The VEGF -634G>C promoter polymorphism is associated with risk of gastric cancer

  • Xiaoxiang Guan1,

    Affiliated with

    • Hui Zhao1,

      Affiliated with

      • Jiangong Niu1,

        Affiliated with

        • Dongfeng Tang2,

          Affiliated with

          • Jaffer A Ajani3 and

            Affiliated with

            • Qingyi Wei1Email author

              Affiliated with

              BMC Gastroenterology20099:77

              DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-9-77

              Received: 11 May 2009

              Accepted: 16 October 2009

              Published: 16 October 2009

              Abstract

              Background

              Both TGF-β1 and VEGF play a critic role in the multiple-step process of tumorgenesis of gastric cancer. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the TGFB1 and VEGF genes have been associated with risk and progression of many cancers. In this study, we investigated the association between potentially functional SNPs of these two genes and risk of gastric cancer in a US population.

              Methods

              The risk associated with genotypes and haplotypes of four TGFB1 SNPs and four VEGF SNPs were determined by multivariate logistic regression analysis in 171 patients with gastric cancer and 353 cancer-free controls frequency-matched by age, sex and ethnicity.

              Results

              Compared with the VEGF-634GG genotype, the -634CG genotype and the combined -634CG+CC genotypes were associated with a significantly elevated risk of gastric cancer (adjusted OR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.24-2.86 and adjusted OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.07-2.27, respectively). However, none of other TGFB1 and VEGF SNPs was associated with risk of gastric cancer.

              Conclusion

              Our data suggested that the VEGF-634G>C SNP may be a marker for susceptibility to gastric cancer, and this finding needs to be validated in larger studies.

              Background

              Gastric cancer is one of the major causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide, although both incidence and mortality of gastric cancer have been declining in recent years [1]. In 2008, there were 21,500 new gastric cancer patients, and 10,880 patients died of this disease in the United States [2]. Epidemiological studies have identified many risk factors for gastric cancer, including older age, being a man, Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) bacteria infection, diets high in smoked foods, salted fish and meats, and pickled vegetables, tobacco use and obesity [2]. Although about two-thirds of gastric cancer could be prevented by changing lifestyle and diet habits [3], the fact that some individuals develop gastric cancer while others do not when having similar exposures suggests that genetic factors may also play an important role in the etiology of gastric cancer.

              It has been reported that both TGF-β1 and VEGF played an important role in the oncogenesis of gastric cancer [4, 5]. Both TGFB1 and VEGF genes are highly polymorphic, reportedly having 168 and 140 variants, respectively, but few are within the promoters or coding regions that may be potentially functional http://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​SNP/​. Of these variants, several common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been described as important [68] and reported to be involved in the etiology of various cancers [912]. For example, some TGFB1 and VEGF variants are associated with protein functions, which may contribute to an individual's susceptibility to cancer [13]. Several studies have investigated the association between TGFB1 and VEGF SNPs and risk of cancers, including breast cancer [1416], lung cancer [17, 18], and gastric cancer [1922], but the results were inconsistent.

              To investigate the role of TGFB1 and VEGF SNPs in the etiology of gastric cancer, we conducted a case-control study to evaluate the association between three TGFB1 SNPs (one promoter SNP -509C>T and two exon 1 SNPs +869T>C and +915G>C) and three VEGF SNPs (one promoter SNP -1498T>C, one 5'-untranslated region SNP -634G>C and one 3'-untranslated region SNP +936C>T) and gastric cancer risk in a US population.

              Methods

              Study population

              The case-control study consisted of 171 patients with newly diagnosed and histologically confirmed gastric cancer at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX) between February 1990 and July 2008. The 353 cancer-free controls subjects were selected from an ongoing molecular epidemiology study of the head and neck cancer since 1995 [23] by frequency matching by age, sex and ethnicity. All cancer-free control subjects were recruited from persons who were not hospital patients, nor seeking health care but accompanying the patients visiting the clinics, and who were genetically unrelated to the cases. The study protocol and informed consent form used in this study were approved by our institutional review board.

              Genotyping

              Genomic DNA was extracted from the buffy coat fraction of each blood sample by using a Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. DNA purity and concentrations were determined by spectrophotometric measurement of absorbance at 260 and 280 nm by UV spectrophotometer.

              The selected three TGFB1 SNPs [-509C>T (rs1800469) in the promoter, +869T>C (rs1800470) and +915G>C (rs1800471) in the exon 1] and three promoter VEGF SNPs [-1498T>C (rs833061) in the promoter and -634G>C (rs2010963) in the 5'-untranslated region, and VEGF +936C>T (rs3025039) in the 3'-untranslated region] were genotyped using polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) method. These six SNPs are relatively common (a minor allele frequency > 0.05) in Caucasian populations. Genotypes of TGFB1 SNPs were determined as previously described [24]. Assays on the VEGF -1498T>C (rs833061), -634G>C (rs2010963), and +936C>T (rs3025039) SNPs were previously reported [17]

              For the PCR-RFLP assay, the genotyping was performed without knowing the subjects' case and control status, and almost the same number of cases and controls were assayed in each 96-well PCR plate. Two research assistants independently read the gel pictures and performed the repeated assays, if they did not reach a consensus on the tested genotype. In addition, 10% of the samples were randomly selected to perform the repeated assays, and the results were 100% concordant.

              Statistical Analysis

              The χ2 tests were used to compare the distribution of demographic variables and selected risk factors between cases and controls. The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (p2+2pq+q2 = 1), where p is the frequency of the variant allele and q = 1-p, was tested by a goodness-of-fit χ2 test to compare the observed genotype frequencies with the expected genotype frequencies in cancer-free controls. Unconditional logistical regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with and without adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status and alcohol use. Age was also dichotomized according to the median age (57 years) of the controls. The logistic regression model was also used for the trend test of the genotypes with different number of the minor alleles. The 2-linkage disequilibrium (LD) program and Proc ALLELE in SAS/Genetics software were used to detect the LD of any pair of SNPs. Proc HAPLOTYPE in SAS/Genetics software using the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm was applied to generate maximum likelihood estimates of haplotype frequencies. Haplotype were combined when their frequency was <5%. The joint effects of the TGFB1 and VEGF SNPs and their interactions with smoking and drinking on gastric cancer risk were also evaluated. Finally, we calculated the false-positive report probability (FPRP) to test for false-positive associations, using prior probabilities of 0.0001, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, and 0.25. The OR was set close to the observed value obtained in our study, and a probability of <0.2 was considered a noteworthy association. All statistical tests were two-sided, with a P value of 0.05 considered significant, by using SAS software (version 9.1; SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

              Results

              Characteristics of the study population

              This analysis included 171 gastric cancer cases and 353 cancer-free controls. Because we used frequency matching, there were no significant difference in distributions of age, sex and ethnicity between the cases and controls (P = 0.135, 0.444 and 0.486, respectively). For the tumor types, more than 50% of the cases had intestinal type, about 125 had difuse type, and the remaining was mixed. There were more current and former smokers in cases (19.9% and 39.2%, respectively) than in controls (13.6% and 38.5%, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.126). However, there were significantly more alcohol drinkers among cases than among controls (P = 0.037) (Table 1). These variables were further adjusted for in multivariate logistic regression models to control for any residual effect of their confounding on the main effect of selected SNPs.
              Table 1

              Frequency distributions of selected variables in gastric cancer cases and cancer free controls

               

              Cases (n = 171)

              Controls (n = 353)

               

              Variables

              n

              %

              n

              %

              P*

              Age (years)

              59.7 ± 12.6

              57.6 ± 11.2

              0.135

               ≤ 45

              24

              14.0

              47

              13.3

               

               45-59

              90

              52.6

              216

              61.2

               

               >59

              57

              33.3

              90

              25.5

               

              Sex

                   

               Female

              56

              32.7

              104

              29.5

              0.444

               Male

              115

              67.3

              249

              70.5

               

              Ethnicity

                   

               Non-Hispanic White

              120

              70.2

              258

              73.1

              0.486

               Non-White

              51

              29.8

              95

              26.9

               

              Smoking status

                   

               Current

              34

              19.9

              48

              13.6

               

               Former

              64

              39.2

              136

              38.5

              0.126

               Never

              70

              40.9

              169

              47.9

               

              Alcohol use

                   

               Current

              63

              36.8

              115

              32.5

               

               Former

              33

              19.3

              45

              12.8

              0.037

               Never

              75

              43.9

              193

              54.7

               

              Tumor type

                   

               Intestinal

              101

              59.1

                 

               Diffuse

              20

              11.7

                 

               Mixed

              50

              29.2

                 

              * Two-sided χ2 test.

