Open Access

Association between polymorphisms in the CYP1A1, CYP2E1 and GSTM1 genes, and smoking, alcohol and upper digestive tract carcinomas in a high‑incidence area of northern China

  • Authors:
    • Fang Zhao
    • Jing‑Fen Su
    • Shu‑Min Lun
    • Yong‑Jie Hou
    • Li‑Juan Duan
    • Neng‑Chao Wang
    • Fang‑Fang Shen
    • Yao‑Wen Zhang
    • Zhao‑Wei Gao
    • Jing Li
    • Xian‑Juan Du
    • Fu‑You Zhou
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: June 7, 2019     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10455
  • Pages: 1267-1277
  • Copyright: © Zhao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Metabolic gene variants, smoking, and alcohol consumption are important upper digestive tract cancer (UDTC) risk factors. However, the gene‑gene and gene‑environment interactions remain unclear. A case‑control study in a high incidence area for upper digestive tract cancer was conducted in China. DNA was extracted from buffy coat samples for PCR or PCR‑restriction fragment length polymorphism. Smoking and alcohol drinking status was determined by questionnaires. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the associations. After adjusting for confounding factors, smoking increased esophageal cancer (EC), gastric cardia cancer (GCC) and gastric antral carcinoma (GAC) risk by 3.594, 4.658, and 3.999‑fold, respectively. Alcohol consumption increased EC, GCC and GAC risk by 1.953, 2.442 and 1.765‑fold, respectively. The cytochrome P4501A1 (CYP1A1) rs4646903 T>C polymorphism increased GCC risk, the cytochrome P4502E1 (CYP2E1) rs2031920 C>T polymorphism increased EC risk, while the GSTM1 null genotype decreased EC risk. An association existed between the following: CYP1A1 rs4646903 and smoking in EC, GCC and GAC; CYP1A1 rs4646903 and alcohol consumption in EC and GCC; CYP2E1 rs2031920 and smoking in EC, GCC and GAC and CYP2E1 rs2031920 and alcohol consumption in EC and GCC. No association was observed between CYP1A1 and CYP2E1. The glutathione S‑transferase mu 1 (GSTM1) null genotype decreased EC risk (OR=0.510). Smoking/drinking are upper digestive tract cancer risk factors. The CYP1A1 rs4646903 and CYP2E1 rs2031920 polymorphisms were risk factors of GCC or EC, and the GSTM1 null genotype may serve a protective role against EC. The results of the present study indicated that gene‑environment interactions increase the risk of UDTC.

Introduction

Upper digestive tract cancers (UDTC) mainly include esophageal cancer (EC) and gastric cancer (GC). GC can be defined according to the tumor location as proximal or distal gastric adenocarcinoma (1). EC is the eleventh most common cancer and the sixth deadliest cancer worldwide, and GC is ranked fifth for cancer incidence and third for cancer-associated mortalities worldwide (2). Gastric cardia cancer (GCC), or esophagogastric junction cancer, has also become a public health concern (3). To date, several major risk factors have been reported to be associated with UDTC, including heavy smoking and alcohol consumption (4,5). It is widely accepted that the development of UDTC is a result of complex interactions between environmental triggers and genetic factors (68). However, these interactions and the exact mechanism of carcinogenesis are still not fully understood.

Metabolites of tobacco and alcohol are first metabolically activated by Phase I enzymes, including cytochrome P4501A1 (CYP1A1) and cytochrome P4502E1 (CYP2E1), into their final forms and then combine with DNA, forming aromatic-DNA adducts that are considered to be an early stage in carcinogenesis (9). These activated forms are subsequently detoxified by Phase II enzymes, particularly GSTM1, a member of the glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) family (10). The CYP1A1 rs4646903 T>C polymorphism (MspI), also known as the m1 allele, is a substitution of T to C in the non-coding 3′-flanking region which appears to be associated with increased enzymatic activity (11). The CYP2E1 rs2031920 C>T polymorphism (RsaI) also known as the c2 allele, involves a C to T transition in the 5′-flanking region of the CYP2E1 gene, which appears to be associated with decreased enzymatic activity (12). Individuals who presents the null GSTM1 alleles lack the respective enzyme function (13).

A number of studies have been performed to assess the association between gene polymorphisms and cancer susceptibility (1418). One meta-analysis showed no association between CYP1A1 rs4646903 polymorphism and digestive tract cancers risk (14), while another meta-analysis confirmed association existed between CYP1A1 rs4646903 and gastric cancer (15). Zhang et al (16) indicated that CYP2E1 rs2031920 polymorphisms revealed no association with the risk of GC, however when GSTM1 was null, the association became significant. GSTM1/T1 null genotype was reported to increase GC risk, and combination of the CYP1A1 rs4646422 variant allele and GSTM1/T1 null genotypes was also associated with a statistically significant increased risk (17). A recent meta-analysis suggested the association between GSTM1 and digestive cancers, and two potential gene-smoking interactions were also found (18). The results from these studies have not always been consistent. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, the evaluation of gene-gene and gene-environment interactions regarding upper digestive cancer risk is insufficient at present. To clarify the combined effects of CYP1A1 rs4646903, CYP2E1 rs2031920, GSTM1 null polymorphisms and smoking or alcohol consumption on upper digestive tract cancer risk, a population-based case-control study was performed in Anyang, a typical high-incidence area of upper digestive cancer in Northern China (19,20).

Materials and methods

Patient and control selection

This case-control study included 194 patients with EC, 212 patients with GCC, 135 patients with gastric antral carcinoma (GAC), and 212 controls. The mean ages ± standard deviation of these four groups were 63±7.179, 64±9.070, 63±6.852 and 63±4.646 years. The sex ratio (male vs. female) of these four groups were 65.5 vs. 34.5%, 67.9 vs. 32.1%, 67.4 vs. 32.6% and 66.5 vs. 33.5%. All subjects were recruited from Anyang Cancer Hospital (Henan, China) between July 2015 and July 2017, with the study conducted during the same period. Inclusion criteria were as follows: Age between 30–79 years old with Han ethnicity; pathological diagnosis confirming ECC, GCC or GAC and no simultaneous malignancies. Patients who had undergone chemotherapy or radiotherapy prior to surgery were excluded from the present study. The cancer diagnoses were confirmed histologically. Subjects with no sign of a tumor based on gastroscopy were recruited from a cancer screening program for early detection of upper digestive tract cancers in the same area. All subjects underwent a personal interview and provided information on sociodemographic characteristics, recent and prior tobacco or alcohol use, and family history of cancer. Smoking status was stratified into three levels: Never smoked, smoking for <30 years and smoking for ≥30 years; alcohol consumption status was stratified into three levels: Never to occasional; ≥1 day/week and <150 g/week; ≥1 day/week and >150 g/week. The Anyang Tumor Hospital Institutional Review Board approved the present study. All patients and controls signed a study-specific written informed consent form.

