SynthesisPloS one2024
Differences in the risk association of TERT-CLPTM1L rs4975616 (A>G) with lung cancer between Caucasian and Asian populations: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Angiotensin receptor blockers use and lung cancer risk in Chinese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a population-based cohort study.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- Association between human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) MNS16A polymorphism and risk of breast cancer.Molecular biology reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the G allele variant of TERT-CLPTM1L rs4975616 has been confirmed to be negatively associated to the risk of lung cancer (LC), some other studies haven't found this negative association. The purpose of this study is to clarify the association of the rs4975616 with the risk of developing LC and the differences of this association among patients with different ethnicities (Caucasians and Asians), different subtypes of LC, and different smoking status.
methodsRelevant literatures published before July 20, 2023 in PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, MEDLINE databases were searched through the Internet. Statistical analysis of data was performed in Revman5.3, including drawing forest plots, funnel plots and so on. Sensitivity and publication bias were performed in Stata 14.0. The stability of the results was assessed using Test Sequence Analysis (TSA) software. Registration number: CRD42024568348.
resultsThe G allele variant of rs4975616 was negatively associated with the risk of LC ([OR] = 0.86, 95%CI [0.84, 0.88]), and that this negative association was present in both Caucasians ([OR] = 0.85, 95%CI [0.83, 0.87]) and Asians ([OR] = 0.91, 95%CI [0.86, 0.95]), and the strength of the negative association was higher in Caucasians than in Asians (subgroup differences: P = 0.02, I2 = 80.3%). Across LC subtypes, rs4975616[G] was negatively associated with the risk of NSCLC (LUAD, LUSC) in both Caucasians and Asians (P<0.05) and the strength of the association with NSCLC (LUAD) was higher in Caucasians than in Asians (Subgroup differences: I2>50%). In Caucasians, rs4975616[G] was negatively associated with the risk of LC in both smokers and non-smokers (P<0.05), and the strength of the association did not differ between smokers and non-smokers (Subgroup differences: P = 0.18, I2 = 45.0%). In Asians, rs4975616[G] was mainly negatively associated with the risk of LC in smokers (P<0.05) but not in non-smokers ([OR] = 0.97, 95%CI [0.78, 1.20]). Comparisons between the two populations showed that the strength of this negative association was higher in Caucasian non-smokers than in Asian non-smokers (Subgroup differences: P = 0.04, I2 = 75.3%), whereas the strength of this negative association was the same for Caucasian smokers as for Asian smokers (Subgroup differences: P = 0.42, I2 = 0%). Among the different LC subtypes, rs4975616[G] was negatively associated with the risk of NSCLC (LUAD) incidence in both Asian smokers and Caucasian non-smokers (P<0.05), whereas it was not associated with the risk of NSCLC development in Asian non-smokers (P>0.05). Comparisons between the two populations showed that the strength of the association was higher in Caucasian non-smokers than in Asian non-smokers (Subgroup differences: I2>50%).
conclusionThe G allele variant of rs4975616 is negatively associated with the risk of LC and NSCLC (LUAD, LUSC). Compared with Asians, Caucasians are more likely to have a higher risk of LC and NSCLC (LUAD) due to the rs4975616 variant. In Caucasians, smoking and other factors like non-smoking contribute to rs4975616 variations leading to LC, and other factors like non-smoking also induce rs4975616 variations leading to NSCLC (LUAD). In Asians, smoking is the major risk factor for the induction of rs4975616 variations leading to LC and NSCLC(LUAD).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.