              TGFB1 and VEGF genotypes and risk of gastric cancer

              The genotype and allele distributions of the three TGFB1 SNPs and three VEGF SNPs between the cases and controls are summarized in Table 2. The observed genotype frequencies of these SNPs were all in agreement with the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in the control subjects, except for TGFB1 -509C>T and VEGF -634G>C, indicating some possible selection bias in the hospital-based controls. Although none of the minor alleles had a different frequency distribution between the cases and the controls, the VEGF-634G>C genotype frequencies were statistically significantly between the cases (40.4% for GG, 42.1% for CG, and 17.5% for CC) and the controls (51.0% for GG, 28.0% for CG and 21.0% for CC) (P = 0.003) (Table 2).
              Table 2

              Genotype frequencies of TGFB1 and VEGF polymorphism gastric cancer cases and controls and their associations with risk of gastric cancer

               

              Cases (n = 171)

              Controls (n = 353)

                  

              Genotypes

              n

              %

              n

              %

              P

              Crude OR

              (95% CI)

              Adjusted OR (95% CI) *

              P

              TGFB1 -509 C >T (rs1800469)

                

              0.404

                 

               CC

              125

              73.1

              238

              67.4

               

              1.00

              1.00

               

               CT

              33

              19.3

              80

              22.7

               

              0.79 (0.50-1.24)

              0.81 (0.51-1.30)

              0.386

               TT

              13

              7.6

              35

              9.9

               

              0.71 (0.36-1.39)

              0.71 (0.36-1.40)

              0.323

               CT+TT

              46

              26.9

              115

              32.6

               

              0.76 (0.51-1.14)

              0.78 (0.52-1.18)

              0.239

               C allele

              0.173

              0.212

              0.246**

                 

              TGFB1 869 T >C (rs1800470)

                

              0.805

                 

               TT

              57

              33.3

              111

              31.4

               

              1.00

              1.00

               

               CT

              83

              48.5

              170

              48.2

               

              0.95 (0.63-1.44)

              1.01 (0.67-1.55)

              0.947

               CC

              31

              18.1

              72

              20.4

               

              0.84 (0.49-1.42)

              0.81 (0.48-1.39)

              0.448

               CT+CC

              114

              66.7

              242

              68.6

               

              1.16 (0.73-1.85)

              0.92 (0.62-1.35)

              0.374

               C allele

              0.424

              0.445

              0.727**

                 

              TGFB1 915 G >C (rs1800471)

                

              0.447

                 

               GG

              151

              88.3

              313

              88.7

               

              1.00

              1.00

               

               CG

              18

              10.5

              39

              11.0

               

              0.96 (0.53-1.73)

              0.99 (0.54-1.83)

              0.994

               CC

              2

              1.2

              1

              0.3

               

              4.15 (0.37-46.1)

              4.91 (0.43-56.3)

              0.201

               CG+CC

              20

              11.7

              40

              11.3

               

              1.04 (0.59-1.83)

              1.09 (0.56-1.96)

              0.776

               C allele

              0.064

              0.058

              0.715**

                 

              VEGF -1498T > C (rs833061)

                

              0.748

                 

               TT

              51

              29.8

              111

              31.4

               

              1.00

              1.00

               

               CT

              83

              48.6

              159

              45.0

               

              1.14 (0.74-1.74)

              1.12 (0.73-1.74)

              0.597

               CC

              37

              21.6

              83

              23.6

               

              0.97 (0.58-1.62)

              0.99 (0.59-1.67)

              0.973

               CC+CT

              120

              70.2

              242

              68.6

               