PCR analysis of gene polymorphisms

DNA was extracted from the buffy coat of blood samples from the patients and controls using a FlexiGene DNA kit (cat. no. 51206; Qiagen China Co., Ltd.) for PCR or PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) experiments. The polymorphisms of CYP2E1 rs2031920 C>T and GSTM1 (21) were detected by PCR using the Thermal Cycler K640 (Hangzhou Jingle Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd.). Nested PCR (22) was used to amplify the CYP1A1 rs4646903 T>C. The PCR thermocycling conditions included initial denaturation at 95°C for 15 min followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 1 min, annealing for 1 min (annealing temperatures are presented in Table I), and extension at 75°C for 1 min; and a final extension at 72°C for 10 min. The amplified products were digested and examined using 1.5% agarose gel electrophoresis, and were visualized using a UV transilluminator (Beijing Liuyi Biotechnology Co., Ltd.). Table I presents the primer sequences, annealing temperatures, and digestion enzymes used. A total of 15% of the PCR products were selected for direct sequencing to confirm the RFLP results. The primers used for CYP1A1 and CYP2E1 sequencing were the same as the primers used in PCR. For GSTM1, the primers used for sequencing were cited from Khabaz et al (23). No deviation was found between the RFLP results and the sequencing data.

Table I.

PCR primers and restriction conditions used in the present study.

Table I.

PCR primers and restriction conditions used in the present study.

GenePrimerAnnealing temperatureRestriction enzymeFragment length
CYP1A1Forward 5′-TCACTCGTCTAAATACTCACCCTG-3′ (C1F)60°CMspI298 bp (wild-type)
rs4646903 T>CReverse 5′-TAGGAGTCTTGTCTCATGCCT-3′ (C1R) 298, 135 and 160 bp (heterozygous)
Forward 5′-CAGTGAAGAGGTGTAGCCGCT-3′ (C2F) 135 and 160 bp (homozygous)
Reverse 5′-GAGGCAGGTGGATCACTTGAGCTC3′ (C2R)
CYP2E1Forward 5′-AACGCCCCTTCTTGGTTCAG-3′60°CRsaI265 and 150 bp (wild-type);
rs2031920 C>TReverse 5′-CATACAGACCCTCTTCCACCTT-3′ 416, 265 and 150 bp (heterozygous)
416 bp (homozygous)
GSTM1Forward 5′-GAACTCCCTGAAAAGCTAAAGC-3′60°C215 bp (present)
Reverse 5′-GTTGGGCTCAAATATACGGTGG-3′ No fragment (null)

[i] CYP1A1, cytochrome P4501A1; CYP2E1, cytochrome P4502E1; GSTM1, glutathione S-transferase mu 1.

Statistical analysis

SPSS 19.0 software (IBM Corp.) was used for statistical analysis, and all tests were repeated three times. Pearson's χ2 test or Fisher's exact test were used to examine differences between groups and unpaired t-tests to compare means. All tests were two-sided. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test was used to confirm the CYP1A1 and CYP2E1 genotype distributions. The Bonferroni correction was used to evaluate the associations found and a P-value of <0.05/m was considered statistically significant (m=the total comparison times). Cancer risk associated with genotype or environmental exposure factors was estimated by calculating odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using unconditional logistic regression. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the association between smoking, alcohol, and the metabolic gene polymorphisms.

Results

Patient and control characteristics

Table II presents the demographic profiles of the 541 patients and 212 controls. There were no significant differences between the cases and controls in sex, mean age, marital status, education level, labor type and economic income. Upper digestive tract cancer and family history of cancer were significantly associated for EC (P=0.017), GCC (P=0.002) and GAC (P=0.001).

Table II.

Demographic characteristics of patients in the current study.

Table II.

Demographic characteristics of patients in the current study.

ECGCCGAC



CharacteristicsControls n=212n=194χ2P-valuen=212χ2P-valuen=135χ2P-value
Sex
  Male1411270.0490.8241440.0960.756910.0300.862
  Female  71  67 68 44
Mean age ± SDa, years63±4.64663±7.1790.87464±9.0700.39663±6.8520.456
Marital statusb
  Yes2091900.8362080.6851340.147
  No  3  4 4   1
Educationb
  ≤Primary school1361300.3201340.974730.127
  Junior or senior  73  64 75 58
  ≥College  3  0 3   4
Occupation
  Labor  22  183.7930.285252.5670.463  191.4750.688
  Farmers175170 178 105
  Civil jobs  7  2 6   6
  Other jobs  8  4 3   5
Incomec, yuan
  ≤1,9991301225.7050.0581250.6270.731760.9390.625
  2,000-3,999  71  70 78 52
  ≥4,000  11  2 9   7
Family history
  Yes  371415.7160.017649.4750.0024511.5260.001
  No175  53 148 90

a t-test were used to compare means of age. χ2 test was conducted if the total sample size was >40, and the minimum theoretical frequency was >5, otherwise

b Fisher's exact probability test was performed.

c RMB per capita/month. CYP1A1, Cytochrome P4501A1; CYP2E1, cytochrome P4502E1; GSTM1, glutathione S-transferase mu 1; EC, esophageal carcinoma; GAC, gastric antral carcinoma; GCC, gastric cardia carcinoma.

Detection of CYP1A1, CYP2E1 and GSTM1 variants in upper digestive tract cancers

A total of 194 EC, 212 GCC and 135 GAC cases, and 212 controls were examined to detect CYP1A1 rs4646903, CYP2E1 rs2031920 and GSTM1 polymorphisms. Fig. 1 shows examples of gene polymorphisms in PCR-amplified fragments or digestion fragments. Fig. 2 shows the sequencing chromatogram of CYP1A1 rs4646903 and CYP2E1 rs2031920. Among the controls, both the CYP1A1 and CYP2E1 genotype distributions were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

Association between smoking, alcohol consumption, CYP1A1, CYP2E1, GSTM1 and upper digestive tract cancers

Smoking and alcohol consumption were confirmed to be main risk factors for upper digestive tract cancers (Table III). After adjusting for matching variables and potential confounders, smoking increased EC, GCC and GAC risk compared with non-smoking status: EC [OR (95% CI)=3.594 (2.077–6.221); P<0.001]; GCC [OR (95% CI)=4.658 (2.654–8.174); P<0.001] and GAC [OR (95% CI)=3.999 (2.131–7.505); P<0.001], as did alcohol consumption: EC [OR (95% CI)=1.953 (1.210–3.151); P=0.006]; GCC [OR (95% CI)=2.442 (1.523–3.914); P<0.001] and GAC [OR (95% CI)=1.765 (1.030–3.025); P=0.039]. Dose-dependent trends were observed with these two risk factors, with ORs increasing as the total smoking years or alcohol consumption amount increased (Table III). It was indicated that the GSTM1 null genotype had protective effects against EC, decreasing EC risk [OR (95% CI)=0.510 (0.340–0.765); P=0.001].

Table III.

Odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals of smoking, alcohol and GSTM1 genotypes in upper digestive tract cancer.

Table III.

Odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals of smoking, alcohol and GSTM1 genotypes in upper digestive tract cancer.

ECGCCGAC



FactorsControls n=212n=194ORc (95% CI)P-valuen=212ORc (95% CI)P-valuen=135ORc (95% CI)P-value
Smoking
  Non-smokers136921.00 (reference) 891.00 (reference) 591.00 (reference)
  Smokers761023.594b (2.077–6.221)<0.0011234.658b (2.654–8.174)<0.001763.999b (2.131–7.505)<0.001
Smoking years
  <3022283.225b (1.570–6.626)0.001283.500b (1.672–7.327)0.001213.700b (1.657–8.264)0.001
  ≥3054743.773b (2.096–6.790)<0.001955.185b (2.866–9.382)<0.001554.153b (2.115–8.156)<0.001
Alcohol
  Never to occasional1351031.00 (reference) 991.00 (reference) 701.00 (reference)
  Frequent drinkers77911.953b (1.210–3.151)0.0061132.442b (1.523–3.914)<0.001651.765a (1.030–3.025)0.039
Alcohol consumption
  ≥1 day and <150 g/week40431.872a (1.044–3.355)0.035401.687a (0.933–3.051)0.084211.080 (0.535–2.182)0.830
  ≥1 day and ≥150 g/week37482.024a (1.158–3.538)0.013733.139b (1.832–5.378)<0.001442.398b (1.310–4.389)0.005
GSTM1
  Present741001.00 (reference) 841.00 (reference) 551.00 (reference)
  Null138940.510b (0.340–0.765)0.0011280.862 (0.575–1.290)0.470800.823 (0.518–1.306)0.408

{ label (or @symbol) needed for fn[@id='tfn5-ol-0-0-10455'] } χ2 test was conducted to compare the differences between groups.

a P<0.05

b P<0.01

c Adjusted for sex, age, marital status, education level, race, occupation, family per capita income/month, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption and family history. GSTM1, glutathione S-transferase mu 1; EC, esophageal carcinoma; GAC, gastric antral carcinoma; GCC, gastric cardia carcinoma; OR, Odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

CYP1A1 rs4646903 polymorphism was significantly associated with GCC risk [CC vs. TT: OR (95% CI)=1.936 (1.035–3.620), P=0.039; CC vs. CT+TT: OR (95% CI)=2.263 (1.272–4.026), P=0.005]; CYP2E1 rs2031920 was significantly associated with EC risk [c1/c2 vs. c1/c1: OR (95% CI)=1.673 (1.111–2.520), P=0.014; c1/c2+c2/c2 vs. c1/c1: OR (95% CI)=1.595 (1.071–2.375), P=0.022] (Tables IV and V).

Table IV.

Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of the CYP1A1 rs4646903 genotype in upper digestive tract cancer.

Table IV.

Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of the CYP1A1 rs4646903 genotype in upper digestive tract cancer.

Number (%) Adjusted ORsc of different modes of inheritance (95% CIs)


FactorsTTCTCCP-value③ vs. ①P-value② vs. ①P-value②+③ vs. ①P-value③ vs. ①+②P-value
Controls (n=212)74 (34.9)116 (54.7)22 (10.4) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference)
EC (n=194)28 (14.4)90 (46.4)76 (39.2)0.1981.175 (0.607–2.274)0.6330.693 (0.449–1.069)0.0970.768 (0.507–1.162)0.2121.453 (0.790–2.674)0.230
GCC (n=212)76 (35.8)96 (45.3)40 (18.9)0.0281.936a (1.035–3.620)0.0390.760 (0.494–1.169)0.2120.940 (0.626–1.410)0.7642.263b (1.272–4.026)0.005
GAC (n=135)54 (40.0)63 (46.7)18 (13.3)0.3261.295 (0.617–2.721)0.4950.735 (0.451–1.199)0.2170.820 (0.515–1.307)0.4051.543 (0.774–3.076)0.218

{ label (or @symbol) needed for fn[@id='tfn9-ol-0-0-10455'] } OR and P-values were calculated by multivariate unconditional logistic regression.

a P<0.05

b P<0.01

c Adjusted for sex, age, marital status, education level, race, occupation, family per capita income/month, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, cancer in first degree relatives. TT, wild genotype; CC, homozygous variant genotype; CT, heterozygous variant genotype; ①, homogeneity wild genotype; ②, heterogeneity variant genotype; ③, homogeneity variant genotype; CYP1A1, cytochrome P4501A1; EC, esophageal carcinoma; GAC, gastric antral carcinoma; GCC, gastric cardia carcinoma; OR, odds ratios; CIs, confidence intervals.

Table V.

Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of CYP2E1 rs2031920 genotypes in upper digestive tract cancer.

Table V.

Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of CYP2E1 rs2031920 genotypes in upper digestive tract cancer.

Number (%) Adjusted ORsb of different modes of inheritance (95% CIs)


Factorsc1/c1c1/c2c2/c2P-value③ vs. ①P-value② vs. ①P-value②+③ vs. ①P-value③ vs. ①+②P-value
Controls (n=212)118 (55.7)84 (39.6)10 (4.7) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference)
EC (n=194)86 (44.3)100 (51.5)8 (4.1)0.0540.993 (0.367–2.686)0.9901.673a (1.111–2.520)0.0141.595a (1.071–2.375)0.0220.789 (0.297–2.094)0.634
GCC (n=212)115 (54.2)87 (41.0)10 (4.7)0.9550.974 (0.383–2.475)0.9561.051 (0.702–1.575)0.8081.043 (0.705–1.541)0.8340.955 (0.381–2.392)0.921
GAC (n=135)82 (60.7)48 (35.6)5 (3.7)0.6300.752 (0.238–2.380)0.6280.827 (0.517–1.321)0.4260.819 (0.520–1.288)0.3870.806 (0.258–2.519)0.710

{ label (or @symbol) needed for fn[@id='tfn13-ol-0-0-10455'] } OR and P-values were calculated by multivariate unconditional logistic regression.

a P<0.05.

b Adjusted for sex, age, marital status, education level, race, occupation, family per capita income/month, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, cancer in first degree relatives. c1/c1, wild genotype; c2/c2, homozygous variant genotype; c1/c2, heterozygous variant genotype; ①, homogeneity wild genotype; ②, heterogeneity variant genotype; ③, homogeneity variant genotype; CYP2E1, cytochrome P4502E1; EC, esophageal carcinoma; GAC, gastric antral carcinoma; GCC, gastric cardia carcinoma; OR, odds ratios; CIs, confidence intervals.

Gene-gene and gene-environment association between smoking, alcohol consumption, and CYP1A1 or CYP2E1

Gene-gene and gene-environment association between cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and CYP1A1 rs4646903 or CYP2E1 rs2031920 polymorphisms are presented in Table VI. An association existed between CYP1A1 and smoking in EC, GCC and GAC; CYP1A1 and alcohol drinking in EC and GCC; CYP2E1 and smoking in EC, GCC and GAC; and CYP2E1 and alcohol drinking in EC and GCC. No association was observed between CYP1A1 and CYP2E1. Compared with non-smokers with wild-type CYP1A1 (TT), smokers with a CYP1A1 heterozygous variant genotype had a 2.597, 4.359 and 3.503-fold increased risk of EC, GCC and GAC, respectively. Smokers with a CYP1A1 homozygous variant genotype had a 5.125, 8.618 and 6.070-fold increased risk of EC, GCC and GAC, respectively. Compared with non-drinkers with wild-type CYP1A1 (TT), alcohol drinkers with a CYP1A1 homozygous variant genotype had a 4.124, 6.820 and 4.489-fold increased risk of EC, GCC and GAC, respectively. Compared with non-smokers with wild-type CYP2E1 (c1/c1), smokers with a CYP2E1 heterozygous variant genotype had a 6.345, 5.318 and 3.300-fold increased risk of EC, GCC and GAC, respectively. In addition, smokers with a CYP2E1 homozygous variant genotype had 6.661 and 7.621-fold increased risk for GCC and GAC. Compared with non-drinkers with wild-type CYP2E1 (c1/c1), alcohol drinkers with a CYP2E1 heterozygous variant genotype had a 3.820 and 3.070-fold increased risk of EC and GCC, respectively. These results indicated the association between smoking or alcohol consumption and CYP1A1 rs4646903 or CYP2E1 rs2031920 in UDTC. No associations were observed between CYP1A1 rs4646903 and CYP2E1 rs2031920.

Table VI.

Association of smoking, alcohol, and CYP1A1 rs4646903, CYP2E1 rs2031920 variants in upper digest tract cancers.

Table VI.

Association of smoking, alcohol, and CYP1A1 rs4646903, CYP2E1 rs2031920 variants in upper digest tract cancers.

ECGCCGAC



FactorseVariantControls n=212n=194ORc (95% CI)P-valuen=212ORc (95% CI)P-valuen=135ORc (95% CI)P-value
Smokingrs4646903 0.011d 0.001d 0.049d
  NoTT41321.00 (reference) 291.00 (reference) 191.00 (reference)
CT79440.700 (0.378–1.296)0.257370.704 (0.368–1.346)0.288290.907 (0.440–1.871)0.791
CC16161.175 (0.487–2.834)0.719232.494a (1.072–5.800)0.033111.722 (0.639–4.637)0.282
  YesTT33443.188b (1.482–6.857)0.003474.193b (1.863–9.438)0.001354.439b (1.846–10.674)0.001
CT37462.597a (1.225–5.505)0.013594.359b (1.979–9.601)<0.001343.503a (1.447–8.478)0.005
CC6125.125b (1.551–16.943)0.007178.618b (2.710–27.403)<0.00176.070b (1.580–23.325)0.009
Smokingrs2031920 0.002d 0.001d 0.017d
  Noc1/c173441.00 (reference) 491.00 (reference) 401.00 (reference)
c1/c255431.336 (0.756–2.361)0.319361.046 (0.584–1.874)0.880190.646 (0.291–1.101)0.204
c2/c2850.998 (0.289–3.439)0.99740.809 (0.224–2.922)0.746NANANA
  Yesc1/c145422.834b (1.430–5.613)0.003664.236b (2.147–8.359)<0.001422.818b (1.345–5.904)0.006
c1/c229576.345b (3.113–12.930)<0.001515.318b (2.546–11.106)<0.001293.300b (1.465–7.434)0.004
c2/c2233.185 (0.467–21.740)0.23766.661a (1.202–36.901)0.03057.621b (1.277–45.480)0.026
Alcoholrs4646903 0.037d 0.002d 0.136d
  NoTT41381.00 (reference) 341.00 (reference) 291.00 (reference)
CT76480.633 (0.353–1.135)0.137410.625 (0.340–1.149)0.139320.639 (0.332–1.230)0.188
CC18170.920 (0.406–2.088)0.842241.641 (0.749–3.593)0.21790.762 (0.292–1.991)0.578
  YesTT33381.579 (0. 786–3.172)0.204421.822 (0.892–3.722)0.102251.220 (0.550–2.705)0.631
CT40421.280 (0.649–2.522)0.486551.877 (0.948–3.714)0.072311.116 (0.518–2.402)0.785
CC4114.124a (1.122–15.155)0.033166.820b (1.974–23.561)0.00294.489a (1.185–17.002)0.028
Alcoholrs2031920 0.020d 0.016d 0.178d
  Noc1/c171461.00 (reference) 511.00 (reference) 451.00 (reference)
c1/c258541.545 (0.901–2.651)0.114431.109 (0.638–1.928)0.713220.624 (0.330–1.181)0.147
c2/c2630.782 (0.180–3.398)0.74351.271 (0.361–4.479)0.70930.972 (0.222–4.263)0.970
  Yesc1/c147401.789 (0.944–3.390)0.075642.467b (1.343–4.532)0.004371.380 (0.702–2.714)0.351
c1/c226463.820b (1.913–7.629)<0.001443.070b (1.537–6.134)0.001261.801 (0.834–3.890)0.134
c2/c2451.796 (0.444–7.272)0.41251.679 (0.415–6.797)0.46820.710 (0.118–4.273)0.708
rs2031920rs4646903 0.060d 0.976d 0.998d
  c1/c1TT46371.00 (reference) 491.00 (reference) 291.00 (reference)
  c1/c1CT25422.256 (1.150–4.424)0.018240.857 (0.422–1.740)0.669231.604 (0.747–3.442)0.225
  c1/c1CC320.664 (0.100–4.389)0.67030.715 (0.128–4.004)0.70321.195 (0.181–7.905)0.853
  c1/c2TT6639 0.678(0.372–1.237)0.205480.620 (0.353–1.090)0.097401.007 (0.530–1.911)0.984
  c1/c2CT46411.055 (0.567–1.961)0.866440.833 (0.459–1.510)0.547200.687 (0.329–1.432)0.316
  c1/c2CC451.328 (0.321–5.497)0.69640.861 (0.197–3.766)0.84231.228 (0.239–6.318)0.806
  c2/c2TT6102.193 (0.713–6.746)0.171183.222 (1.149–9.039)0.026134.359 (1.433–13.260)0.010
  c2/c2CT13171.477 (0.620–3.517)0.378191.398 (0.609–3.209)0.43050.682 (0.210–2.212)0.524
  c2/c2CC310.409 (0.039–4.330)0.45830.991 (0.183–5.364)0.991NANANA

{ label (or @symbol) needed for fn[@id='tfn16-ol-0-0-10455'] } OR and P-values were calculated by multivariate unconditional logistic regression.

a P<0.05

b P<0.001

c Adjusted for sex, age, marital status, education level, race, occupation, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption and cancer in first degree relatives

d P-value of gene-environmental interaction.

e Association between GSTM1 and other risk factors were not conducted, because GSTM1 tended to be a protective factor. TT, wild genotype; CC, homozygous variant genotype; CT, heterozygous variant genotype; c1/c1, wild genotype; c2/c2, homozygous variant genotype; c1/c2, heterozygous variant genotype; CYP1A1, cytochrome P4501A1; CYP2E1, cytochrome P4502E1; GSTM1, glutathione S-transferase mu 1; EC, esophageal carcinoma; GAC, gastric antral carcinoma; GCC, gastric cardia carcinoma; OR, odds ratios; CIs, confidence intervals; NA, not available.

Discussion

In the present study, it was confirmed that smoking and alcohol consumption were the main risk factors of upper digestive tract cancers. In addition, it was indicated that CYP1A1 rs4646903 polymorphisms increased GCC risk, CYP2E1 rs2031920 increased EC risk, while the GSTM1 null genotype decreased EC risk. Regarding the gene-gene or gene-environment associations in this study, associations between CYP1A1 rs4646903, CYP2E1 rs2031920 and smoking or alcohol were detected in UDTC.

To date, an increasing number of studies have investigated the associations between CYP1A1 rs4646903 polymorphisms and digestive cancer risk (15,18,24,25). In a recent meta-analysis, seven articles reported on CYP1A1 rs4646903 polymorphisms in four digestive cancers, and no associations were found in stratified analysis and subgroup analyses (18). In addition, in another meta-analysis, CYP1A1 rs4646903 polymorphisms were confirmed to be associated with an increased susceptibility to colorectal cancer, however not to esophageal cancer or gastric cancer (24). In the present study, no association between the CYP1A1 rs4646903 CC genotype and EC or GAC were detected, which was consistent with the aforementioned studies. However, in another meta-analysis, 11 studies about CYP1A1 rs4646903 polymorphisms and GC were included, and significant results were found among a large sample-size subgroup (15). Furthermore, evidence was also found to support an association between CYP1A1 rs4646903 polymorphisms and digestive tract cancer in the subgroups of Caucasian and mixed individuals (24). This suggested that the associations may vary across different sample sizes and ethnicities. This study found associations between CYP1A1 rs4646903 polymorphisms and GCC. To the best of our knowledge, a limited number of studies have been performed in GCC. One report in Linzhou found an association between the CYP1A1 rs4646903 variant allele, and a reduced risk of GCC in people with Dysplasia, who were at high risk for the development of GCC (25). However, the study only included 90 cases of GCC, decreasing the reliability of the results.

One meta-analysis in China suggested that the CYP2E1 rs2031920 polymorphism was a risk factor for EC, and the c2 allele was demonstrated to be a factor that decreases the risk of EC in the mainland Chinese population (26). However, in this research, CYP2E1 rs2031920 genotypes tended to increase EC risk. One report in Guangzhou Chinese population and another report in a Northern Jiangsu Chinese population also showed that the CYP2E1 rs2031920 polymorphisms could be risk factors for the development of gastric cancer (27,28). Molecular biological evidence has shown that the CYP2E1 rs2031920 variant in the CYP2E1 promoter enhances gene transcriptional activity by altering its binding to its transcription factor, particularly, hepatocyte nuclear factor-1 (29), and influencing its susceptibility to N-nitrosamine-linked carcinogenesis (30), indicating that the CYP2E1 rs2031920 variant may be associated with an increased cancer risk. The present study's results supported the aforementioned findings.

It was indicated that the GSTM1 null genotype had protective effects against EC, decreasing EC risk. However, increased upper digestive tract cancer risk was associated with GSTM1 non-null genotypes. To the best of our knowledge, this is not consistent with most other studies (17,18). A most recent meta-analysis on four digestive cancers showed that the GSTM1 polymorphism was associated with the risk of the four digestive cancers among the Asian population, as subgroup analyses by cancer site showed that the GSTM1 null genotype increased the total gastric cancer risk in the population (18). Another meta-analysis in a Japanese population showed that GSTM1 null, GSTT1 null and GSTM1/T1 both or either null genotypes were associated with increased risk, though this was not statistically significantly (15). However, there are a number of reports showing that cancer risk is associated with GSTM1 non-null genotypes (3033). There are several possible reasons for this observation. One is that the loss of one GST enzyme may be negligible compared with the large extended GST family (23). Even if the GSTM1 detoxification function is lost, other GST family members can still act to decrease cancer risk. Furthermore, some carcinogens, including N-hydroxy-Trp-P-2, have enhanced genotoxicity and carcinogenicity after binding to glutathione (34). Furthermore, it appears that GSTM1 null individuals have higher DNA adduct levels than GSTM1-expressing individuals (35).

Regarding the gene-gene or gene-environment associations in this study, an association between CYP1A1 rs4646903, CYP2E1 rs2031920 and smoking or alcohol was detected. Two meta-analyses showed that CYP2E1 rs2031920 may modify the susceptibility to gastric cancer among individuals who have a smoking history, or when GSTM1 or GSTT1 are null, or CYP2E1 rs2031920 is homozygous wild-type (16,36). An increased risk was seen in CYP1A1 rs4646422 variant subjects whose smoking was categorized as ≤30 pack-years, or whose GSTM1/T1 were both null genotypes, or who were null for either GSTM1/T1 individually (17). These studies suggested that tumor incidence is often due to a combination of exposure to external environmental factors and internal gene aberrance. These interactions have a greater impact on cancer susceptibility compared with single genes.

Associations between metabolic gene polymorphisms and human cancers have been debated. The differences stem from several factors, including ethnic or geographic differences, as Asian populations have been reported to be more prone compared with Caucasian populations to show significant associations between metabolic gene polymorphisms and carcinogenesis (18,37,38). Even in populations containing the same ethnic group, the associations vary by region (14). It is believed that these inconsistent results across ethnicity and geographic areas derive mainly from the unequal frequency of genetic polymorphisms (30,39). Another factor is the different host habits and environmental factor exposure levels, including tobacco use and alcohol consumption (4,5), family history of cancer and Helicobacter pylori infection (40), which have been identified as risk factors for upper digestive tract cancers. Other environmental factors include low socioeconomic status (41), poor oral hygiene (42), nutritional deficiencies, diet (43) and high salt intake (44). It has been hypothesized that various living environments lead to different degrees of cancer susceptibility (45). Specific associations are easily found in subgroups with exposure to negative factors, including smoking, H. pylori infection, or low consumption of fruit. A lack of statistical power has also been identified as a contributing factor, as the number of subjects who carry the ‘unfavorable’ gene polymorphism combinations becomes visible and can be assessed only if sufficient subjects are available with the specific genetic profile required (46). Furthermore, the ‘Berkson bias’ is typically present in hospital-based studies, as the controls may only represent a sample of an ill-defined reference population and may not be representative of the general population (47). In addition, in terms of gene-gene and gene-environment interaction, tumor incidence is often a combination of multiple factors (48). A negative association between a gene and cancer susceptibility does not mean that the gene has no impact on cancer risk. In terms of methodological differences, the most popular method in previous studies has been PCR-RFLP (21,30). Although PCR-RFLP is a simple, specific and efficient method of SNP detection, it has obvious limitations with respect to accuracy, particularly for subjects who carry a heterozygous mutation (49). With the development of molecular detection technology, a number of researchers have begun to use TaqMan assays (25,50), which may be faster and more accurate compared with PCR-RFLP. A superior new method is genome sequencing (23,51), particularly genome-wide associated studies, which can assay huge amounts of SNPs in a large number of samples and facilitates rapid detection.

In conclusion, it was indicated that smoking/alcohol consumption are upper digestive tract cancer risk factors. The CYP1A1 rs4646903 and CYP2E1 rs2031920 genotypes may contribute to higher GCC and EC susceptibility, respectively. The GSTM1 null genotype may serve a protective effect against EC. The gene-environment associations present increase the cancer risk. In the future, the present study may be improved by increasing the sample size and applying more advanced SNP detection methods, including a TaqMan assay or genome sequencing.

Acknowledgments

We are also grateful to Dr. Xiang Yuan and Dr Jin-yu Kong at the First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology University (Xinxiang, China), for their kind assistance in editing this manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundations (grant no. U1504814) and Major Projects of Science and Technology Department in Henan Province (grant nos. 161100311200 and 161100311300) and Xinxiang Science and Technology Project (grant no. CXGG17032).

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' contributions

FYZ, FZ and SML designed the experiment. FZ, JFS, SML, YJH, LJD, ZWG, JL, XJD, FFS, YWZ and NCW collected the data and performed the experiments. JFS analyzed and interpreted the data. FZ and JFS were major contributors in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Anyang Tumor Hospital Institutional Review Board approved the present study (no. AZLL022015005150701). All patients and controls signed a study-specific written informed consent form.

Patient consent for publication

All patients and controls have provided consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1 

Piazuelo MB and Correa P: Gastric cáncer: Overview. Colomb Med (Cali). 44:192–201. 2013.PubMed/NCBI

2 

Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, ; Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber RM, Barregard L, Bhutta ZA, Brenner H, Dicker DJ, Chimed-Orchir O, Dandona R, et al: Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol. 3:524–548. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Miao Y, Liu R, Pu Y and Yin L: Trends in esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer research from 2007 to 2016: A bibliometric analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 96:e69242017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Haas SL, Ye W and Löhr JM: Alcohol consumption and digestive tract cancer. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 15:457–467. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Dong J and Thrift AP: Alcohol, smoking and risk of oesophago- gastric cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 31:509–517. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Sitarz R, Skierucha M, Mielko J, Offerhaus GJA, Maciejewski R and Polkowski WP: Gastric cancer: Epidemiology, prevention, classification, and treatment. Cancer Manag Res. 10:239–248. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Abnet CC, Arnold M and Wei WQ: Epidemiology of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 154:360–373. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Matejcic M and Iqbal Parker M: Gene-environment interactions in esophageal cancer. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 52:211–231. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Miller EC: Some current perspectives on chemical carcinogenesis in humans and experimental animals: Presidential address. Cancer Res. 38:1479–1496. 1978.PubMed/NCBI

10 

Kiyohara C, Wakai K, Mikami H, Sido K, Ando M and Ohno Y: Risk modification by CYP1A1 and GSTM1 polymorphisms in the association of environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: A case-control study in Japanese nonsmoking women. Int J Cancer. 107:139–144. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Landi MT, Bertazzi PA, Shields PG, Clark G, Lucier GW, Garte SJ, Cosma G and Caporaso NE: Association between CYP1A1 genotype, mRNA expression and enzymatic activity in humans. Pharmacogenetics. 4:242–246. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Marchand LL, Wilkinson GR and Wilkens LR: Genetic and dietary predictors of CYP2E1 activity: A phenotyping study in Hawaii Japanese using chlorzoxazone. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 8:495–500. 1999.PubMed/NCBI

13 

Strange RC and Fryer AA: The glutathione S-transferases: Influence of polymorphism on cancer susceptibility. IARC Sci Publ. 231–249. 1999.PubMed/NCBI

14 

Liu C, Jiang Z, Deng QX and Zhao YN: Meta-analysis of association studies of CYP1A1 genetic polymorphisms with digestive tract cancer susceptibility in Chinese. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 15:4689–4695. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Xue H, Lu Y, Xue Z, Lin B, Chen J, Tang F and Huang G: The effect of CYP1A1 and CYP1A2 polymorphisms on gastric cancer risk among different ethnicities: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Tumour Biol. 35:4741–4756. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Zhang MX, Liu K, Wang FG, Wen XW and Song XL: Association between CYP2E1 polymorphisms and risk of gastric cancer: An updated meta-analysis of 32 case-control studies. Mol Clin Oncol. 4:1031–1038. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Hidaka A, Sasazuki S, Matsuo K, Ito H, Charvat H, Sawada N, Shimazu T, Yamaji T, Iwasaki M, Inoue M, et al: CYP1A1, GSTM1 and GSTT1 genetic polymorphisms and gastric cancer risk among Japanese: A nested case-control study within a large-scale population-based prospective study. Int J Cancer. 139:759–768. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Du L, Lei L, Zhao X, He H, Chen E, Dong J, Zeng Y and Yang J: The interaction of smoking with gene polymorphisms on four digestive cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer. 9:1506–1517. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Li JY, Liu BQ, Li GY, Chen ZJ, Sun XI and Rong SD: Atlas of cancer mortality in the People's Republic of China. An aid for cancer control and research. Int J Epidemiol. 10:127–133. 1981. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Zhou MG, Wang XF, Hu JP, Li GL, Chen WQ, Zhang SW, Wan X, Wang LJ, Xiang C, Hu YS and Yang GH: Geographical distribution of cancer mortality in China, 2004–2005. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 44:303–308. 2010.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI

21 

Choudhury JH, Singh SA, Kundu S, Choudhury B, Talukdar FR, Srivasta S, Laskar RS, Dhar B, Das R, Laskar S, et al: Tobacco carcinogen-metabolizing genes CYP1A1, GSTM1, and GSTT1 polymorphisms and their interaction with tobacco exposure influence the risk of head and neck cancer in Northeast Indian population. Tumour Biol. 36:5773–5783. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22 

Xu X, Kelsey KT, Wiencke JK, Wain JC and Christiani DC: Cytochrome P450 CYP1A1 MspI polymorphism and lung cancer susceptibility. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 5:687–692. 1996.PubMed/NCBI

23 

Khabaz MN, Nedjadi T, Gari MA, Al-Maghrabi JA, Atta HM, Bakarman M and Gazzaz ZJ: GSTM1 gene polymorphism and the risk of colorectal cancer in a Saudi Arabian population. Genet Mol Res. 15:2016. View Article : Google Scholar

24 

Ren A, Qin T, Wang Q, Du H, Zhong D, Hua Y and Zhu L: Cytochrome P450 1A1 gene polymorphisms and digestive tract cancer susceptibility: A meta-analysis. J Cell Mol Med. 20:1620–1631. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

25 

Roth MJ, Abnet CC, Johnson LL, Mark SD, Dong ZW, Taylor PR, Dawsey SM and Qiao YL: Polymorphic variation of Cyp1A1 is associated with the risk of gastric cardia cancer: A prospective case-cohort study of cytochrome P-450 1A1 and GST enzymes. Cancer Causes Control. 15:1077–1083. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Leng WD, Zeng XT, Chen YJ, Duan XL, Niu YM, Long RP and Luo ZX: Cytochrome P450 2E1 RsaI/PstI polymorphism and risk of esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis of 17 case-control studies. Exp Ther Med. 4:938–948. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Elingarami S, Liu H, Kalinjuma AV, Hu W, Li S and He N: Polymorphisms in NEIL-2, APE-1, CYP2E1 and mdm2 genes are independent predictors of gastric cancer Risk in a Northern Jiangsu Population (China). J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 15:4815–4828. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Chen ZH, Xian JF and Luo LP: Analysis of ADH1B Arg47His, ALDH2 Glu487Lys, and CYP4502E1 polymorphisms in gastric cancer risk and interaction with environmental factors. Genet Mol Res. 15:2016. View Article : Google Scholar

29 

Hayashi S, Watanabe J and Kawajiri K: Genetic polymorphisms in the 5′-flanking region change transcriptional regulation of the human cytochrome P450IIE1 gene. J Biochem. 110:559–565. 1991. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Tan W, Song N, Wang GQ, Liu Q, Tang HJ, Kadlubar FF and Lin DX: Impact of genetic polymorphisms in cytochrome P450 2E1 and glutathione S-transferases M1, T1, and P1 on susceptibility to esophageal cancer among high-risk individuals in China. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 9:551–556. 2000.PubMed/NCBI

31 

Chen C, Madeleine MM, Lubinski C, Weiss NS, Tickman EW and Daling JR: Glutathione S-transferase M1 genotypes and the risk of anal cancer: A population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 5:985–991. 1996.PubMed/NCBI

32 

Li D, Dandara C and Parker MI: The 341C/T polymorphism in the GSTP1 gene is associated with increased risk of oesophageal cancer. BMC Genet. 11:472010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

33 

Lewis SJ, Cherry NM, Niven RM, Barber PV and Povey AC: GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1 polymorphisms and lung cancer risk. Cancer Lett. 180:165–171. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Saito K, Yamazoe Y, Kamataki T and Kato R: Glutathione transferase-mediated and non-enzymatic activation and detoxication of the N-hydroxy derivative of Trp-P-2, a potent pyrolysate promutagen. Xenobiotica. 14:545–548. 1984. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

35 

Houlston RS: Glutathione S-transferase M1 status and lung cancer risk: A meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 8:675–682. 1999.PubMed/NCBI

36 

Zhuo W, Zhang L, Wang Y, Ling J, Zhu B and Chen Z: CYP2E1 RsaI/PstI polymorphism and gastric cancer susceptibility: Meta-analyses based on 24 case-control studies. PLoS One. 7:e482652012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Wu B, Liu K, Huang H, Yuan J, Yuan W, Wang S, Chen T, Zhao H and Yin C: MspI and Ile462Val polymorphisms in CYP1A1 and overall cancer risk: A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 8:e851662013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

38 

Meng X, Liu Y and Liu B: Glutathione S-transferase M1 null genotype meta-analysis on gastric cancer risk. Diagn Pathol. 9:1222014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

39 

Garte S, Gaspari L, Alexandrie AK, Ambrosone C, Autrup H, Autrup JL, Baranova H, Bathum L, Benhamou S, Boffetta P, et al: Metabolic gene polymorphism frequencies in control populations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 10:1239–1248. 2001.PubMed/NCBI

40 

Choi YJ and Kim N: Gastric cancer and family history. Korean J Intern Med. 31:1042–1053. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

41 

Uthman OA, Jadidi E and Moradi T: Socioeconomic position and incidence of gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 67:854–860. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

42 

Gupta B and Johnson NW: Emerging and established global life-style risk factors for cancer of the upper aero-digestive tract. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 15:5983–5991. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

43 

Johnson IT: Understanding the association between diet and nutrition in upper gastrointestinal cancer. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 9:1347–1349. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

44 

Goral V: Etiopathogenesis of gastric cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 17:2745–2750. 2016.PubMed/NCBI

45 

Yoshida T, Ono H, Kuchiba A, Saeki N and Sakamoto H: Genome-wide germline analyses on cancer susceptibility and GeMDBJ database: Gastric cancer as an example. Cancer Sci. 101:1582–1589. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

46 

Taioli E: Gene-environment interaction in tobacco-related cancers. Carcinogenesis. 29:1467–1474. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

47 

Conn HO, Snyder N and Atterbury CE: The Berkson bias in action. Yale J Biol Med. 52:141–147. 1979.PubMed/NCBI

48 

Weinstein IB: Cell culture systems for studying multifactor interactions in carcinogenesis. Dev Toxicol Environ Sci. 8:149–64. 1980.PubMed/NCBI

49 

Jin YW, Qu YJ, Wang H, Bai JL and Song F: Limitation of PCR-RFLP method for the detection of genetic mutations in spinal muscular atrophy. Zhonghua Yi Xue Yi Chuan Xue Za Zhi. 29:34–37. 2012.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI

50 

Blakely T, Barendregt JJ, Foster RH, Hill S, Atkinson J, Sarfati D and Edwards R: The association of active smoking with multiple cancers: National census-cancer registry cohorts with quantitative bias analysis. Cancer Causes Control. 24:1243–1255. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

51 

Tan YH, Sidik SM, Syed Husain SN, Lye MS and Chong PP: CYP1A1 MspI polymorphism and cervical carcinoma risk in the multi-ethnic population of malaysia: A case-control study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 17:57–64. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

August-2019
Volume 18 Issue 2

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Zhao F, Su JF, Lun SM, Hou YJ, Duan LJ, Wang NC, Shen FF, Zhang YW, Gao ZW, Li J, Li J, et al: Association between polymorphisms in the CYP1A1, CYP2E1 and GSTM1 genes, and smoking, alcohol and upper digestive tract carcinomas in a high‑incidence area of northern China. Oncol Lett 18: 1267-1277, 2019.
APA
Zhao, F., Su, J., Lun, S., Hou, Y., Duan, L., Wang, N. ... Zhou, F. (2019). Association between polymorphisms in the CYP1A1, CYP2E1 and GSTM1 genes, and smoking, alcohol and upper digestive tract carcinomas in a high‑incidence area of northern China. Oncology Letters, 18, 1267-1277. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10455
MLA
Zhao, F., Su, J., Lun, S., Hou, Y., Duan, L., Wang, N., Shen, F., Zhang, Y., Gao, Z., Li, J., Du, X., Zhou, F."Association between polymorphisms in the CYP1A1, CYP2E1 and GSTM1 genes, and smoking, alcohol and upper digestive tract carcinomas in a high‑incidence area of northern China". Oncology Letters 18.2 (2019): 1267-1277.
Chicago
Zhao, F., Su, J., Lun, S., Hou, Y., Duan, L., Wang, N., Shen, F., Zhang, Y., Gao, Z., Li, J., Du, X., Zhou, F."Association between polymorphisms in the CYP1A1, CYP2E1 and GSTM1 genes, and smoking, alcohol and upper digestive tract carcinomas in a high‑incidence area of northern China". Oncology Letters 18, no. 2 (2019): 1267-1277. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10455