Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of meta-analysis for polymorphisms in and cancer susceptibility

From: Do polymorphisms in protein kinase catalytic subunit alpha-1 gene associated with cancer susceptibility? a meta-analysis and systematic review

Comparison Subgroup N P H P Z P Adjust Random (OR, 95%CI) Fixed (OR, 95%CI)
rs10074991
 B VS. A overall 3 0.006 6.752*10−3 3.376*10–2* 0.774 (0.642–0.931) 0.795 (0.735–0.861)
 B VS. A Asian 2 0.908 2.169*10−10 1.085*10–9* 0.704 (0.632–0.785) 0.704 (0.632–0.785)
 BB vs. AA overall 3 0.002 2.787*10−2 0.139 0.610 (0.393–0.946) 0.627 (0.528–0.745)
 BB vs. AA Asian 2 0.954 1.972*10−10 9.86*10–10* 0.489 (0.392–0.609) 0.489 (0.392–0.609)
 BA vs. AA overall 3 0.163 3.895*10−5 1.948*10–4* 0.755 (0.633–0.900) 0.779 (0.691–0.877)
 BA vs. AA Asian 2 0.903 4.946*10−5 2.473*10–4* 0.675 (0.558–0.816) 0.675 (0.558–0.816)
 BB + BA vs. AA overall 3 0.011 8.421*10−3 4.211*10–2* 0.697 (0.533–0.912) 0.752 (0.672–0.842)
 BB + BA vs. AA Asian 2 0.900 5.381*10−8 2.691*10–7* 0.607 (0.507–0.727) 0.607 (0.507–0.727)
 BB vs. BA+AA overall 3 0.029 3.610*10−2 0.181 0.737 (0.554–0.980) 0.729 (0.628–0.846)
 BB vs. BA+AA Asian 2 0.999 7.752*10−7 3.876*10–6* 0.638 (0.534–0.762) 0.638 (0.534–0.762)
rs13361707
 B VS. A overall 19 6.416*10−72 0.159 0.795 0.900 (0.776–1.042) 0.931 (0.904–0.959)
 B VS. A Asian 18 1.644*10−72 0.188 0.940 0.904 (0.777–1.051) 0.932 (0.905–0.960)
 B VS. A GC 16 2.061*10−72 0.121 0.605 0.873 (0.736–1.037) 0.917 (0.889–0.947)
 B VS. A ESCC 2 0.749 0.884 1.000 1.006 (0.927–1.092) 1.006 (0.927–1.092)
 B VS. A PB 16 6.359*10−73 0.299 1.000 0.920 (0.786–1.077) 0.933 (0.906–0.961)
 B VS. A HB 3 0.167 0.061 0.305 0.773 (0.555–1.076) 0.793 (0.622–1.010)
 BB vs. AA overall 19 6.471*10−71 0.166 0.830 0.810 (0.601–1.092) 0.868 (0.819–0.921)
 BB vs. AA Asian 18 1.516*10−71 0.191 0.955 0.816 (0.602–1.106) 0.869 (0.819–0.922)
 BB vs. AA GC 16 2.211*10− 71 0.127 0.635 0.763 (0.539–1.080) 1.013 (0.859–1.196)
 BB vs. AA ESCC 2 0.765 0.875 1.000 0.844 (0.792–0.899) 1.013 (0.859–1.196)
 BB vs. AA PB 16 4.978*10−72 0.300 1.000 0.845 (0.615–1.161) 0.872 (0.822–0.925)
 BB vs. AA HB 3 0.182 0.088 0.440 0.592 (0.286–1.224) 0.630 (0.371–1.071)
 BA vs. AA overall 19 2.232*10−20 0.192 0.960 0.900 (0.768–1.054) 0.946 (0.899–0.996)
 BA vs. AA Asian 18 8.982*10− 21 0.224 1.000 0.904 (0.768–1.064) 0.948 (0.900–0.998)
 BA vs. AA GC 16 1.397*10−21 0.184 0.920 0.883 (0.734–1.061) 0.937 (0.886–0.990)
 BA vs. AA ESCC 2 0.727 0.912 1.000 1.008 (0.871–1.167) 1.008 (0.871–1.167)
 BA vs. AA PB 16 9.406*10−21 0.320 1.000 0.919 (0.778–1.086) 0.950 (0.902–1.001)
 BA vs. AA HB 3 0.121 0.155 0.775 0.730 (0.417–1.277) 0.768 (0.534–1.105)
 BB + BA vs. AA overall 19 1.835*10−44 0.168 0.840 0.869 (0.711–1.061) 0.916 (0.873–0.962)
 BB + BA vs. AA Asian 18 5.451*10−45 0.195 0.975 0.873 (0.71–1.072) 0.918 (0.874–0.963)
 BB + BA vs. AA GC 16 1.594*10−45 0.145 0.725 0.841 (0.666–1.062) 0.901 (0.856–0.949)
 BB + BA vs. AA ESCC 2 0.707 0.892 1.000 1.010 (0.879–1.159) 1.010 (0.879–1.159)
 BB + BA vs. AA PB 16 5.135*10−45 0.309 1.000 0.895 (0.723–1.108) 0.920 (0.876–0.966)
 BB + BA vs. AA HB 3 0.085 0.208 1.000 0.692 (0.389–1.228) 0.737 (0.522–1.041)
 BB vs. BA+AA overall 19 2.761*10−46 0.193 0.965 0.874 (0.714–1.071) 0.902 (0.860–0.946)
 BB vs. BA+AA Asian 18 7.547*10−47 0.217 1.000 0.878 (0.715–1.079) 0.902 (0.860–0.947)
 BB vs. BA+AA GC 16 1.034*10−46 0.135 0.675 0.836 (0.660–1.058) 0.882 (0.838–0.929)
 BB vs. BA+AA ESCC 2 0.892 0.917 1.000 1.007 (0.883–1.148) 1.007 (0.883–1.148)
 BB vs. BA+AA PB 16 7.502*10−48 0.293 1.000 0.891 (0.719–1.105) 0.904 (0.861–0.948)
 BB vs. BA+AA HB 3 0.681 0.219 1.000 0.747 (0.470–1.188) 0.746 (0.470–1.184)
  1. PH P value of Q test for heterogeneity test, PZ means statistically significant, PAdjust Multiple testing P value according to Bonferroni Correction, H-B Hospital based, P-B Population based, HWE Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium; Note: Heterogeneity was considered to be significant when the P-value was less than 0.1. If there was no significant heterogeneity, a fixed effect model (Der-Simonian Laird) was used to evaluate the point estimates and 95% CI; otherwise, a random effects model (Der-Simonian Laird) was used. And the Pz was calculated based on the actual model adopted. "*" indicated that PAdjust value less than 0.05, and is considered as statistically significant