              1.08 (0.73-1.61)

              1.08 (0.72-1.62)

              0.715

               C allele

              0.459

              0.460

              0.984**

                 

              VEGF -634G > C (rs2010963)

                

              0.006

                 

               GG

              69

              40.4

              51.0

                

              1.00

              1.00

               

               CG

              72

              42.1

              28.0

                

              1.90 (1.26-2.86)

              1.88 (1.24-2.86)

              0.003

               CC

              30

              17.5

              21.0

                

              1.06 (0.64-1.76)

              1.10 (0.66-1.85)

              0.712

               CG+CC

              102

              59.6

              49.0

                

              1.54 (1.06-2.23)

              1.56 (1.07-2.27)

              0.022

               C allele

              0.386

              0.349

              0.491**

                 

              VEGF +936C > T (rs3025039)

                

              0.550

                 

               CC

              127

              74.3

              78.2

                

              1.00

              1.00

               

               CT

              41

              24.0

              19.8

                

              1.27 (0.82-1.97)

              1.29 (0.83-2.02)

              0.262

               TT

              3

              1.8

              2.0

                

              0.93 (0.24-3.66)

              1.12 (0.28-4.58)

              0.837

               CC+CT

              44

              25.8

              21.8

                

              1.24 (0.81-1.90)

              1.28 (0.83-1.97)

              0.269

               T allele

              0.137

              0.119

              0.481**

                 

              * Adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, smoking status and alcohol status in a logistic regression model.

              Two-sided χ 2 test for either genotype distribution or allele frequency.

              Two-sided χ 2 test for difference in frequency distribution of genotype between cases and controls by adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, smoking status and alcohol status.

              ** Two-sided χ 2 tests for the differences in the minor allele frequencies between cases and controls

              Further logistic regression analysis revealed that, of the six SNPs examined, only the VEGF -634CG heterozygous and the combined -634CG+CC variant genotypes were associated with a significantly elevated risk of gastric cancer (adjusted OR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.24-2.86 and adjusted OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.07-2.27, respectively). In further stratified analysis by age, sex, ethnicity, alcohol use and smoking status, the risk associated with the combined -634CG+CC variant genotypes was more evident in subgroups of ever smokers (adjusted OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.06-2.90), never drinker (adjusted OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.14-3.54) and non-white subjects (adjusted OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.15-4.98) (Table 3). This kind of significant association was not found for the three TGFB1 SNPs and other two VEGF SNPs (Table 2).
              Table 3

              Stratification analysis of gastric cancer risk associated with the VEGF -634 G>C genotype frequencies

               

              Cases (n = 171)

              Controls (n = 353)

              Adjusted OR (95% CI)*

               

              Variables

              GG

              N (%)

              CG+CC

              N (%)

              GG

              N (%)

              CG+CC

              N (%)

              GG

              CG+CC

              P

              Age (years)

                     

               ≤ 57

              30 (42.3)

              41 (57.7)

              95 (52.8)

              85 (47.2)

              1.00

              1.50 (0.84-2.64)

              0.160

               > 57

              39 (39.0)

              61 (61.0)

              85 (49.1)

              88 (50.9)

              1.00

              1.58 (0.95-2.63)

              0.080

              Sex

                     

               Female

              18 (32.1)

              38 (67.9)

              49 (47.1)

              55 (52.9)

              1.00

              1.86 (0.94-3.69)

              0.075

               Male

              51 (44.4)

              64 (55.6)

              131 (52.6)

              118 (47.4)

              1.00

              1.44 (0.91-2.28)

              0.116

              Ethnicity

                     

               Hispanic White

              53 (44.2)

              67 (55.8)

              129 (50.0)

              129 (50.0)

              1.00

              1.32 (0.85-2.06)

              0.219

               Non-white

              16 (31.4)

              35 (68.6)

              51 (53.7)

              44 (46.3)

              1.00

              2.39 (1.15-4.98)

              0.020

              Smoking status

                     

               Never

              27 (38.6)

              43 (61.4)

              79 (46.7)

              90 (53.3)

              1.00

              1.33 (0.75-2.38)

              0.336

               Ever

              42 (41.6)

              59(58.4)

              101 (54.9)

              83 (45.1)

              1.00

              1.74 (1.06-2.90)

              0.032

              Drinking status

                     

               Never

              25 (33.3)

              50 (66.7)

              99 (51.3)

              94 (48.7)

              1.00

              2.00 (1.14-3.54)

              0.017

               Ever

              44 (45.8)

              52 (54.2)

              81 (50.6)

              79 (49.4)

              1.00

              1.24 (0.74-2.07)

              0.411

              * Adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status and alcohol status in a logistic regression model where it was appropriate.

