AUTHOR=Ye Jing , Mu Yi-Yang , Wang Jiong , He Xiao-Feng 

TITLE=Individual effects of GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphisms on cervical or ovarian cancer risk: An updated meta-analysis

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Genetics

VOLUME=Volume 13 - 2022

YEAR=2023

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2022.1074570

DOI=10.3389/fgene.2022.1074570

ISSN=1664-8021

ABSTRACT=<p><bold>Background:</bold> Studies have shown that glutathione S-transferase M1 (<italic>GSTM1</italic>) and. glutathione S-transferase T1 <italic>(GSTT1)</italic> null genotype may increase the risk of cervical cancer (CC) or ovarian cancer (OC), however, the results of published original studies and meta-analyses are inconsistent.</p><p><bold>Objectives:</bold> To investigate the association between <italic>GSTM1</italic> present/null and <italic>GSTT1</italic> present/null polymorphisms, with the risk of cervical cancer or ovarian cancer.</p><p><bold>Methods:</bold> The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the association between <italic>GSTM1</italic> present/null and <italic>GSTT1</italic> present/null polymorphisms and the risk of cervical cancer or ovarian cancer. To assess the confidence of statistically significant associations, we applied false positive reporting probability (FPRP) and bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP) tests.</p><p><bold>Results:</bold> Overall analysis showed that <italic>GSTM1</italic> null was associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer, and subgroup analysis showed a significant increase in cervical cancer risk in Indian and Chinese populations; <italic>GSTT1</italic> was not found null genotype are significantly associated with cervical cancer. Overall analysis showed that <italic>GSTM1</italic> and <italic>GSTT1</italic> null were not associated with the risk of ovarian cancer, subgroup analysis showed that <italic>GSTM1</italic> null was associated with an increased risk of OC in East Asia, and <italic>GSTT1</italic> null was associated with an increased risk of OC in South America. However, when we used false positive reporting probability and bayesian false discovery probability to verify the confidence of a significant association, all positive results showed “low confidence” (FPRP &gt; .2, BFDP &gt; .8).</p><p><bold>Conclusion:</bold> Overall, this study strongly suggests that all positive results should be interpreted with caution and are likely a result of missing plausibility rather than a true association.</p>