Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Contribution of the -160C/A Polymorphism in the E-cadherin Promoter to Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis of 47 Case-Control Studies

  • Lin Wang ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Lin Wang, Guiying Wang

    Affiliation Endocrinology Department, Shanghai East Hospital, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Signaling and Disease Research, School of Life Science and Technology, Tongji University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

  • Guiying Wang ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Lin Wang, Guiying Wang

    Affiliation Endocrinology Department, Shanghai East Hospital, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Signaling and Disease Research, School of Life Science and Technology, Tongji University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

  • Chenqi Lu,

    Affiliation Laboratory of Population and Quantitative Genetics, Institute of Biostatistics, SKLGE, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

  • Bo Feng ,

    fengbo@medmail.com (BF); jhkang@tongji.edu.cn (JK)

    Affiliation Endocrinology Department, Shanghai East Hospital, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Signaling and Disease Research, School of Life Science and Technology, Tongji University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

  • Jiuhong Kang

    fengbo@medmail.com (BF); jhkang@tongji.edu.cn (JK)

    Affiliation Endocrinology Department, Shanghai East Hospital, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Signaling and Disease Research, School of Life Science and Technology, Tongji University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

Contribution of the -160C/A Polymorphism in the E-cadherin Promoter to Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis of 47 Case-Control Studies

  • Lin Wang, 
  • Guiying Wang, 
  • Chenqi Lu, 
  • Bo Feng, 
  • Jiuhong Kang
PLOS
x

Abstract

Background

The -160C/A polymorphism (rs16260) of E-cadherin, a tumor repressor gene, has been shown to be a tumor susceptibility allele for various types of cancers. Because the significance of this polymorphism to cancer risk has been recognized, there are increasing studies investigating -160C/A in different types of cancers and ethnic populations. However, there is still uncertainty about the level of risk for a variety of cancers.

Methods

To resolve the controversial question raised by these studies as of March 2012 and provide more statistical power for detecting the significance of -160C/A, we performed a meta-analysis of 47 case-control studies in 16 types of cancers (18,194 cases and 20,207 controls). A meta-regression model and subgroup analysis were employed to identify the source of heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated, and sensitivity analysis and cumulative evidence assessment were also performed.

Results

Using fixed- and random-effects models, the -160AA homozygote was more susceptible to urothelial cancer compared with the -160CA heterozygote. Additionally, the -160A allele is an ethnicity-dependent risk factor for prostate and colorectal cancers. Carriers of the -160A allele in Asians and Europeans were more susceptible to prostate cancer, whereas their North American counterparts seemed tolerant. The -160AA homozygote plays a protective role for Europeans who develop colorectal cancer. The stability of these observations was confirmed by a one-way sensitivity analysis. However, the cumulative evidence for all cancer types was considered ‘weak’ using the Venice guidelines.

Conclusions

A meta-analysis indicated that the -160A allele of E-cadherin provides a higher risk for the development of prostate and urothelial cancers and a protective role for colorectal cancer in an ethnicity-dependent manner.

Introduction

E-cadherin, which has a widely acknowledged role in cell-cell adhesion, also functions as an invasion/tumor suppressor gene. Several immunohistochemical studies have reported a strong correlation between E-cadherin loss and the occurrence of tumors. The downregulation of E-cadherin is generally due to transcriptional repression [1]. The -160C/A polymorphism in the promoter region of the E-cadherin gene has been reported to have a direct effect on its transcriptional regulation and therefore may influence susceptibility to cancers [2]. To identify whether the -160C/A polymorphism of E-cadherin is involved in the pathogenesis of tumors in vivo, case-control studies concerning this allelic variation and cancer risk have been broadly performed. However, there is still uncertainty about the level of risk for a variety of cancers in a number of studies investigating the effect of -160C/A on different types of cancers and ethnic populations.

To resolve the controversial question raised by this evidence and provide more statistical power for detecting the significance of -160C/A to cancer risk, we performed a meta-analysis on the 160C/A polymorphism of E-cadherin and cancer risk with 47 case-control studies including 18,194 cases and 20,207 controls as of March 2012. The results indicated that the -160A allele of E-cadherin leads to a higher risk for the development of prostate and urothelial cancers and is an ethnicity-dependent risk factor for prostate and colorectal cancers. The significance of the -160C/A polymorphism in developing various types of cancer has received increasing attention. However, further observation will be needed to improve the evaluation power of association.

Methods

Search Strategy

We conducted a systematic literature search using the databases MEDLINE (US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland) and PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology, National Library of Medicine) as of March 2012 with the keywords “polymorphism of the E-cadherin gene,” “rs16260,” and “-160C/A,” in combination with “cancer,” “tumor,” “neoplasm” or “carcinoma.” The full texts of the candidate articles were carefully examined for data extraction, and the reference lists were also reviewed to identify further relevant studies for our previous report [3].

Inclusion Criteria

Case-control studies with sufficient published data for estimating an odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95 percent confidence interval (95% CI) were included in this meta-analysis. Published meta-analyses on the association of polymorphisms of E-cadherin with cancer risk were included in the assessment of evidence.

Data Extraction

The following information was independently extracted from each study by two investigators: 1) publication date, first author, year of publication, and country of origin; 2) polymorphism of the E-cadherin gene and cancer types; 3) characteristics of cases and controls and genotyping method; and 4) number of cases and controls with heterozygous and homozygous genotypes. This information is summarized in Tables 1, S1 and S2.

thumbnail
Table 1. Estimates of odds ratios and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for AA and CA genotype and A allele carriers versus the CC genotype for 16 types of cancers analyzed by fixed- or random- effects models divided by cancer type and ethnicity as of March 2012.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040219.t001

Meta-analysis

Based on the inclusion criteria, 47 case-control studies were included. In total, 59 datasets were extracted based on the original data, which were divided by either region or cancer type. Relevant information on the studies is summarized in Table S1. The review process and outcomes of inclusion and exclusion are illustrated in Figure S1.

Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium was tested in control samples of each dataset by the chi-square method to assess the latent bias resulting from the deviation of genotype distribution. ORs were considered as estimates of relative risk and were combined across studies using fixed- or random-effects meta-analysis for low and high heterogeneity, respectively. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, which describes the degree of genuine differences across studies in a meta-analysis [4]. A meta-regression model was used to identify the source of heterogeneity [5], and subgroup analysis was also carried out. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed by removing one dataset at a time in cancer types containing more than three datasets [6], [7]. Publication bias was assessed using the modified test proposed by Harbord for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints [8].

Assessment of Cumulative Evidence

Venice interim guidelines were also introduced to assess the credibility of cumulative evidence, which evaluated the evidence using a semi-quantitative index that assigned three levels for the amount of evidence, extent of replication, and protection from bias [9], [10]. Nminor was the sum of AA homozygotes in cases and controls, and f minor was the A allele frequency in control. Category A of amount required a sample size over 1,000 in the least common genetic group of interest; B corresponded to a sample size of 100–1,000, and C corresponded to a sample size of <100. Either one of the following situations corresponded to category C of replication: no association, no independent replication, or high heterogeneity (I2>50%). Nominal ORs (0.87–1.15) and significant bias detected by the Harbord test corresponded to category C of bias. Bias in data containing less than three data sets was considered as category B because there was no obvious bias in phenotype definition, genotyping, or population stratification according to the original document, but the Harbord test could not be carried out because of the paucity of data sets.

Results

As of March 2012, there were a total of 47 case-control studies that included 18,194 cases and 20,207 controls in 16 types of cancers. Combined analysis of the extracted 59 datasets showed significant heterogeneity (Q = 177.76, P<0.00001, I2 = 67%) among studies (Table 2, Figure S2). A meta-regression analysis was thus carried out to identify the source of heterogeneity, and three kinds of covariates were introduced, including cancer type, ethnicity and source of controls (Table 3). Meta-regression analysis revealed that when the source of controls was introduced in combination with cancer type, all of the heterogeneity could be adjusted in -160A carriers (CA, I2 = 28%, adjusted R2 = 100%, P = 0.003; CA+AA, I2 = 33%, adjusted R2 = 100%, P = 0.0003). The combination of ethnicity with either cancer type or source of controls primarily accounted for the heterogeneity in the AA homozygote (ethnicity and cancer type, I2 = 46%, adjusted R2 = 59%, P = 0.02; ethnicity, cancer type and source of control, I2 = 45%, adjusted R2 = 63%, P = 0.07). Furthermore, we carried out subgroup analysis according to the identified covariates (Table 2).

thumbnail
Table 2. Heterogeneity test for studies of each genotype in different cancer types (as of March 2012) with Cochrane’s Q-test and the quantity I2.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040219.t002

thumbnail
Table 3. Adjusted R2 and corresponding I2 from the meta-regression models.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040219.t003

The Harbord test was used to detect the publication bias of data containing more than three datasets and indicated negligible publication bias (P>0.05) in most of the data, except in -160A carriers of prostate and urothelial cancers and CA heterozygotes of urothelial cancer (Table 4). One-way sensitivity analysis, which was performed by removing one data set at a time, was carried out to confirm the stability of the estimated OR (Figure 1). As shown in Table 5, when the Venice guidelines were applied, cumulative evidence for all cancer types was considered ‘weak.’ Detailed information on the assessment of each cancer type is summarized in Table S3.

thumbnail
Table 4. Harbord test of each genotype in different cancer types (as of March 2012) with coefficient and standard error.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040219.t004

thumbnail
Figure 1. One-way sensitivity analysis for the stability of observations in the meta-analysis.

The pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the -160A allele carriers are evaluated by comparing to the CC genotype, omitting each dataset in each type of cancer (as of March 2012). The pooled ORs are calculated with a random-effects model. The numbers on the x-axis refer to the studies extracted. 22a, Sweden; 22b, Czech Republic; 24a, Familial; 24b, Sporadic; 26a, Phase 1; 26b, Phase 2; 41a, Beijing; 41b, Linqu; 51a, Canada; 51b, Germany; 51c, Portugal; total, no dataset omitted.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040219.g001

thumbnail
Table 5. Assessment of cumulative evidence for the association of the -160C/A polymorphism and different cancers.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040219.t005

Compared with our previous study [3], evidence on seven new types of cancer was reported, including pancreatic [11], nasopharyngeal [12], endometrial [13], cervical [13], ovarian [14], oral [15], liver [16], and thyroid [17] cancers and lymphoma [18]. There was no change concerning evidence on lung [19] and esophageal [20], [21] cancers.

Breast Cancer

One additional study [13] was added to previous breast cancer studies [22], [23], which led to a total of 1,142 cases and 1,063 controls. The -160A carriers were still not more susceptible to breast cancer (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.96–1.36) with a fixed-effects model, and no heterogeneity (Q = 0.61, P = 0.89, I2 = 0%) was detected among these data sets.

Colorectal Cancer

Six new datasets from four studies [13], [24][26] were added to previous data [21], [27], [28], which included 7,117 cases and 7,157 controls altogether. Using a random-effects model, the -160A carriers were not more susceptible to colorectal cancer compared with all genotypes (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.85–1.05), and the heterogeneity among seven datasets was moderate (Q = 12.09, P = 0.15, I2 = 34%). Then, we performed a subgroup analysis stratified by source of controls or ethnicity, and the source of heterogeneity was identified in the colorectal cancer-free control subgroup when it was divided by the source of controls (Q = 4.82, P = 0.09, I2 = 59%) and in the European subgroup when it was divided by ethnicity (Q = 9.31, P = 0.16, I2 = 36%). The heterogeneity could be attributed to one dataset from Grunhage et al. [24], in which the association was investigated between the -160C/A polymorphism and familial colorectal cancer. After exclusion of this dataset, the heterogeneity was effectively decreased to ‘low’ (Q = 8.64, P = 0.28, I2 = 19%), and the pooled OR estimated in the fixed-effect model was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.87–0.99, P = 0.03). The estimated OR of the -160AA homozygote in Europeans was 0.85 (95% CI = 0.74–0.99, P = 0.03), with low heterogeneity (Q = 6.35, P = 0.39, I2 = 5%), indicating that it played protective roles in colorectal cancer.

Prostate Cancer

Two additional studies [29], [30] were added to previous prostate cancer studies [31][38], resulting in a total of 3,570 cases and 3,304 controls. The genotype distribution in controls from two studies [31], [32] was significantly deviated from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (P<0.05). After excluding these datasets, the pooled OR estimated in -160A carriers was 1.33 (95% CI = 1.18–1.50), indicating the same predisposition to prostate cancer as before excluding these datasets (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.13–1.37). To clarify the possible sources of the significant heterogeneity among these datasets (Q = 26.18, P = 0.002, I2 = 66%), we performed a subgroup analysis according to the source of controls and ethnicity, respectively. Stratification by source of controls effectively decreased the heterogeneity (I2healthy = 0%, I2healthy-matched = 0%, I2healthy and benign prostatic hyperplasia = 0%); however, this decrease may also be due to a reduction in power for the Q-test. When stratified by ethnicity, the -160A allele was revealed to be an ethnicity-dependent risk factor for prostate cancer. ORs estimated using the random-effects model were greater than 1.0 for both Asians (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.16–2.08) and Europeans (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.02–1.55), while no relationship was found between the -160A allele and the progression of prostate cancer in North Americans (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.86–1.41).

Gastric Cancer

Eight datasets from seven studies [13], [39][44] were added to our previous report [20], [45][52], and there were 3,453 patients and 4,775 controls altogether. The exclusion of two studies [20], [45], in which genotype distribution significantly deviated from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, revealed no predisposition of the -160A allele to gastric cancer (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.95–1.16). The heterogeneity among these datasets was moderate (Q = 33.44, P = 0.01, I2 = 46%), and stratification by ethnicity explained the source of heterogeneity. This stratification showed that heterogeneity in the European subgroup was significant (Q = 13.29, P = 0.02, I2 = 62%). This finding might be mainly attributed to the dataset from Humar et al. [50], in which diffuse gastric cancer was investigated. As a special histological form of gastric cancer, diffuse gastric cancer was more prevalent in younger age groups. The heterogeneity was effectively removed after exclusion of this dataset (Q = 6.49, P = 0.17, I2 = 38%), as expected. The OR estimated for the -160A carriers was 1.03 (95% CI = 0.90–1.18) in pooled datasets, 0.93 (95% CI = 0.80–1.08) in Asians, 1.20 (95% CI = 0.91–1.58) in Europeans, and 1.53 (95% CI = 0.99–2.36) in others. The association of -160A allele carriers with the progression of gastric cancer in Europeans disappeared, and the relationship between the -160A allele and gastric cancer was not detectable.

Urothelial Cancer

Five studies [53][57], including two updated reports [54], [57], detected the -160C/A polymorphism in urothelial cancer patients, which involved 1,064 cases and 1,124 controls. Overall, the meta-analysis showed that the -160A carriers had a significantly increased risk of developing urothelial cancer (OR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.11–2.61), and significant heterogeneity was found among the five studies (Q = 20.37, P = 0.0004, I2 = 80%). Indeed, the genotype distribution of two studies [53], [54] significantly deviated from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Exclusion of these data sets successfully reduced the heterogeneity (Q = 0.87, P = 0.65, I2 = 0%), and the pooled OR calculated in the fixed-effects model no longer indicated predisposition in -160A carriers (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.98–1.43). However, ORs estimated in AA homozygotes (OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.05–2.56) still revealed a higher risk for the development of urothelial cancer, and heterogeneity between studies was low (Q = 2.55, P = 0.28, I2 = 22%).

Other Cancers

Single studies investigated the association between -160A carriers and lung [19] (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.36–5.83, P = 0.0005), nasopharyngeal [12] (OR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.20–3.41, P = 0.0008), thyroid [17] (OR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.39–3.99, P = 0.0001), endometrial [13] (OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.19–3.14, P = 0.0008), oral [15] (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.41–0.80, P = 0.0001), pancreatic [11] (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 2.63, P = 0.05), liver [16] (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.56–1.29, P = 0.44), cervical [13] (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.77–1.95, P = 0.39), and ovarian [14] (OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.63–1.37, P = 0.71) cancer and lymphoma [18] (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.51–1.60, P = 0.74). The exact number of cases and controls across datasets for each cancer type is shown in Table 1. The estimated OR indicated that the -160A allele of the E-cadherin gene provided a higher risk for the development of lung, nasopharyngeal, thyroid, endometrial and oral cancer, but the credibility of these associations was considered ‘weak’ after application of the Venice interim guidelines [9]. Because of the significance of the -160C/A polymorphism in human cancers, much more data will be provided in the future to enhance the statistical power in these cancer types.

Discussion

The meta-analysis performed in this paper indicated that the -160AA homozygote predisposed its carriers to urothelial cancer. Carriers of the -160A allele had an increased risk of prostate cancer. The ethnicity-dependent susceptibility of -160A carriers to gastric cancer [3] disappeared with the inclusion of updated evidence, whereas susceptibility was demonstrated in prostate cancer. The credibility of single studies that investigated the association of the -160A allele with lung, nasopharyngeal, pancreatic, thyroid, endometrial and oral cancer was considered ‘weak,’ which requires further verification. No evidence was found that the -160A allele predisposed its carriers to breast, colorectal, esophageal, gynecological, gastric, or liver cancer or lymphoma.

The meta-analysis, which is not maintained, may become out of date or misleading. Bias and greater heterogeneity arose because of the further inclusion of new evidence, which suggests the requirement for more studies concerning the -160C/A polymorphism and cancer risk, especially those with rigorous selection of case and control samples and the reporting of more studies with a large sample size and negative results. In addition to publication bias, which is popular in meta-analyses, different mechanisms can lead to asymmetry in funnel plots, including true heterogeneity resulting from improper study design [58].

The authors combined case-control studies, which are relatively more practical and inexpensive than prospective cohort studies in the investigation of relationships between suspected risk factors and diseases, especially those with low incidence, such as cancers. However, the crucial concern in the design of case-control studies is choosing case and control samples, especially a proper control population, given the explicit diagnostic criteria for cancers. Ideal controls should be a general group of persons without the disease of interest, from which qualified cases arise once diagnosed. This general group does not exclude those with other kinds of disease, whereas no relationship should be expected between the healthy status of the control and the investigated ‘risk factor’ because the correlation may exaggerate or underestimate the overall estimated OR [59].

Controls selected in studies investigating the association between the -160C/A polymorphism and prostate cancer risk could be divided into healthy [30], [32], healthy matched [31], [33], [35], [38], benign prostatic hyperplasia [29], healthy and benign prostatic hyperplasia [34], [37] and benign prostatic hyperplasia or others [36]. Subsequent subgroup analysis stratified by controls in data sets of prostate cancer indicated homogeneity in each strata, indicating that the between-study variance in the prostate subgroup resulted from different controls. However, it should also be noted that the reduced heterogeneity may also result from a reduction in power for the Q-test because of the small sample size in some subgroups.

Furthermore, a question arose because of the low expression level of E-cadherin in benign prostatic hyperplasia [60], [61] and urothelial diseases [62], [63], which could also have resulted from the -160A polymorphism in the promoter region of E-cadherin. If the relationship between the -160C/A polymorphism of E-cadherin and benign prostatic hyperplasia and other urothelial diseases could not be excluded, the selection of patients with these diseases as controls may not be suitable. We tested Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium at the polymorphism site in the control samples, and deviation could be a symptom of disease association [64]. However, there was no guarantee that following Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium excluded a relationship between allele distribution and susceptible diseases [65].

Deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in a random sample could be due to inbreeding, population stratification, or selection, and may be indicative of problematic assays [64], [65]. Heterogeneity in evidence concerning urothelial cancer was successfully reduced to zero after the exclusion of studies that significantly deviated from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, what may indicate an inappropriate choice of control samples in those studies. We observed that the estimated OR qualitatively changed with or without excluding studies in -160A carriers, although it was maintained in AA homozygotes. It may not be necessary to consider deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in patients, while it should be a prerequisite for control or random samples to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

The Harbord test detected significant publication bias in -160A carriers with urothelial cancer. However, excluding two data sets [53], [54] that deviated from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium effectively removed not only the significant heterogeneity but also the publication bias (P = 0.166). Additionally, the estimated pooled OR no longer indicated any predisposition in -160A carriers (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.98–1.43). Significant publication bias was also detected in -160A carriers with prostate cancer by the Harbord test, indicating ‘small-study effects’ in the data. Small studies are systematically biased toward a higher association, which may due to either their poor methodological quality or their biased choice of high-risk groups [8]. More studies are needed to properly address the bias of the existing data concerning -160A carriers and prostate cancer, especially studies with a large sample size and negative results.

We noted that excluding the dataset of Grunhage et al. [24] from data concerning colorectal cancer reduced its moderate heterogeneity to low, and the overall estimated ORs were quantitatively changed. The excluded dataset investigated the association between the -160C/A polymorphism and familial colorectal cancer, which is a specific type of cancer accounting for approximately 20% of colorectal cancer. The strong family history suggested additional inherited susceptibility factors that are yet to be defined [24]. The inherent difference between familial and sporadic colorectal cancer may lead to stratification of case samples; however, further subgroup analysis stratified by these types was not applicable due to unavailability of the exact type of each case from the original data.

In summary, the combined analysis of these case-control studies indicated that -160A of the E-cadherin gene is a tumor susceptibility allele for the development of urothelial and prostate cancers; however, this conclusion is based on unadjusted results, and more studies are needed. The AA homozygote carriers are at a higher risk for the development of prostate and urothelial cancers. The association between the -160A allele and lung, nasopharyngeal, thyroid, endometrial and oral cancer indicated by single studies needs further validation.

Supporting Information

Figure S1.

The flow diagram for the review process and outcomes of inclusion and exclusion.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040219.s001

(TIF)

Figure S2.

Meta-analysis of -160A association with fourteen types of cancers (as of March 2012). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are displayed at a logarithmic scale. Events and total represent the number of -160A allele carriers and all the genotypes respectively.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040219.s002

(TIF)

Table S1.

Characteristics of the 47 case-control studies included in this meta-analysis.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040219.s003

(DOC)

Table S2.

Distribution of three genotypes at the E-cadherin -160C/A polymorphic site among case and control samples from 47 case-control studies in this meta-analysis.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040219.s004

(DOC)

Table S3.

Detailed information on the assessment of evidence in each cancer type.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040219.s005

(DOC)

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: LW GW. Performed the experiments: LW GW. Analyzed the data: LW GW CL. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: CL BF JK. Wrote the paper: LW GW CL JK. Financial support: JK.

References

  1. 1. Wong AS, Gumbiner BM (2003) Adhesion-independent mechanism for suppression of tumor cell invasion by E-cadherin. J Cell Biol 161: 1191–1203.
  2. 2. Li LC, Chui RM, Sasaki M, Nakajima K, Perinchery G, et al. (2000) A single nucleotide polymorphism in the E-cadherin gene promoter alters transcriptional activities. Cancer Res 60: 873–876.
  3. 3. Wang GY, Lu CQ, Zhang RM, Hu XH, Luo ZW (2008) The E-cadherin gene polymorphism -160C→A and cancer risk: A HuGE review and meta-analysis of 26 case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 167: 7–14.
  4. 4. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327: 557–560.
  5. 5. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2004) Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med 23: 1663–1682.
  6. 6. Tobias A (1999) Assessing the influence of a single study in the meta-analysis estimate. Stata Tech Bull 8: 15–17.
  7. 7. Tobias A (2000) Update of metainf (abstract). Stata Tech Bull 10: 15.
  8. 8. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA (2006) A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 25(20): 3443–3457.
  9. 9. Ioannidis JP, Boffetta P, Little J, O’Brien TR, Uitterlinden AG, et al. (2008) Assessment of cumulative evidence on genetic associations: interim guidelines. Int J Epidemiol 37(1): 120–132.
  10. 10. Langevin SM, Ioannidis JP, Vineis P, Taioli E (2010) Genetic Susceptibility to Environmental Carcinogens group (GSEC). Assessment of cumulative evidence for the association between glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms and lung cancer: application of the Venice interim guidelines. Pharmacogenet Genomics 20(10): 586–597.
  11. 11. Fei Y, Hu J, Liu S, Liu X, Wang F, et al. (2010) E-cadherin-160 C/A promoter polymorphism and risk of pancreatic carcinoma in Chinese population. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 197: 25–31.
  12. 12. Ben Nasr H, Hamrita B, Batbout M, Gabbouj S, Bouaouina N, et al. (2010) A single nucleotide polymorphism in the E-cadherin gene promoter -160 C/A is associated with risk of nasopharyngeal cancer. Clin Chim Acta 411: 1253–1257.
  13. 13. Cattaneo F, Venesio T, Molatore S, Russo A, Fiocca R, et al. (2006) Functional analysis and case-control study of -160C/A polymorphism in the E-cadherin gene promoter: association with cancer risk. Anticancer Res 26: 4627–4632.
  14. 14. Li Y, Liang J, Kang S, Dong Z, Wang N, et al. (2008) E-cadherin gene polymorphisms and haplotype associated with the occurrence of epithelial ovarian cancer in Chinese. Gynecol Oncol 108: 409–414.
  15. 15. Chien MH, Chou LS, Chung TT, Lin CH, Chou MY, et al. (2012) Effects of E-cadherin (CDH1) gene promoter polymorphisms on the risk and clinicopathologic development of oral cancer. Head Neck. 34: 405–411.
  16. 16. Chien MH, Yeh KT, Li YC, Hsieh YH, Lin CH, et al. (2011) Effects of E-cadherin (CDH1) gene promoter polymorphisms on the risk and clinicopathological development of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 104: 299–304.
  17. 17. Wang YX, Zhao L, Wang XY, Liu CM, Yu SG (2011) Association between E-cadherin (CDH1) polymorphisms and papillary thyroid carcinoma risk in Han Chinese population. Endocrine. 2011 Dec 23. [Epub ahead of print].
  18. 18. Jacobs G, Hellmig S, Huse K, Titz A, Rfanke A, et al. (2011) Polymorphisms in the 3'-untranslated region of the CDH1 gene are a risk factor for primary gastric diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Haematologica. 96: 987–995.
  19. 19. Wang GY, Hu XH, Lu CQ, Su CC, Luo SJ, et al. (2008) Promoter-hypermethylation associated defective expression of E-cadherin in primary non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 62: 162–172.
  20. 20. Zhang XF, Wang YM, Wang R, Wei LZ, Li Y, et al. (2005) [Correlation of E-cadherin polymorphisms to esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and gastric cardiac adenocarcinoma]. (Article in Chinese). Ai Zheng 24: 513–519.
  21. 21. Nakamura A, Shimazaki T, Kaneko K, Shibata M, Matsumura T, et al. (2002) Characterization of DNA polymorphisms in the E-cadherin gene (CDH1) promoter region. Mutat Res 502: 19–24.
  22. 22. Lei H, Sjöberg-Margolin S, Salahshor S, Werelius B, Jandáková E, et al. (2002) CDH1 mutations are present in both ductal and lobular breast cancer, but promoter allelic variants show no detectable breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer 98: 199–204.
  23. 23. Yu JC, Hsu HM, Chen ST, Hsu GC, Huang CS, et al. (2006) Breast cancer risk associated with genotypic polymorphism of the genes involved in the estrogen-receptor-signaling pathway: a multigenic study on cancer susceptibility. J Biomed Sci 13: 419–432.
  24. 24. Grünhage F, Jungck M, Lamberti C, Berg C, Becker U, et al. (2008) Association of familial colorectal cancer with variants in the E-cadherin (CDH1) and cyclin D1 (CCND1) genes. Int J Colorectal Dis 23: 147–154.
  25. 25. Tan XL, Nieters A, Kropp S, Hoffmeister M, Brenner H, et al. (2008) The association of cyclin D1 G870A and E-cadherin C-160A polymorphisms with the risk of colorectal cancer in a case control study and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 122: 2573–2580.
  26. 26. Pittman AM, Twiss P, Broderick P, Lubbe S, Chandler I, et al. (2009) The CDH1–160C>A polymorphism is a risk factor for colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer 125: 1622–1625.
  27. 27. Porter TR, Richards FM, Houlston RS, Evans DG, Jankowski JA, et al. (2002) Contribution of cyclin d1 (CCND1) and E-cadherin (CDH1) polymorphisms to familial and sporadic colorectal cancer. Oncogene 21: 1928–1933.
  28. 28. Shin Y, Kim IJ, Kang HC, Park JH, Park HW, et al. (2004) A functional polymorphism (-347 G–>GA) in the E-cadherin gene is associated with colorectal cancer. Carcinogenesis 25: 2173–2176.
  29. 29. Goto T, Nakano M, Ito S, Ehara H, Yamamoto N, et al. (2007) Significance of an E-cadherin gene promoter polymorphism for risk and disease severity of prostate cancer in a Japanese population. Urology 70: 127–130.
  30. 30. Cybulski C, Wokołorczyk D, Jakubowska A, Gliniewicz B, Sikorski A, et al. (2007) DNA variation in MSR1, RNASEL and E-cadherin genes and prostate cancer in Poland. Urol Int 79: 44–49.
  31. 31. Jonsson BA, Adami HO, Hägglund M, Bergh A, Göransson I, et al. (2004) -160C/A polymorphism in the E-cadherin gene promoter and risk of hereditary, familial and sporadic prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 109: 348–352.
  32. 32. Pookot D, Li LC, Tabatabai ZL, Tanaka Y, Greene KL, et al. (2006) The E-cadherin -160 C/A polymorphism and prostate cancer risk in white and black American men. J Urol 176: 793–796.
  33. 33. Bonilla C, Mason T, Long L, Ahaghotu C, Chen W, et al. (2006) E-cadherin polymorphisms and haplotypes influence risk for prostate cancer. Prostate 66: 546–556.
  34. 34. Kamoto T, Isogawa Y, Shimizu Y, Minamiguchi S, Kinoshita H, et al. (2005) Association of a genetic polymorphism of the E-cadherin gene with prostate cancer in a Japanese population. Jpn J Clin Oncol 35: 158–161.
  35. 35. Tsukino H, Kuroda Y, Imai H, Nakao H, Qiu D, et al. (2004) Lack of evidence for the association of E-cadherin gene polymorphism with increased risk or progression of prostate cancer. Urol Int 72: 203–207.
  36. 36. Verhage BA, van Houwelingen K, Ruijter TE, Kiemeney LA, Schalken JA (2002) Single-nucleotide polymorphism in the E-cadherin gene promoter modifies the risk of prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 100: 683–685.
  37. 37. Hajdinjak T, Toplak N (2004) E-cadherin polymorphism -160C/A and prostate cancer. Int J cancer 109: 401–408.
  38. 38. Lindström S, Wiklund F, Jonsson BA, Adami HO, Bälter K, et al. (2005) Comprehensive genetic evaluation of common E-cadherin sequence variants and prostate cancer risk: strong confirmation of functional promoter SNP. Hum Genet 118: 339–347.
  39. 39. Medina-Franco H, Ramos-De la Medina A, Vizcaino G, Medina-Franco JL (2007) Single nucleotide polymorphisms in the promoter region of the E-cadherin gene in gastric cancer: case-control study in a young Mexican population. Ann Surg Oncol 14: 2246–2249.
  40. 40. Yamada H, Shinmura K, Ikeda S, Tao H, Otani T, et al. (2007) Association between CDH1 haplotypes and gastric cancer risk in a Japanese population. Scand J Gastroenterol 42: 1479–1485.
  41. 41. Zhang B, Pan K, Liu Z, Zhou J, Gu L, et al. (2008) Genetic polymorphisms of the E-cadherin promoter and risk of sporadic gastric carcinoma in Chinese populations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17: 2402–2408.
  42. 42. Jenab M, McKay JD, Ferrari P, Biessy C, Laing S, et al. (2008) CDH1 gene polymorphisms, smoking, Helicobacter pylori infection and the risk of gastric cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-EURGAST). Eur J Cancer 44: 774–780.
  43. 43. Corso G, Berardi A, Marrelli D, Pedrazzani C, Garosi L, et al. (2009) CDH1 C-160A promoter polymorphism and gastric cancer risk. Eur J Cancer Prev 18: 46–49.
  44. 44. Al-Moundhri MS, Al-Khanbashi M, Al-Kindi M, Al-Nabhani M, Burney IA, et al. (2010) Association of E-cadherin (CDH1) gene polymorphisms and gastric cancer risk. World J Gastroenterol 16: 3432–3436.
  45. 45. Kuraoka K, Oue N, Yokozaki H, Kitadai Y, Ito R, et al. (2003) Correlation of a single nucleotide polymorphism in the E-cadherin gene promoter with tumorigenesis and progression of gastric carcinoma in Japan. Int J Oncol 23: 421–427.
  46. 46. Song CG, Huang CM, Liu X, Lu HS, Zhang XF, et al. (2005) [Association of -160(C→A) polymorphism in CDH1 gene with gastric cancer risk in Fujian Chinese population]. (Article in Chinese). Zhonghua Yi Xue Yi Chuan Xue Za Zhi 22: 557–559.
  47. 47. Lu Y, Xu YC, Shen J, Yu RB, Niu JY, et al. (2005) E-cadherin gene C-160A promoter polymorphism and risk of non-cardia gastric cancer in a Chinese population. World J Gastroenterol 11: 56–60.
  48. 48. Park WS, Cho YG, Park JY, Kim CJ, Lee JH, et al. (2003) A single nucleotide polymorphism in the E-cadherin gene promoter -160 is not associated with risk of Korean gastric cancer. J Korean Med Sc 18: 501–504.
  49. 49. Wu MS, Huang SP, Chang YT, Lin MT, Shun CT, et al. (2002) Association of the -160 C→A promoter polymorphism of E-cadherin gene with gastric carcinoma risk. Cancer 94: 1443–1448.
  50. 50. Humar B, Graziano F, Cascinu S, Catalano V, Ruzzo AM, et al. (2002) Association of CDH1 haplotypes with susceptibility to sporadic diffuse gastric cancer. Oncogene 21: 8192–8195.
  51. 51. Pharoah PD, Oliveira C, Machado JC, Keller G, Vogelsang H, et al. (2002) CDH1 c-160a promotor polymorphism is not associated with risk of stomach cancer. Int J Cancer 101: 196–197.
  52. 52. Shin Y, Kim IJ, Kang HC, Park JH, Park HR, et al. (2004) The E-cadherin -347G/GA promoter polymorphism and its effect on transcriptional regulation. Carcinogenesis 25: 895–899.
  53. 53. Zhang X, Ma X, Zhu QG, Li LC, Chen Z, et al. (2003) Association between a C/A single nucleotide polymorphism of the E-cadherin gene promoter and transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol 170: 1379–1382.
  54. 54. Ma X, Xu H, Zheng T, Li HZ, Shi TP, et al. (2008) DNA polymorphisms in exon 1 and promoter of the CDH1 gene and relevant risk of transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. BJU Int 102: 633–636.
  55. 55. Tsukino H, Kuroda Y, Nakao H, Imai H, Inatomi H, et al. (2003) E-cadherin gene polymorphism and risk of urothelial cancer. Cancer Lett 195: 53–58.
  56. 56. Kiemeney LA, van Houwelingen KP, Bogaerts M, Witjes JA, Swinkels DW, et al. (2006) Polymorphisms in the E-cadherin (CDH1) gene promoter and the risk of bladder cancer. Eur J Cancer 42: 3219–3227.
  57. 57. Ricketts C, Zeegers MP, Lubinski J, Maher ER (2009) Analysis of germline variants in CDH1, IGFBP3, MMP1, MMP3, STK15 and VEGF in familial and sporadic renal cell carcinoma. PLoS One 4: e6037.
  58. 58. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315: 629–634.
  59. 59. Wang JH, editor. (2007) Beijing: People’s Health Publishing House. Epidemiology (in Chinese), 6th ed.
  60. 60. Akakura S, Huang C, Nelson PJ, Foster B, Gelman IH (2008) Loss of the SSeCKS/Gravin/AKAP12 gene results in prostatic hyperplasia. Cancer Res 68: 5096–5103.
  61. 61. Alonso-Magdalena P, Brössner C, Reiner A, Cheng G, Sugiyama N, et al. (2009) A role for epithelial-mesenchymal transition in the etiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 2859–2863.
  62. 62. Koksal IT, Ishak Y, Usta M, Danisman A, Guntekin E, et al. (2007) Varicocele-induced testicular dysfunction may be associated with disruption of blood-testis barrier. Arch Androl 53: 43–48.
  63. 63. Shie JH, Kuo HC (2011) Higher levels of cell apoptosis and abnormal E-cadherin expression in the urothelium are associated with inflammation in patients with interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome. BJU Int 108: E136–E141.
  64. 64. Balding DJ (2006) A tutorial on statistical methods for population association studies. Nat Rev Genet 7: 781–791.
  65. 65. Wittke-Thompson JK, Pluzhnikov A, Cox NJ (2002) Rational inferences about departures from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Am J Hum Genet 76: 967–986.