              Two-sided χ 2 test for the ORs obtained from the multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status and alcohol status

              TGFB1 and VEGF haplotypes and risk of gastric cancer

              To further analyze possible combined effects of the TGFB1 and VEGF SNPs, we estimated the haplotypes on the basis of the observed genotypes. As shown in Table 4, the four common TGFB1 haplotypes (CTG, CCG, TCG and CCC) represented 85.6% and 89.9% of the chromosomes of the controls and cases, respectively. For the VEGF haplotypes, the common alleles included CGC, TCC, CCC and CGT. However, the frequency distributions of these haplotypes between the cases and controls was not significantly different for both TGFB1 (P = 0.759) and VEGF (P = 0.808), nor were they associated with risk of gastric cancer.
              Table 4

              Frequency distribution of the TGFB1 and VEGF haplotype alleles between gastric cancer cases and controls and their associations with risk of Gastric Cancer

               

              Cases

              Controls

                

              Genotypes

              n

              %

              n

              %

              Crude OR

              (95% CI) *

              P**

              TGFB1 alleles

              (No. of variant alleles)

                

               C-T-G

              194

              46.0

              387

              40.0

              1.29 (0.12-13.7)

              0.830

               C-C-G

              107

              25.4

              216

              24.6

              1.26 (0.11-13.9)

              0.851

               T-C-G

              56

              13.3

              144

              16.4

              1.93 (0.17-21.8)

              0.594

               C-C-C

              22

              5.21

              40

              4.6

              0.87 (0.06-13.6)

              0.919

              VEGF alleles

              (No. of variant alleles)

                

               C-G-C

              135

              24.6

              278

              30.0

              0.56 (0.02-18.0)

              0.744

               T-C-C

              115

              20.9

              200

              21.6

              0.42 (0.02-13.6)

              0.621

               C-C-C

              65

              11.8

              90

              9.7

              0.46 (0.01-19.9)

              0.686

               C-G-T

              35

              6.4

              45

              4.9

              0.25 (0.01-12.2)

              0.482

              * Calculated by using the most common haplotype as the reference. Ors represent the risk per copy of each haplotype.

              † The number of TGFB1 haplotype alleles; the variant (risk) alleles used for calculation were-509T, 869C or 915C.

              ‡ The number of VEGF haplotype alleles; the variant (risk) alleles used for calculation were -1498C, -634C or 936T.

              **Two-sided χ 2 test for the ORs obtained from the multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status and alcohol status

              Finally, because the sample size of this study was small, we calculated FPRP for the positive findings. We found that under the assumption of a prior probability of 0.1, the FPRP of VEGF -634CG vs. -634GG for yielded values of 0.13, suggesting that the VEGF -634CG vs. -634GG findings was noteworthy. However, the FPRPs of VEGF -634CG+CC vs. -634GG for all subjects, non-whites, ever smokers and never drinkers yielded values of 0.31, 0.54, 0.49 and 0.38, respectively, which were likely to be false positive findings. Therefore, our findingds need to be validated in larger studies.

              Discussion

              Gastric cancer is a genetic disease developing from a multifactorial, multigenetic and multistage process [25, 26]. It was widely accepted that both genetic and environmental factors may be involved in the etiology of gastric cancer [27]. During the multistage carcinogenesis, TGFB1 may be involved in multiple important cellular processes, play a biphasic role in carcinogenesis, and inhibit proliferation of tumors in early stages of cancers, whereas it may also promote tumor growth and metastasis in later stages of cancers [28, 29]. Several molecular epidemiological studies have shown an association of TGFB1 SNPs with risk of various cancers, including breast [1415 3031], prostate [32, 33] and hepatocellular carcinoma [34, 35] and gastric cancer [4, 19].

