gimenez-Bachs JM, Martinez-Sanchiz C, Segura-Martin M, Escribano J. GSTT1, GSTM1, and CYP1B1 gene polymorphisms and susceptibility to sporadic renal cell cancer. Urol Oncol. 2012;30(6):864–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Jia CY, Liu YJ, Cong XL, Ma YS, Sun R, Fu D, Lv ZW. Association of glutathione S-transferase M1, T1, and P1 polymorphisms with renal cell carcinoma: evidence from 11 studies. Tumour Biol. 2014;35(4):3867–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Coric VM, Simic TP, Pekmezovic TD, Basta-Jovanovic GM, Savic Radojevic AR, Radojevic-Skodric SM, Matic MG, Dragicevic DP, Radic TM, Bogdanovic LM, et al. Combined GSTM1-null, GSTT1-active, GSTA1 low-activity and GSTP1-variant genotype is associated with increased risk of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0160570.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Abid A, Ajaz S, Khan AR, Zehra F, Hasan AS, Sultan G, Mohsin R, Hashmi A, Niamatullah N, Rizvi SA et al. Analysis of the glutathione S-transferase genes polymorphisms in the risk and prognosis of renal cell carcinomas. Case-control and meta-analysis. Urol Oncol 2016; 34(9):419 e411–9 e412.Google Scholar
  46. Coric VM, Simic TP, Pekmezovic TD, Basta-Jovanovic GM, Savic-Radojevic AR, Radojevic-Skodric SM, Matic MG, Suvakov SR, Dragicevic DP, Radic TM, et al. GSTM1 genotype is an independent prognostic factor in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(6):409–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang G, Hou J, Ma L, Xie J, Yin J, Xu D, Chang W, Tan X, Su T, Zhang H, et al. Risk factor for clear cell renal cell carcinoma in Chinese population: a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2012;36(2):177–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Huang W, Shi H, Hou Q, Mo Z, Xie X. GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphisms contribute to renal cell carcinoma risk: evidence from an updated meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2015;5:17971.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang X, Long S, Deng J, Deng T, Gong Z, Hao P. Glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms (GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1) and their susceptibility to renal cell carcinoma: an evidence-based meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63827.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Cheng HY, You HY, Zhou TB. Relationship between GSTM1/GSTT1 null genotypes and renal cell carcinoma risk: a meta-analysis. Ren Fail. 2012;34(8):1052–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Liu R, Wang XH, Liu L, Zhou Q. No association between the GSTM1 null genotype and risk of renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(7):3109–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement