The polymorphism of EGFR 142285G > A exerts no risk effect on breast cancer

Abstract

The association between the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) 142285G > A polymorphism and the susceptibility to breast cancer is unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis of all published studies to estimate the association of EGFR 142285G > A polymorphism and breast cancer risk. Systematic computerized searching of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Wanfang databases was performed for relevant publications. Overall, there were three eligible case-control studies with 1,360 cases and 1,522 controls included into our study. The pooled ORs showed that the EGFR 142285G > A variant genotypes did not increase or decrease the risk of breast cancer under the following gene models: A vs. G, OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.96-1.19, P OR = 0.240; AA vs. GG, OR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.91-1.42, P OR = 0.239; GA vs. GG, OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.83-1.17, P OR = 0.892; GA + AA vs. GG, OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.87-1.21, P OR = 0.727; AA vs. GG + GA, OR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.42, P OR = 0.096. The between-study heterogeneity was not significant among all studies. The current meta-analysis showed no evidence for significant association between EGFR 142285G > A polymorphism and breast cancer risk. Subsequent studies with large sample size are needed for further elucidation.

A Meta-Analysis on the Relations between EGFR R521K Polymorphism and Risk of Cancer

“…However, another study demonstrated that the CR1/CR2 tether structure exerted only a limited effect on EGF binding, EGFR activation, and cell signalling [30]. Take our result into consideration, we infer that the R521K polymorphism of EGFR may not be a critical factor in determining susceptibility to cancer; this conclusion is consistent with another meta-analysis indicating that the R521K polymorphism is not associated with risk of breast cancer [31]. Nevertheless, several studies have reported that the R521K polymorphism alone or in combination with a longer (CA) n repeat polymorphism is associated with a better survival rate in cancer [32–36], while others report a negative relevance [37].…”