Association between vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 39 studies

PLoS One. 2014 Apr 25;9(4):e96125. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096125. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

Background: The associations between vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene polymorphisms and breast cancer risk were comprehensively investigated to clarify issues that remain controversial.

Methodology/principal findings: An electronic search was conducted of several databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, EMBASE, CBM and CNKI, for papers that describe the association between Fok1, poly-A repeat, Bsm1, Taq1 or Apa1 polymorphisms of the VDR gene and breast cancer risk. Summary odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated based on a fixed-effect model (FEM) or random-effect model (REM), depending on the absence or presence of significant heterogeneity. A total of 39 studies met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of high-quality studies showed that the Fok1 polymorphism of the VDR gene was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (ff vs. Ff+FF, OR: 1.09, 95%CI: 1.02 to 1.16, p = 0.007). No significant associations were observed between the other polymorphisms and breast cancer risk. No positive results were detected by pooling the results of all relevant studies.

Conclusion: A meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated that the Fok1 polymorphism of the VDR gene was closely associated with breast cancer risk.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Breast Neoplasms / genetics*
  • Case-Control Studies
  • Female
  • Genetic Association Studies
  • Genetic Predisposition to Disease
  • Humans
  • Polymorphism, Restriction Fragment Length
  • Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide*
  • Receptors, Calcitriol / genetics*
  • Risk

Substances

  • Receptors, Calcitriol
  • VDR protein, human

Grants and funding

This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 30901536). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.