The association between XRCC3 rs1799794 polymorphism and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 34 case-control studies

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-454818/v1

Background: Studies on the XRCC3 rs1799794 polymorphism show that this polymorphism is involved in a variety of cancers, but its specific relationships or effects are not consistent. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the association between rs1799794 polymorphism and susceptibility to cancer.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for eligible studies through June 11, 2019. All analyses were performed with Stata 14.0. Subgroup analyses were performed by cancer type, ethnicity, source of control, and detection method. A total of 37 studies with 23,537 cases and 30,649 controls were included in this meta-analysis.

Results: XRCC3 rs1799794 increased cancer risk in the dominant model and heterozygous model (GG+AG vs. AA: odds ratio [OR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00–1.08, P = 0.051; AG vs. AA: OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.00–1.01, P = 0.015). The existence of rs1799794 increased the risk of breast cancer and thyroid cancer, but reduced the risk of ovarian cancer. In addition, rs1799794 increased the risk of cancer in the Caucasian population.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirms that XRCC3 rs1799794 is related to cancer risk, especially increased risk for breast cancer and thyroid cancer and reduced risk for ovarian cancer. However, well-designed large-scale studies are required to further evaluate the results.

Epigenetics & Genomics

rs1799794

polymorphism

cancer

risk

meta-analysis

Cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide, and the number of patients with cancer is increasing [1]. The occurrence of cancer is related to many factors, including environmental, lifestyle, genetic and other factors. Among them, gene mutation is a kind of genetic factor, which has a great influence on cancer risk [2]. The mutation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is related to the increase risk of breast cancer [3]. XPF rs2276466 polymorphism is related to neurogenic cancer [4].

X-ray repair cross-complementing group 3 (XRCC3), functions in the homologous recombination (HR) repair of DNA crosslinks [5] and double-strand breaks [6]. Based on the function of XRCC3, XRCC3 gene mutations are related to the occurrence and development of many diseases. For example, XRCC3 241Thr/Met genotype promotes left ventricular hypertrophy by inhibiting DNA damage repair [7]. Mutations in the XRCC3 gene affect mitochondrial DNA integrity [8]. XRCC3 rs861539 polymorphism is associated with poor prognosis of breast cancer patients [9]. The mutation sites that have been studied more about the relationship between XRCC3 gene and cancer are rs861539, rs1799794 and rs1799796 [10]. However, results remain fairly conflicting rather than conclusive. A number of meta-analyses have investigated the relationship between rs861539 and susceptibility to various cancers [11-33]. However, there have been few meta-studies on rs1799794 and susceptibility to cancer [28, 30, 31, 33, 34]. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to analyze the relationship between rs1799794 and susceptibility to cancer on the basis of more data.

Search strategies

We comprehensively searched five databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus) for research published as of June 11, 2019, using relevant MeSH terms and entry terms. The keywords of XRCC3 included X-ray repair cross complementing 3, rs1799794, 4541A/G, XRCC3. The MeSH term and entry terms of polymorphism were genetic polymorphism [MeSH terms]; polymorphisms, genetic; genetic polymorphisms; genetic polymorphism; polymorphism (genetics); polymorphisms (genetics); polymorphism, single nucleotide; nucleotide polymorphism, single; nucleotide polymorphisms, single; polymorphisms, single nucleotide; single nucleotide polymorphisms; polymorphisms; polymorphism; variant; mutation; single nucleotide polymorphism; SNP. The MeSH term and entry terms of cancer were neoplasm [MeSH terms], neoplasms, neoplasia, neoplasias, neoplasm, tumors, tumor, cancer, cancers, carcinoma, carcinogenesis, tumour. Furthermore, we refined the search results of related studies by looking at the list of references included in each article.

Selection criteria

Relevant studies were included in accordance with the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, which were similar to those described in the previous study (PMID: 30867406). Original case-control study focused on the relationship between rs1799794 and cancer risk with the frequency of XRCC3 rs1799794 mutant genotypes were included. While conference abstracts or reports, reviews or meta-analyses, republished articles, and studies with insufficient data were excluded.

Data extraction and quality assessment

The following data from each selected article were collected: the surname of the first author, the publication year, country, ethnicity, cancer types, and methods of genotyping XRCC3 rs1799794 polymorphism. The quality of eligible case-control studies was estimated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [35].

Statistical analysis

The relationship between XRCC3 rs1799794 polymorphisms and cancer risk were evaluated using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) under five genetic models (G vs. A, GG vs. AA, GG+GA vs. AA, GG vs. GA+AA, GA vs. AA).as previous study. If P < 0.05 or the 95% CI did not include 1, the result was considered statistically significant. Cochran’s Q with chi-square (with P_Q) and the Higgins I² test were used to determine heterogeneity in between-study variability. When P_Q < 0.1 or I² > 25% indicated significant heterogeneity [36-38], we analyzed the data using a random effects model [39]. If the opposite held, a fixed effects model was chosen. We also performed subgroup analyses and a sensitivity analysis to explore sources of heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses stratified studies by cancer type (ovarian cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, bladder cancer, lung cancer, other), ethnicity (Arabian, Asian, Caucasian, mixed), sample size (<100, >100), the publication year (≤2010, >2010), detection method (PCR-RFLP, sequencing, TaqMan, PCR, ND, other), and source of control (HB, PB, mixed, nested). We assessed publication bias using funnel plots and Egger’s test (P < 0.05). Statistical calculations were performed with Stata 14.0.

Literature search and study characteristics

Finally, 3,467 potentially relevant published works were identified (997 in PubMed, 27 in the Cochrane library, 855 in Embase, 696 in Scopus, and 889 in Web of Science). Of these, duplicates (1,959) and works not related to cancer and rs1799794 polymorphism (1,451) were excluded. Then 23 of these studies were excluded after reviewing full texts. The remaining 37 works (43 studies) were included in this meta-analysis [40-76]. Because two studies in Auranen et al. (2005) were duplicated in Quaye et al. (2009), we only extracted data from these studies from Auranen et al. (2005) to avoid duplication; thus, one article included four studies [66], and three articles included two studies each [68, 70, 71]. The flow chart of the literature selection process is shown in Figure 1.

There were a total of 23,537 cases and 30,649 controls in these 37 works, and 3 were conducted among Arabians [40, 48, 55], 14 among Asians [41, 42, 45-47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 66, 67], and 24 among Caucasians [43, 44, 51, 52, 57, 60-62, 64, 66, 69-76]; 2 were conducted among mixed populations [63, 65]. In addition, in terms of cancer type, ovarian cancer (n = 4) [40, 62, 70], acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n = 3) [41, 52, 57], breast cancer (n = 13) [44, 48, 49, 55, 61, 66, 68, 73, 75], thyroid cancer (n = 4) [42, 46, 47, 67], bladder cancer (n = 4) [45, 63, 65, 69], lung cancer (n = 3) [53, 59, 72], and other cancer (hepatocellular cancer, leiomyoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, osteosarcoma, oral cancer, glioma, head and neck cancer, myeloma, endometrial cancer, colorectal adenoma, melanoma skin cancer) [43, 50, 51, 54, 56, 58, 60, 64, 71, 74, 76] were studied. The basic information of each study is presented in Table 1. And we took sensitivity analysis for studies that do not conform to HWE.

Meta-analysis and subgroup analyses

The value of I² in the five genetic models was greater than 25%, and P_Q < 0.10, so pooled ORs for the five genetic models were calculated with a random effects model. There was no obvious correlation between rs1799794 and cancer risk (P_Z > 0.05; Table 2).

Subgroup analyses were then performed based on cancer type, ethnicity, detection method, the publication year, source of control, and sample size to investigate sources of heterogeneity (Table 3). In the subgroup analysis based on cancer type, a significantly increased risk for thyroid cancer was observed in the five models (G vs. A: OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.01–1.61, I² = 71.2%; GG+AG vs. AA: OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.15–1.61, I² = 55.4%; GG vs. AA+AG: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.09–1.75, I² = 29.8%; GG vs. AA: OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.17–1.93, I² = 45.7%; AG vs. AA: OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.05–1.53, I² = 33.2%), a significantly increased risk for breast cancer was found in the heterozygous model (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.02–1.13, I² = 42.3%), and a decreased risk for ovarian cancer was found in the recessive model and homozygous model (GG vs. AA+AG: OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.51–0.93, I² = 0.0%; GG vs. AA: OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.53–0.96, I² = 0.0%).

In the subgroup analysis based on ethnicity, rs1799794 was associated with increased cancer risk in the Caucasian population according to the heterozygous model (AG vs. AA: OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01–1.10, I² = 0.0%). In the subgroup analysis based on source of control, we found a significantly increased risk for PB (population based) in the dominant model and heterozygous model (GG+AG vs. AA: OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.01–1.12, I² = 0.0%; AG vs. AA: OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.03–1.15, I² = 0.0%). In the subgroup analysis based on detection method, sequencing was associated with a significantly increased cancer risk in the allele model, dominant model, and heterozygous model (G vs. A: OR = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.37–4.94, I² = 0.0%; GG+AG vs. AA: OR = 4.00, 95% CI = 1.82–8.80, I² = 0.0%; AG vs. AA: OR = 4.00, 95% CI = 1.79–8.94, I² = 0.0%). In the subgroup analysis based on sample size, AG carriers were 2.82 times more likely to develop cancer than AA carriers (95% CI = 1.42–5.57, P_Z = 0.003). In the subgroup analysis based on the publication year, studies published before 2010 showed that AG carriers were 1.05 times more likely to develop cancer than AA carriers (95% CI = 1.00–1.10, P_Z = 0.047).

Publication bias

The shape of the funnel plots (Figure 2) and Egger’s test (allele: P = 0.108, dominant: P = 0.177, recessive: P = 0.240, homozygous: P = 0.132, heterozygous: P = 0.177) showed no publication bias.

Sensitivity analysis

Eight studies [41, 42, 48-50, 53, 54, 56] had P_HWE < 0.05, but for two studies [51, 63] P_HWE was not available. We compared the combined results before and after excluding these 10 studies and there were slight changes in the results. When the subgroup analysis was performed according to cancer type, there were no significant associations between rs1799794 polymorphism and increased risk for thyroid cancer in the recessive model, homozygous model, or heterozygous model (GG vs. AA+AG: OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.87–1.55, I² = 0.0%; GG vs. AA: OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.90–1.69, I² = 0.0%; AG vs. AA: OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.98–1.51, I² = 49.4%), and rs3116496 was related to a decreased risk for lung cancer in the five models (A vs. G: OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.70–0.92, I² = 18.1%; GG+AG vs. AA: OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.62–0.93, I² = 4.9%; GG vs. AA+AG: OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.59–0.96, I² = 0.0%; GG vs. AA: OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.49–0.87, I² = 0.0%; AG vs. AA: OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.64–0.99, I² = 0.0%); no changes were observed for the other cancers. No significant changes were found in the subgroup analyses by ethnicity and source of control.

Our study shows that XRCC3 rs1799794 is irrelevant to cancer risk. In addition, the risk for thyroid cancer and breast cancer increase significantly in patients with rs1799794, and Caucasian populations are more likely to develop these cancers while having a decreased risk for ovarian cancer. We excluded articles that did not conform to HWE and reanalyzed the data. Compared to the previous results, rs3116496 was related to a decreased risk for lung cancer in the five models, although the other results were not much changed (data not shown).

Moderate heterogeneity was found in this meta-analysis. First, we used random models when significant heterogeneity. Second, we performed subgroup analyses to explore sources of heterogeneity. As shown in Table 3, in the subgroup analysis based on ethnicity, heterogeneity increased in Arabian/Asian populations but was 0% in Caucasian populations, which suggests that ethnicity may be a factor in heterogeneity. Furthermore, we analyzed studies stratified by cancer type, detection method, source of control, and sample size. Ethnicity, cancer type, source of control, and sample size may be the source of inter-research heterogeneity. In addition, a sensitivity analysis suggested that the current findings were reliable.

To date, five meta-analyses of the impact of rs1799794 on cancer risk have been performed [28, 30, 31, 33, 34] on rs1799794 and susceptibility to pan-cancer [28], breast cancer [30, 34], bladder cancer [33], and ovarian cancer [31]. To the best of our knowledge, ours is currently the most comprehensive meta-analysis of correlations between rs1799794 polymorphisms and cancer. There are many differences between the results of this study and previous studies. According to Qiu et al.’s research on rs1799794 and susceptibility to breast cancer, which included four studies in three papers, rs1799794 was associated with a statistically significant increase in cancer risk in the dominant model (GG+AG vs. AA: OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.01–1.17, P_H = 0.15), whereas our results showed an increased risk for breast cancer in AG carriers, different from the protective effect found previously [48]. In addition, our study found that the G allele might be a dominant gene and found an increased risk for thyroid cancer.

Our study included a large number of samples and conducted a stratified analysis, which played an important role in the reliability of the research results. At the same time, there are problems that cannot be ignored: the presence of heterogeneity that may due to ethnicity, source of control, status, or cancer type; the lack of relevant data published in other languages and evaluation of the interaction between cancer-related factors.

In conclusion, this meta-analysis found no association between XRCC3 rs1799794 and cancer risk, but XRCC3 rs1799794 was associated with breast cancer and thyroid cancer as well as with Caucasian populations. In addition, detection method, source of control, and sample size played a role in heterogeneity and in the results. Well-designed large-scale studies are required to further evaluate the results.

SNP: single nucleotide polymorphism; XRCC3: X-ray repair cross-complementing group 3; HR: homologous recombination; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by the Applied Basic Foundation of Yunnan Province (No. 202001AT070009), Yunnan Health Training Project of High Level Talents (No. D-2019032). The funding bodies had no role in the research design, the conduct of the study, or the decision to publish the results.

Authors’ contributions

WQL: Drafting of manuscript/Analysis and interpretation of data. SMM, LL, ZYK, HBZ: Acquisition of data/Analysis and interpretation of data/Critical revision. JY: Study conception and design/Analysis and interpretation of data/Critical revision. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A: Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2018, 68(6):394-424.
Roukos DH: Genome-wide association studies: how predictable is a person's cancer risk?Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2009, 9(4):389-392.
Li Q, Guan R, Qiao Y, Liu C, He N, Zhang X, Jia X, Sun H, Yu J, Xu L: Association between the BRCA2 rs144848 polymorphism and cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017, 8(24):39818-39832.
Liu Y, Liu K, Zhao X, Sun Y, Ma N, Tang L, Yang H, Gao X, Yan L, Yuan M et al: Impact of XPF rs2276466 polymorphism on cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis. Biosci Rep 2019, 39(5).
Risch N, Merikangas K: The future of genetic studies of complex human diseases. Science (New York, NY) 1996, 273(5281):1516-1517.
Khanna KK, Jackson SP: DNA double-strand breaks: signaling, repair and the cancer connection. Nature genetics 2001, 27(3):247-254.
Ariyandy A, Sakai C, Ishida M, Mizuta R, Miyagawa K, Tashiro S, Kinomura A, Hiraaki K, Ueda K, Yoshizumi M et al: XRCC3 polymorphism is associated with hypertension-induced left ventricular hypertrophy. Hypertens Res 2018, 41(6):426-434.
Mishra A, Saxena S, Kaushal A, Nagaraju G: RAD51C/XRCC3 Facilitates Mitochondrial DNA Replication and Maintains Integrity of the Mitochondrial Genome. Mol Cell Biol 2018, 38(3).
Alkasaby MK, Abd El-Fattah AI, Ibrahim IH, Abd El-Samie HS: Polymorphism of XRCC3 in Egyptian Breast Cancer Patients. Pharmgenomics Pers Med 2020, 13:273-282.
Auranen A, Song H, Waterfall C, Dicioccio RA, Kuschel B, Kjaer SK, Hogdall E, Hogdall C, Stratton J, Whittemore AS et al: Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and epithelial ovarian cancer risk. Int J Cancer 2005, 117(4):611-618.
Liu L, Miao L, Ji G, Qiang F, Liu Z, Fan Z: Association between XRCC1 and XRCC3 polymorphisms and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 23 case-control studies. Molecular biology reports 2013, 40(6):3943-3952.
Shi CL, Li R, Xiong LW, Gu AQ, Han BH, Gu W: Lack of association between XRCC3 rs861539 (C > T) polymorphism and lung cancer risks: an update meta-analysis. Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine 2013, 34(3):1819-1824.
Adel Fahmideh M, Schwartzbaum J, Frumento P, Feychting M: Association between DNA repair gene polymorphisms and risk of glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuro-oncology 2014, 16(6):807-814.
Chen YT, Chen SY, Lin YJ, Huang CM, Chang YY, Tsai FJ: Association between XRCC3 Thr241Met SNP and systemic lupus erythematosus in Han Chinese patients in Taiwan, and a meta-analysis of healthy populations. Journal of clinical laboratory analysis 2014, 28(2):118-123.
Ma Q, Zhao Y, Wang S, Zhang X, Zhang J, Du M, Li L, Zhang Y: Genetic polymorphisms of XRCC3 Thr241Met (C18067T, rs861539) and bladder cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 18 research studies. Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine 2014, 35(2):1473-1480.
Yan Y, Liang H, Li T, Guo S, Li M, Qin X, Li S: Association of XRCC3 Thr241Met polymorphism and leukemia risk: evidence from a meta-analysis. Leukemia & lymphoma 2014, 55(9):2130-2134.
Zhang EJ, Cui ZG, Xu ZF, Duan WY, Huang SH, Tan XX, Yin ZH, Sun CF, Lu L: Lack of influence of an XRCC3 gene polymorphism on oral cancer susceptibility: meta-analysis. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP 2014, 15(23):10329-10334.
Bei L, Xiao-Dong T, Yu-Fang G, Jian-Ping S, Zhao-Yu Y: DNA repair gene XRCC3 Thr241Met polymorphisms and lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Bulletin du cancer 2015, 102(4):332-339.
Cheng S, Wang L, Wang L, Wang Z: Association of XRCC3 gene rs861539 polymorphism with gastric cancer risk: evidence from a case-control study and a meta-analysis. International journal of clinical and experimental pathology 2015, 8(2):1911-1919.
Guo CX, Yang GP, Pei Q, Yin JY, Tan HY, Yuan H: DNA repair gene polymorphisms do not predict response to radiotherapy-based multimodality treatment of patients with rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP 2015, 16(2):713-718.
Cui Q, Zuo XY, Lian YF, Feng QS, Xia YF, He CY, Chen LZ, Jia WH, Mai HQ, Zeng YX et al: Association between XRCC3 Thr241Met polymorphism and nasopharyngeal carcinoma risk: evidence from a large-scale case-control study and a meta-analysis. Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine 2016, 37(11):14825-14830.
Qi L, Yu HQ, Zhang Y, Ding LJ, Zhao DH, Lv P, Wang WY, Xu Y: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Genetic Associations Between Key Polymorphic Loci in DNA Repair Genes and Glioma Risk. Molecular neurobiology 2017, 54(2):1314-1325.
Sobhan MR, Forat Yazdi M, Mazaheri M, Zare Shehneh M, Neamatzadeh H: Association between the DNA Repair Gene XRCC3 rs861539 Polymorphism and Risk of Osteosarcoma: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP 2017, 18(2):549-555.
Tan LM, Qiu CF, Zhu T, Jin YX, Li X, Yin JY, Zhang W, Zhou HH, Liu ZQ: Genetic Polymorphisms and Platinum-based Chemotherapy Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Genetic Epidemiology Study Based Meta-analysis. Scientific reports 2017, 7(1):5593.
Yu SN, Liu GF, Li XF, Fu BH, Dong LX, Zhang SH: Evaluation of Prediction of Polymorphisms of DNA Repair Genes on the Efficacy of Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis. Journal of cellular biochemistry 2017, 118(12):4782-4791.
Wang X, Liu Z: Systematic meta-analysis of genetic variants associated with osteosarcoma susceptibility. Medicine 2018, 97(38):e12525.
Zhao Y, Zhao E, Zhang J, Chen Y, Ma J, Li H: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Association between Polymorphisms in XRCC1, ERCC2, and XRCC3 and Prognosis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of oncology 2019, 2019:2408946.
Han S, Zhang HT, Wang Z, Xie Y, Tang R, Mao Y, Li Y: DNA repair gene XRCC3 polymorphisms and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 48 case-control studies. European journal of human genetics : EJHG 2006, 14(10):1136-1144.
Dashti S, Taherian-Esfahani Z, Keshtkar A, Ghafouri-Fard S: Associations between XRCC3 Thr241Met polymorphisms and breast cancer risk: systematic-review and meta-analysis of 55 case-control studies. BMC medical genetics 2019, 20(1):79.
He XF, Wei W, Su J, Yang ZX, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Ding DP, Wang W: Association between the XRCC3 polymorphisms and breast cancer risk: meta-analysis based on case-control studies. Molecular biology reports 2012, 39(5):5125-5134.
Yuan C, Liu X, Yan S, Wang C, Kong B: Analyzing association of the XRCC3 gene polymorphism with ovarian cancer risk. Biomed Res Int 2014, 2014:648137.
Chai F, Liang Y, Chen L, Zhang F, Jiang J: Association between XRCC3 Thr241Met Polymorphism and Risk of Breast Cancer: Meta-Analysis of 23 Case-Control Studies. Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research 2015, 21:3231-3240.
Peng Q, Mo C, Tang W, Chen Z, Li R, Zhai L, Yang S, Wu J, Sui J, Li S: DNA repair gene XRCC3 polymorphisms and bladder cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Tumor Biol 2014, 35(3):1933-1944.
Qiu LX, Mao C, Yao L, Yu KD, Zhan P, Chen B, Liu HG, Yuan H, Zhang J, Xue K et al: XRCC3 5'-UTR and IVS5-14 polymorphisms and breast cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis. Breast cancer research and treatment 2010, 122(2):489-493.
Andreas S: Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European Journal of Epidemiology 2010, 25(9):603-605.
Attia J, Thakkinstian A, D'Este C: Meta-analyses of molecular association studies: methodologic lessons for genetic epidemiology. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2003, 56(4):297-303.
Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH: Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127(9):820-826.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327(7414):557-560.
DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986, 7(3):177-188.
Mackawy AMH, Shalaby SM, Megahed OY: DNA repair gene (XRCC3)polymorphisms and its association with ovarian carcinoma in Egyptian PATIENTS. Meta Gene 2019, 21.
Pei JS, Chang WS, Hsu PC, Chen CC, Cheng SP, Wang YC, Tsai CW, Shen TC, Bau DT: The contribution of XRCC3 genotypes to childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer Manage Res 2018, 10:5677-5684.
Sarwar R, Mahjabeen I, Bashir K, Saeed S, Kayani MA: Haplotype based analysis of XRCC3 gene polymorphisms in thyroid cancer. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017, 42(1):22-33.
De Mattia E, Cecchin E, Polesel J, Bignucolo A, Roncato R, Lupo F, Crovatto M, Buonadonna A, Tiribelli C, Toffoli G: Genetic biomarkers for hepatocellular cancer risk in a caucasian population. World J Gastroenterol 2017, 23(36):6674-6684.
Al Zoubi MS, Zavaglia K, Mazanti C, Al Hamad M, Al Batayneh K, Aljabali AAA, Bevilacqua G: Polymorphisms and mutations in GSTP1, RAD51, XRCC1 and XRCC3 genes in breast cancer patients. Int J Biol Markers 2017, 32(3):e337-e343.
Zhu G, Su H, Lu L, Guo H, Chen Z, Sun Z, Song R, Wang X, Li H, Wang Z: Association of nineteen polymorphisms from seven DNA repair genes and the risk for bladder cancer in gansu province of China. Oncotarget 2016, 7(21):31372-31383.
Yuan K, Huo M, Sun Y, Wu H, Chen H, Wang Y, Fu R: Association between x-ray repair cross-complementing group 3 (XRCC3) genetic polymorphisms and papillary thyroid cancer susceptibility in a Chinese Han population. Tumor Biol 2016, 37(1):979-987.
Yan L, Li Q, Li X, Ji H, Zhang L: Association studies between XRCC1, XRCC2, XRCC3 polymorphisms and differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Cell Physiol Biochem 2016, 38(3):1075-1084.
Ali AM, Abdulkareem H, Al Anazi M, Reddy Parine N, Shaik JP, Alamri A, Ali Khan Pathan A, Warsy A: Polymorphisms in DNA Repair Gene XRCC3 and Susceptibility to Breast Cancer in Saudi Females. BioMed Res Int 2016, 2016.
Su CH, Chang WS, Hu PS, Hsiao CL, Ji HX, Liao CH, Yueh TC, Chuang CL, Tsai CW, Hsu CM et al: Contribution of DNA double-strand break repair gene XRCC3 genotypes to triple-negative breast cancer risk. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 2015, 12(6):359-368.
Liu JC, Tsai CW, Hsu CM, Chang WS, Li CY, Liu SP, Shen WC, Bau DT: Contribution of double strand break repair gene XRCC3 genotypes to nasopharyngeal carcinoma risk in Taiwan. Chin J Physiol 2015, 58(1).
Goricar K, Kovac V, Jazbec J, Lamovec J, Dolzan V: Homologous Recombination Repair Polymorphisms and the Risk for Osteosarcoma. Journal of medical biochemistry 2015, 34(2):200-206.
Goričar K, Erčulj N, Faganel Kotnik B, Debeljak M, Hovnik T, Jazbec J, Dolžan V: The association of folate pathway and DNA repair polymorphisms with susceptibility to childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Gene 2015, 562(2):203-209.
Chen HJ, Chang WS, Hsia TC, Miao CE, Chen WC, Liang SJ, Chen AC, Chang JG, Tsai CW, Hsu CM et al: Contribution of genotype of DNA double-strand break repair gene XRCC3, gender, and smoking behavior to lung cancer risk in Taiwan. Anticancer Res 2015, 35(7):3893-3900.
Chang WS, Tsai CW, Wang JY, Ying TH, Hsiao TS, Chuang CL, Yueh TC, Liao CH, Hsu CM, Liu SP et al: Contribution of x-ray repair complementing defective repair in Chinese hamster cells 3 (XRCC3) genotype to leiomyoma risk. Anticancer Res 2015, 35(9):4691-4696.
Al Zoubi MS: X-ray repair cross-complementing protein 1 and 3 polymorphisms and susceptibility of breast cancer in a Jordanian population. Saudi Med J 2015, 36(10):1163-1167.
Tsai CW, Chang WS, Liu JC, Tsai MH, Lin CC, Bau DT: Contribution of DNA double-strand break repair gene XRCC3 genotypes to oral cancer susceptibility in Taiwan. Anticancer Res 2014, 34(6):2951-2956.
Smolkova B, Dusinska M, Hemminki K: NBN and XRCC3 genetic variants in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Cancer Epidemiol 2014.
Zhao P, Zou P, Zhao L, Yan W, Kang C, Jiang T, You Y: Genetic polymorphisms of DNA double-strand break repair pathway genes and glioma susceptibility. BMC Cancer 2013, 13.
He F, Chang SC, Wallar GM, Zhang ZF, Cai L: Association of XRCC3 and XRCC4 gene polymorphisms, family history of cancer and tobacco smoking with non-small-cell lung cancer in a Chinese population: A case-control study. J Hum Genet 2013, 58(10):679-685.
Gresner P, Gromadzinska J, Polanska K, Twardowska E, Jurewicz J, Wasowicz W: Genetic variability of Xrcc3 and Rad51 modulates the risk of head and neck cancer. Gene 2012, 504(2):166-174.
Vral A, Willems P, Claes K, Poppe B, Baeyens A, Perletti G, Thierens H: Combined effect of polymorphisms in Rad51 and XRCC3 on breast cancer risk and chromosomal radiosensitivity. Mol Med Rep 2011, 4(5):901-912.
Quaye L, Tyrer J, Ramus SJ, Song H, Wozniak E, DiCioccio RA, McGuire V, Hogdall E, Hogdall C, Blaakaer J et al: Association between common germline genetic variation in 94 candidate genes or regions and risks of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. PloS one 2009, 4(6):e5983.
Andrew AS, Mason RA, Kelsey KT, Schned AR, Marsit CJ, Nelson HH, Karagas MR: DNA repair genotype interacts with arsenic exposure to increase bladder cancer risk. Toxicology letters 2009, 187(1):10-14.
Hayden PJ, Tewari P, Morris DW, Staines A, Crowley D, Nieters A, Becker N, De sanjosé S, Foretova L, Maynadié M et al: Variation in DNA repair genes XRCC3, XRCC4, XRCC5 and susceptibility to myeloma. Hum Mol Genet 2007, 16(24):3117-3127.
Wu X, Gu J, Grossman HB, Amos CI, Etzel C, Huang M, Zhang Q, Millikan RE, Lerner S, Dinney CP et al: Bladder cancer predisposition: a multigenic approach to DNA-repair and cell-cycle-control genes. American journal of human genetics 2006, 78(3):464-479.
Pharoah P: Commonly studied single-nucleotide polymorphisms and breast cancer: Results from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98(19):1382-1396.
Ni HX, Bian JC, Shen Q, Tang HW, Zhu QX, Wu Y: Genetic polymorphisms of XRCC3 and susceptibility of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Fudan Univ J Med Sci 2006, 33(2):147-152.
García-Closas M, Egan KM, Newcomb PA, Brinton LA, Titus-Ernstoff L, Chanock S, Welch R, Lissowska J, Peplonska B, Szeszenia-Dabrowska N et al: Polymorphisms in DNA double-strand break repair genes and risk of breast cancer: Two population-based studies in USA and Poland, and meta-analyses. Hum Genet 2006, 119(4):376-388.
Matullo G, Guarrera S, Sacerdote C, Polidoro S, Davico L, Gamberini S, Karagas M, Casetta G, Rolle L, Piazza A et al: Polymorphisms/haplotypes in DNA repair genes and smoking: A bladder cancer case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005, 14(11 I):2569-2578.
Auranen A, Song H, Waterfall C, DiCioccio RA, Kuschel B, Kjaer SK, Hogdall E, Hogdall C, Stratton J, Whittemore AS et al: Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and epithelial ovarian cancer risk. Int J Cancer 2005, 117(4):611-618.
Tranah GJ, Giovannucci E, Ma J, Fuchs C, Hankinson SE, Hunter DJ: XRCC2 and XRCC3, polymorphisms are not associated with risk of colorectal adenoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004, 13(6):1090-1091.
Jacobsen NR, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Nexø B, Wallin H, Overvad K, Tjønneland A, Vogel U: XRCC3 polymorphisms and risk of lung cancer. Cancer Lett 2004, 213(1):67-72.
Han J, Hankinson SE, Ranu H, De Vivo I, Hunter DJ: Polymorphisms in DNA double-strand break repair genes and breast cancer risk in the Nurses' Health Study. Carcinogenesis 2004, 25(2):189-195.
Han J, Hankinson SE, Hunter DJ, De Vivo I: Genetic Variations in XRCC2 and XRCC3 Are Not Associated with Endometrial Cancer Risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004, 13(2):330-331.
Kuschel B, Auranen A, McBride S, Novik KL, Antoniou A, Lipscombe JM, Day NE, Easton DF, Ponder BAJ, Pharoah PDP et al: Variants in DNA double-strand break repair genes and breast cancer susceptibility. Hum Mol Genet 2002, 11(12):1399-1407.
Winsey SL, Haldar NA, Marsh HP, Bunce M, Marshall SE, Harris AL, Wojnarowska F, Welsh KI: A variant within the DNA repair gene XRCC3 is associated with the development of melanoma skin cancer. Cancer Res 2000, 60(20):5612-5616.

Table 1 Characteristics of the individual studies included in the meta-analysis

Author	Year	Country	Ethnicity	Cancer type	Genotyping method	Control	Cases/control	Cases			Control			HWE	NOS
Author	Year	Country	Ethnicity	Cancer type	Genotyping method	Control	Cases/control	aa	ag	gg	aa	ag	gg	HWE	NOS
Mackawy	2019	Egypt	Arabian	ovarian carcinoma	PCR-RFLP	HB	50/20	14	20	16	4	6	10	0.128	6
Pei	2018	China	Asian	acute lymphoblastic leukemia	PCR-RFLP	PB	266/266	55	144	67	53	150	63	0.035	7
Al Zoubi	2017	Italy	Caucasian	breast cancer	Sequencing	HB	23/16	8	14	1	11	5	0	0.459	7
De Mattia	2017	Italy	Caucasian	hepatocellular cancer	TaqMan	HB	192/192	128	52	12	137	49	5	0.806	7
Sarwar	2017	Pakistan	Asian	thyroid cancer	ARMS-PCR	HB	456/400	289	90	77	297	65	38	<0.001	7
Yan	2016	China	Asian	thyroid carcinoma	PCR	HB	276/403	116	127	33	202	161	40	0.345	8
Zhu	2016	China	Asian	bladder cancer	TaqMan	HB	184/260	72	53	59	69	142	49	0.111	7
Ali	2016	Saudi Arabia	Arabian	breast cancer	PCR-RFLP	HB	143/145	102	40	1	93	28	24	<0.001	7
Chang	2015	China	Asian	leiomyoma	PCR-RFLP	HB	166/474	35	91	40	93	268	113	0.004	7
Chen	2015	China	Asian	lung cancer	PCR-RFLP	HB	358/716	70	202	86	147	395	177	0.007	7
Liu	2015	China	Asian	nasopharyngeal carcinoma	PCR-RFLP	HB	176/880	33	99	44	179	489	212	0.001	7
Su	2015	China	Asian	breast cancer	PCR-RFLP	HB	1232/1232	239	696	297	254	668	310	0.002	8
Al Zoubi	2015	Jordan	Arabian	breast cancer	Sequencing	HB	46/31	16	28	2	21	9	1	0.976	7
Yuan	2015	China	Asian	papillary thyroid cancer	PCR	HB	183/367	77	84	22	184	147	36	0.406	6
Goričar	2015	Slovenia	Caucasian	acute lymphoblastic leukemia	TaqMan	PB	121/184	89			117			≥0.050	8
Goričar	2015	Slovenia	Caucasian	osteosarcoma	TaqMan	PB	79/373	47			247			ND	7
Smolkova	2014	Germany	Caucasian	acute lymphoblastic leukaemia	TaqMan	HB	460/547	286	155	19	340	183	24	0.921	7
TSAI	2014	China	Asian	oral cancer	PCR-RFLP	HB	788/956	155	438	195	195	532	229	<0.001	7
He	2013	China	Asian	lung cancer	PCR	HB	507/661	180	230	97	184	313	164	0.181	7
Zhao	2013	China	Asian	glioma	TaqMan	HB	384/384	83	201	100	95	181	108	0.271	7
Gresner	2012	Poland	Caucasian	head and neck cancer	PCR-RFLP	PB	81/100	45	31	5	59	34	7	0.497	8
VRAL	2011	Belgium	Caucasian	breast cancer	PCR-RFLP or SnapShot technique	HB	343/172	220	108	15	117	52	3	0.304	5
Quaye	2009	mixed	Caucasian	ovarian cancer	TaqMan	PB	1461/2307	940	484	37	1505	713	89	0.691	8
Andrew	2009	USA	Mixed	bladder cancer	PCR-RFLP	PB	342/559	190			333			ND	7
Hayden	2007	Germany, Italy, Spain, Ireland,France, Czech Republic and the Irish	Caucasian	myeloma	TaqMan	mixed	302/257	189	100	13	153	91	13	0.911	8
Ni	2006	China	Asian	thyroid carcinoma	PCR-RFLP	HB	191/201	66	81	44	62	94	45	0.411	7
Garcıa-Closas	2006	Poland	Caucasian	breast cancer	ND	PB	1920/2218	1210	632	78	1386	736	96	0.891	8
Garcıa-Closas	2006	USA	Caucasian	breast cancer	ND	PB	1564/1264	980	521	63	837	357	52	0.079	8
Wu	2006	USA	Mixed	bladder cancer	PCR-RFLP	HB	599/595	402	185	12	398	185	12	0.072	8
Paul Pharoah ICRC-Thai	2006	Thailand	Asian	breast cancer	ND	PB	465/389	153	217	95	135	182	72	0.441	8
Paul Pharoah SEARCH	2006	UK	Caucasian	breast cancer	ND	PB	2790/3642	1808	889	93	2388	1113	141	0.427	8
Paul Pharoah Sheffield	2006	UK	Caucasian	breast cancer	ND	HB	1185/1159	781	369	35	755	353	51	0.238	8
Paul Pharoah USRTS	2006	USA	Caucasian	breast cancer	ND	Nested	718/1049	458	224	36	650	356	43	0.509	8
Auranen1	2005	US FROC	Caucasian	ovarian cancer	TaqMan	PB	325/417	204	112	9	267	133	17	0.932	8
Auranen2	2005	UK RMH/YOV	Caucasian	ovarian cancer	TaqMan	PB	301/1808	194	95	12	1196	535	77	0.083	8
Matullo	2005	Italy	Caucasian	bladder Cancer	PCR-RFLP	HB	316/315	207	98	11	201	102	12	0.833	7
Han	2004	USA	Caucasian	breast cancer	TaqMan	PB	991/1291	630	322	39	865	372	54	0.084	8
Han	2004	USA	Caucasian	endometrial cancer	TaqMan	PB	220/663	140	73	7	438	200	25	0.716	8
Jacobsen	2004	Denmark	Caucasian	lung cancer	PCR	Nested	256/269	111	116	29	108	127	34	0.724	8
Tranah	2004	USA (NHS)	Caucasian	colorectal adenoma	TaqMan	Nested	556/557	256	212	58	250	222	54	0.65	8
Tranah	2004	USA (HPFS)	Caucasian	colorectal adenoma	TaqMan	Nested	376/725	180	155	31	329	303	73	0.793	8
Kuschel	2002	UK	Caucasian	breast cancer	TaqMan	PB	1828/1808	1176	581	71	1196	535	77	0.083	8
Winsey	2000	UK	Caucasian	melanoma skin cancer	PCR-SSP	HB	125/211	5	47	73	8	80	122	0.245	7

Table 2 The results of the meta-analyses under different genetic models for all studies

Genetic model	Number	I²	P_H	OR (95% CI)	P_Z
G VS A	40	47.50%	0.001	1.02(0.98-1.07)	0.377
GG VS AA	40	30.20%	0.039	0.98(0.89-1.08)	0.713
GG + GA VS AA	43	40.0%	0.004	1.04(0.98-1.09)	0.207
GG VS GA + AA	40	34.10%	0.02	0.98(0.90-1.07)	0.696
GA VS AA	40	39.40%	0.006	1.04(0.99-1.11)	0.134

Table 3 Results of meta-analysis for polymorphisms in different subgroups and cancer susceptibility

Comparison	Subgroup	Number	I²	P_H	P_Z	OR (95% CI)
G VS A	Ethnicity
	Arabian	3	84.9%	0.001	0.752	0.86(0.33-2.23)
	Asian	14	64.8%	P<0.001	0.255	1.05(0.96-1.15)
	Caucasian	22	0.0%	0.661	0.502	1.01(0.98-1.05)
	Mixed	1	NA	NA	0.940	0.99(0.80-1.23)
	Cancer type
	Ovarian cancer	4	0.0%	0.547	0.848	0.99(0.90-1.09)
	Acute lymphoblastic leukemia	2	0.0%	0.887	0.979	1.00(0.85-1.18)
	Breast cancer	13	58.6%	0.004	0.494	1.03(0.95-1.10)
	Thyroid cancer	4	71.2%	0.015	0.043	1.27(1.01-1.61)
	bladder cancer	3	0.0%	0.921	0.815	0.98(0.85-1.13)
	lung cancer	3	60.1%	0.082	0.166	0.88(0.74-1.05)
	others	11	0.0%	0.902	0.822	1.01(0.91-1.08)
	Method
	PCR-RFLP	12	22.3%	0.225	0.657	0.99(0.93-1.05)
	Sequencing	2	0.0%	0.828	0.004	2.60(1.37-4.94)
	TaqMan	13	0.0%	0.886	0.475	1.02(0.97-1.07)
	PCR	4	82.4%	0.001	0.913	1.02(0.78-1.33)
	ND	6	14.6%	0.321	0.663	1.01(0.96-1.06)
	others	3	68.3%	0.043	0.089	1.32(0.96-1.82)
	Source of control
	HB	23	66.0%	P<0.001	0.445	1.03(0.95-1.13)
	PB	12	0.0%	0.892	0.135	1.03(0.99-1.08)
	Mixed	1	NA	NA	0.442	0.89(0.67-1.19)
	Nested	4	0.0%	0.874	0.294	0.95(0.86-1.05)
	Sample size
	< 100	3	77.1%	0.013	0.419	1.54(0.54-4.43)
	> 100	37	43.7%	0.003	0.424	1.02(0.98-1.07)
	Year
	≤ 2010	20	0.0%	0.910	0.700	1.01(0.97-1.04)
	> 2010	20	69.5%	0.000	0.272	1.06(0.96-1.17)
GG+AG VS AA	Ethnicity
	Arabian	3	79.8%	0.007	0.739	1.21(0.39-3.76)
	Asian	14	64.4%	P<0.001	0.547	1.04(0.91-1.20)
	Caucasian	24	0.6%	0.453	0.119	1.03(0.99-1.08)
	Mixed	2	0.0%	0.620	0.765	1.03(0.85-1.24)
	Cancer type
	Ovarian cancer	4	0.0%	0.887	0.439	1.05(0.93-1.17)
	Acute lymphoblastic leukemia	3	24.4%	0.267	0.397	0.90(0.75-1.12)
	Breast cancer	13	47.0%	0.031	0.037	1.06(0.98-1.15)
	Thyroid cancer	4	55.4%	0.081	0.033	1.36(1.15-1.61)
	bladder cancer	4	59.1%	0.062	0.370	0.89(0.70-1.14)
	lung cancer	3	51.2%	0.129	0.207	0.85(0.66-1.09)
	others	12	0.0%	0.910	0.597	1.03(0.93-1.13)
	Method
	PCR-RFLP	13	0.0%	0.965	0.840	1.01(0.92-1.11)
	Sequencing	2	0.0%	0.956	0.001	4.00(1.82-8.80)
	TaqMan	15	29.2%	0.137	0.269	1.04(0.97-1.10)
	PCR	4	81.0%	0.001	0.862	1.03(0.72-1.48)
	ND	6	28.0%	0.225	0.360	1.03(0.97-1.09)
	others	3	16.0%	0.304	0.051	1.45(1.15-1.82)
	Source of control
	HB	23	58.4%	P<0.001	0.397	1.05(0.94-1.18)
	PB	15	0.0%	0.656	0.015	1.06(1.01-1.12)
	Mixed	1	NA	NA	0.461	0.88(0.63-1.24)
	Nested	4	0.0%	0.979	0.190	0.92(0.82-1.04)
	Sample size
	< 100	3	65.8%	0.054	0.179	2.23(0.69-7.21)
	> 100	40	32.9%	0.025	0.234	1.03(0.98-1.09)
	Year
	≤ 2010	21	0.0%	0.815	0.166	1.03(0.99-1.08)
	> 2010	22	62.0%	0.000	0.322	1.07(0.94-1.22)
GG VS AA+AG	Ethnicity
	Arabian	3	73.9%	0.022	0.218	0.28(0.04-2.13)
	Asian	14	52.7%	0.011	0.253	1.08(0.95-1.23)
	Caucasian	22	0.0%	0.806	0.056	0.91(0.82-1.00)
	Mixed	1	NA	NA	0.987	0.99(0.44-2.23)
	Cancer type
	Ovarian cancer	4	0.0%	0.678	0.014	0.69(0.51-0.93)
	Acute lymphoblastic leukemia	2	0.0%	0.698	0.818	1.04(0.75-1.45)
	Breast cancer	13	35.7%	0.097	0.101	0.92(0.83-1.02)
	Thyroid cancer	4	29.8%	0.234	0.007	1.38(1.09-1.75)
	bladder cancer	3	52.3%	0.123	0.303	1.35(0.76-2.37)
	lung cancer	3	5.5%	0.347	0.062	0.83(0.69-1.01)
	others	11	0.0%	0.893	0.993	1.00(0.88-1.13)
	Method
	PCR-RFLP	12	18.3%	0.265	0.421	0.96(0.86-1.06)
	Sequencing	2	0.0%	0.818	0.621	1.63(0.23-11.46)
	TaqMan	13	41.3%	0.059	0.462	0.95(0.84-1.08)
	PCR	4	44.2%	0.146	0.211	0.88(0.71-1.08)
	ND	6	8.8%	0.360	0.363	0.94(0.81-1.08)
	others	3	60.9%	0.078	0.121	1.54(0.89-2.64)
	Source of control
	HB	23	55.0%	0.010	0.614	1.04(0.90-1.20)
	PB	12	0.0%	0.862	0.111	0.91(0.81-1.02)
	Mixed	1	NA	NA	0.674	0.84(0.38-1.02)
	Nested	4	0.0%	0.536	0.967	1.00(0.80-1.24)
	Sample size
	< 100	3	0.0%	0.537	0.339	0.64(0.26-1.59)
	> 100	37	36.9%	0.014	0.766	0.99(0.90-1.07)
	Year
	≤ 2010	20	0.0%	0.928	0.068	0.94(0.83-1.01)
	> 2010	20	58.0%	0.001	0.374	1.08(0.92-1.27)
GG VS AA	Ethnicity
	Arabian	3	75.4%	0.017	0.338	0.33(0.04-3.15)
	Asian	14	47.8%	0.024	0.279	1.08(0.93-1.26)
	Caucasian	22	0.0%	0.812	0.083	0.91(0.82-1.01)
	Mixed	1	NA	NA	0.981	0.99(0.44-2.23)
	Cancer type
	Ovarian cancer	4	0.0%	0.705	0.028	0.71(0.53-0.96)
	Acute lymphoblastic leukemia	2	0.0%	0.836	0.961	0.99(0.67-1.47)
	Breast cancer	13	37.7%	0.082	0.311	0.94(0.85-1.05)
	Thyroid cancer	4	45.7%	0.137	0.001	1.50(1.17-1.93)
	bladder cancer	3	0.0%	0.860	0.773	1.06(0.72-1.55)
	lung cancer	3	53.1%	0.119	0.019	0.79(0.56-1.11)
	others	11	0.0%	0.884	0.798	1.02(0.88-1.19)
	Method
	PCR-RFLP	12	10.7%	0.340	0.591	0.96(0.85-1.10)
	Sequencing	2	0.0%	0.837	0.264	3.09(0.43-22.45)
	TaqMan	13	0.0%	0.701	0.297	0.93(0.81-1.07)
	PCR	4	73.8%	0.010	0.937	0.98(0.61-1.58)
	ND	6	2.7%	0.399	0.436	0.94(0.82-1.09)
	others	3	0.0%	0.409	P<0.001	1.97(1.36-2.87)
	Source of control
	HB	23	52.8%	0.002	0.628	1.04(0.88-1.24)
	PB	12	0.0%	0.911	0.185	0.92(0.82-1.04)
	Mixed	1	NA	NA	0.604	0.81(0.36-1.80)
	Nested	4	0.0%	0.553	0.737	0.96(0.76-1.21)
	Sample size
	< 100	3	18.0%	0.295	0.796	0.87(0.31-2.48)
	> 100	37	32.5	0.031	0.733	0.98(0.89-1.08)
	Year
	≤ 2010	20	0.0%	0.961	0.070	0.91(0.82-1.01)
	> 2010	20	55.2%	0.002	0.356	1.06(0.96-1.17)
AG VS AA	Ethnicity
	Arabian	3	54.9%	0.109	0.174	1.76(0.78-3.95)
	Asian	14	65.7%	P<0.001	0.906	1.01(0.86-1.18)
	Caucasian	22	0.0%	0.631	0.023	1.05(1.01-1.10)
	Mixed	1	NA	NA	0.937	0.99(0.77-1.27)
	Cancer type
	Ovarian cancer	4	0.0%	0.998	0.145	1.09(0.97-1.22)
	Acute lymphoblastic leukemia	2	0.0%	0.747	0.893	0.98(0.78-1.24)
	Breast cancer	13	42.3%	0.054	0.006	1.08(1.02-1.13)
	Thyroid cancer	4	33.2%	0.213	0.012	1.27(1.05-1.53)
	bladder cancer	3	87.1%	P<0.001	0.038	0.71(0.41-1.23)
	lung cancer	3	26.7%	0.255	0.132	0.87(0.73-1.04)
	others	11	0.0%	0.935	0.710	1.02(0.92-1.13)
	Method
	PCR-RFLP	12	0.0%	0.981	0.590	1.03(0.93-1.14)
	Sequencing	2	0.0%	0.946	0.001	4.00(1.79-8.94)
	TaqMan	13	57.1%	0.006	0.696	1.02(0.92-1.14)
	PCR	4	72.9%	0.011	0.780	1.05(0.76-1.44)
	ND	6	35.1%	0.173	0.205	1.04(0.98-1.11)
	others	3	0.0%	0.577	0.089	1.25(0.97-1.63)
	Source of control
	HB	23	56.0%	0.001	0.421	1.05(0.93-1.18)
	PB	12	0.0%	0.803	0.002	1.09(1.03-1.15)
	Mixed	1	NA	NA	0.518	0.89(0.62-1.27)
	Nested	4	0.0%	0.989	0.160	0.91(0.80-1.04)
	Sample size
	< 100	3	31.6%	0.232	0.003	2.82(1.42-5.57)
	> 100	37	32.9%	0.029	0.153	1.04(0.99-1.10)
	Year
	≤ 2010	20	0.0%	0.667	0.047	1.05(1.00-1.10)
	> 2010	20	60.8%	0.000	0.278	1.08(0.94-1.25)

The association between XRCC3 rs1799794 polymorphism and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 34 case-control studies

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Status:

Version 1