Genetic association between IL-27 rs153109 polymorphism and cancer risk in Chinese population: a meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flow chart explaining the selection of eligible studies included in the meta-analysis.

Table 1. Characteristics of all eligible studies.

						Sample size
First author	Year	Country	Cancer type	Source of control	Genotyping	Case/control	HWE
Zhao B	2009	China	Glioma	Population	PCR-RFLP	210/220	0.22
Wei YS	2009	China	Nasopharyngeal carcinoma	Population	PCR-RFLP	302/310	0.06
Huang ZQ	2011	China	Colorectal cancer	Population	PCR-RFLP	410/450	0.06
Guo JY	2012	China	Colorectal cancer	Population	PCR-RFLP	170/160	0.45
Pan GG	2012	China	Nasopharyngeal carcinoma	Population	PCR-RFLP	190/200	0.45
Tao YP	2012	China	Esophageal cancer	Population	PCR-RFLP	426/432	0.08
Peng QL	2013	China	Hepatocellular carcinoma	Population	PCR-RFLP	107/105	0.37
Zhang Z	2013	China	Epithelial ovarian cancer	Population	PCR-RFLP	229/320	0.14

HWE Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium in controls.

Figure 2. Forest plot of the IL-27 -964A/G polymorphism and cancer risk using fixed-effect model (homozygous model GG versus AA): subgroup analysis by cancer type. CRC colorectal cancer; NPC nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Other esophageal cancer, glioma, hepatocellular carcinoma, epithelial ovarian cancer, respectively.

Table 2. Meta-analysis results of IL-27 rs153109 polymorphism and cancer risk.

	Sample size		Test of association				Test of heterogeneity
Groups and subgroups	Case/control	N^a	OR (95% CI)	Z	p Value	Model^b	χ^2	p^c	I^2 (%)
Total studies
G versus A	4088/4394	8	1.12 (0.96–1.30)	1.45	0.147	R	19.27	0.007	63.7
GG versus AA	1062/1160	8	1.26 (1.03–1.52)	2.31	0.021	F	13.29	0.065	47.3
AG versus AA	1760/1937	8	1.08 (0.95–1.23)	1.21	0.226	F	12.78	0.078	45.2
GG + AG versus AA	2044/2197	8	1.13 (0.92–1.39)	1.21	0.227	R	17.76	0.013	60.6
GG versus AG + AA	2044/2197	8	1.20 (1.00–1.44)	1.98	0.047	F	6.92	0.437	0.0
Cancer type
CRC
G versus A	1160/1120	2	1.32 (0.91–1.93)	1.47	0.141	R	4.08	0.044	75.5
GG versus AA	283/322	2	1.55 (1.07–2.27)	2.29	0.022	F	2.74	0.098	63.5
AG versus AA	501/546	2	1.31 (1.02–1.67)	2.14	0.033	F	2.38	0.123	57.9
GG + AG versus AA	580/610	2	1.46 (0.90–2.39)	1.52	0.127	R	3.53	0.060	71.7
GG versus AA + AG	580/610	2	1.33 (0.93–1.89)	1.58	0.115	F	1.40	0.237	28.3
NPC
G versus A	984/1020	2	0.90 (0.75–1.08)	1.18	0.237	F	0.19	0.661	0.0
GG versus AA	264/262	2	0.81 (0.54–1.23)	0.99	0.324	F	0.14	0.706	0.0
AG versus AA	437/446	2	0.87 (0.67–1.13)	1.03	0.303	F	0.02	0.875	0.0
GG + AG versus AA	492/510	2	0.86 (0.67–1.10)	1.19	0.232	F	0.07	0.786	0.0
GG versus AA + AG	492/510	2	0.88 (0.60–1.29)	0.67	0.506	F	0.14	0.708	0.0

CRC colorectal cancer, NPC nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

^aNumber of comparisons.

^bRandom-effects model (R) was used when p value for heterogeneity test <0.05; otherwise, fixed-effect model (F) was used.

^cp Value of Q test for heterogeneity.

Bold values indicate significant difference.

Figure 3. The sensitivity analysis of IL-27 -964A/G polymorphism with cancer risk (homozygous model GG versus AA). The middle vertical axis indicates the overall OR, and the two vertical axes indicate its 95% confidence interval (CI). Every hollow round indicates the pooled OR when the left study was omitted in this meta-analysis.

Figure 4. Begg’s funnel plot in the meta-analysis of the association between IL-27 -964A/G polymorphism and cancer risk (homozygous model GG versus AA).