Association between EPHX1 polymorphism rs1051740 and the risk of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Selection process for eligible articles in this meta-analysis.

Table 1. Principal characteristics of the studies included in the Meta-analysis.

First author	Year	Country	Ethnicity	Control source	Cases/controls	No. of case			No. of control			Genotyping method	PHWE
						TT	TC	CC	TT	TC	CC
Lancaster	1996	US	Caucasian	H-B	73/75	47	17	9	31	33	11	PCR-RFLP	.649
Spurdle	2001	Australia	Caucasian	P-B	545/287	255	233	57	142	114	31	ABI Prism 7700	.265
Baxter	2002	UK	Caucasian	H-B	291/257	142	114	35	129	100	28	Allele-specific PCR	.202
Kang	2004	China	Asian	P-B	86/174	27	26	33	50	46	78	PCR-RFLP	<.001
Goode	2011	US/Australia	Caucasian	H-B	924/1036	458	355	111	522	413	101	Illumina GoldenGate	.418

Note. H-B: hospital-based case-control study; P-B: population-based case-control study; PCR-RFLP: polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism; HWE: Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

Figure 2. Forest plot for ovarian cancer risk associated with EPHX1 polymorphism rs1051740 under CC vs. TT model stratified by ethnicity. The squares and horizontal lines correspond to study-specific OR and 95% CI. The area of the squares reflects the weight (inverse of the variance). Diamond represents the summary OR and 95% CI.

Table 2. EPHX1 Polymorphism rs1051740 and ovarian cancer risk.

Comparison	Group		OR (95% CI)	Ph	I^2	Model for analysis
CC versus TT	Ethnicity	Caucasian	1.13 (0.90, 1.41)	.430	0.0%	FEM
		Asian	0.78 (0.42, 1.46)	—	—	FEM
	Control source	Hospital	1.16 (0.90, 1.49)	.279	21.7%	FEM
		Population	0.93 (0.63, 1.35)	.505	0.0%	FEM
	Total		1.08 (0.88, 1.34)	.413	0.0%	FEM
CC + TC versus TT	Ethnicity	Caucasian	0.95 (0.73, 1.24)	.037	64.6%	REM
		Asian	0.88 (0.50, 1.54)	—	—	FEM
	Control source	Hospital	0.85 (0.57, 1.27)	.019	74.8%	REM
		Population	1.06 (0.82, 1.37)	.466	0.0%	FEM
	Total		1.00 (0.88, 1.14)	.069	54.1%	FEM
CC versus TT + TC	Ethnicity	Caucasian	1.14 (0.92, 1.42)	.687	0.0%	FEM
		Asian	0.77 (0.45, 1.30)	—	—	FEM
	Control source	Hospital	1.20 (0.94, 1.52)	.662	0.0%	FEM
		Population	0.87 (0.62, 1.23)	.520	0.0%	FEM
	Total		1.08 (0.88, 1.32)	.498	0.0%	FEM
C versus T	Ethnicity	Caucasian	1.04 (0.94, 1.15)	.086	54.5%	FEM
		Asian	0.83 (0.58, 1.20)	—	—	FEM
	Control source	Hospital	0.94 (0.71, 1.24)	.038	69.5%	REM
		Population	0.99 (0.82, 1.20)	.272	17.0%	FEM
	Total		1.02 (0.92, 1.13)	.095	49.4%	FEM
TC versus TT	Ethnicity	Caucasian	0.92 (0.69, 1.23)	.031	66.2%	REM
		Asian	1.05 (0.54, 2.05)	—	—	FEM
	Control source	Hospital	0.81 (0.53, 1.24)	.021	74.1%	REM
		Population	1.12 (0.85, 1.48)	.824	0.0%	FEM
	Total		0.98 (0.85, 1.13)	.063	55.2%	FEM

Notes. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; P_h: p values of heterogeneity test; FEM: fixed-effects model; REM: random-effect model.