Relationship between GSTM1/GSTT1 Null Genotypes and Renal Cell Carcinoma Risk: A Meta-Analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1.  Flow chart of our meta-analysis.

Table 1.  Characteristics of the studies evaluating the effects of null genotypes of GSTM1 and GSTT1 on RCC risk.

		Cases			Controls			Null allele (%)
First author, year	Ethnicity	−	+	Total	−	+	Total	Cases	Controls
GSTM1
Bruning, 1997	Caucasian	18	27	45	31	17	48	40.00	64.58
Longuemaux, 1999	Caucasian	60	113	173	57	154	211	34.68	27.01
Sweeney, 2000	Mix	63	63	126	255	250	505	50.00	50.50
Karami, 2008	Caucasian	303	321	624	433	454	887	48.56	48.82
Martino, 2010	Caucasian	80	67	147	53	59	112	54.42	47.73
Ahmad, 2011	Asian	102	94	196	116	134	250	52.04	46.40
GSTT1
Bruning, 1997	Caucasian	3	42	45	11	37	48	6.67	22.92
Longuemaux, 1999	Caucasian	25	148	173	40	171	211	14.45	18.96
Sweeney, 2000	Mix	36	90	126	93	411	504	28.57	18.45
Karami, 2008	Caucasian	129	499	628	161	499	660	20.54	24.39
Martino, 2010	Caucasian	27	120	147	28	84	112	18.37	25.42
Ahmad, 2011	Asian	125	71	196	106	144	250	63.78	42.40

Note: “−”, null; “+”, present.

Figure 2.  Association between GSTM1 null genotype and RCC susceptibility.

Figure 3.  Association between GSTT1 null genotype and RCC susceptibility.

Table 2.  Meta-analysis of the association of null genotypes of GSTM1 and GSTT1 with RCC risk.

			Q test
Genetic contrasts	Group and subgroups	Number of studies	p-Value	Model selected	OR (95% CI)	p
GSTM1
− vs. +	Overall	6	0.07	Random	1.07 (0.85–1.35)	0.57
	Caucasian	4	0.03	Random	1.02 (0.70–1.50)	0.91
	Asian	1	–	Fixed	1.25 (0.86–1.82)	0.24
GSTT1
− vs. +	Overall	6	<0.00001	Random	0.98 (0.58–1.65)	0.94
	Caucasian	4	0.38	Fixed	0.76 (0.61–0.95)	0.01
	Asian	1	–	Fixed	2.39 (1.63–3.51)	<0.00001
Dual null genotype of GSTM1/GSTT1
− vs. +	Overall	4	0.006	Random	1.17 (0.98–1.39)	0.09
	Caucasian	2	0.09	Random	1.00 (0.81–1.22)	0.96
	Asian	1	–	Fixed	2.06 (1.36–3.13)	0.0007

Note: “−”, null; “+”, present.