              The roles of -509C>T, +869T>C and +915G>C SNPs in TGFB1 have been implicated in the etiology of various human cancers. For example, in high-risk Chinese populations, TGFB1 -509C>T was associated with a reduced risk of gastric cancer [19] and the -509T variant genotypes were found to be associated with a decreased risk of among stage I+II cases [20]. In the present study, we did not observe a significant association between TGFB1 SNPs and gastric cancer risk, partly because our study size was small. Another possible explanation is that there may be an ethnicity difference in the etiology of gastric cancer. For example, the H. pylori infection was common in Asians but not in Caucasians [36], which may interact with genetic factors. Furthermore, cancer is a disease involving multiple genes/SNPs, and therefore the combined analysis of multiple gene or haplotype-based approach might be more powerful than the analysis of single allele or locus effect [19], which requires studies with much large sample sizes. It is also likely that our results could be biased owing to possible selection biases in hospital-based case-control studies. Therefore, larger studies are warranted to further test whether the TGFB1 variants are associated with gastric cancer risk.

              Among other genetic factors, VEGF, the key mediator of angiogenesis, also plays an important role in the development of different kind of tumors, including gastric cancer. Several studies have investigated the associations between VEGF SNPs and risk of cancers, including breast, lung and gastric cancers [16,17,21,22,37], However, the results from published studies remain inconsistent rather than conclusive. Recently, Ke Q et al [21] found that none of four potentially functional SNPs (-2578C>A, -1498T>C, -634G>C, and +936C>T) of the VEGF gene or their haplotypes achieved a significant difference in their distributions between gastric cancer cases and controls in a Chinese population, whereas in a Greek study of the association between these four potentially functional SNPs in VEGF and gastric cancer risk in 100 cases and 100 controls [38], it was found that the -634CC variant genotype was associated with an increased the risk of gastric cancer with a marginal significance. However, the -634CC was shown to be associated with a significantly decreased risk of gastric cancer in a Korean population [22]. Our current study indicated that the heterozygous -634CG and the combined -634CG+CC carriers had an increased risk of gastric cancer when compared with the -634GG genotype. Again, these studies demonstrated some possible ethnic difference in the etiology of gastric cancer [19].

              An obvious limitation in the present study was the lack of information on the H. pylori infection status of the subjects. Because H. pylori infection was relatively rare in the US compared with Asian countries, these patients were not tested for H. pylori infection upon their visit to the hospital. This defect of the study has to be corrected in future well-planned studies. Also, we observed that genetic effects were more profound in never drinkers in this study population, a phenomenon we often observed in our association studies, in which the risk associated with adverse genotypes appears to be higher in non-exposed or less exposed subjects, suggesting that the related susceptibility to cancer may be high in such subgroups. Alternatively, there may be some unknown risk factors that were not identified in these subgroups.

              Conclusion

              In this hospital-based case-control study of sporadic gastric cancer, our finding supports the notion that variant genotypes of the VEGF-634C>G polymorphism, but not other tested SNPs, may contribute to gastric cancer risk. However, because we used a hospital-based case-control study design, the observed associations may have been biased or simply due to chances. Therefore, larger, prospective studies, particularly with the information about H. pylori infection, are needed to verify our findings.

              Abbreviations

              TGFB1

              Transforming growth factor beta 1

              VEGF

              Vascular endothelial growth factor

              LD

              linkage disequilibrium

              PCR-RFLP

              polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism

              OR

              odds ratio

              CI

              confidence interval

              SNP

              single nucleotide polymorphism

              Declarations

              Acknowledgements

              This study was in part supported by National Institutes of Health grants R01 ES 011740-07 and CA 131274-01 (to Q. W.) and CA 016672 (to M. D. Anderson Cancer Center). We thank Margaret Lung and Kathryn Tipton for their assistance in recruiting the subjects and Min Zhao, Jianzhong He and Kejin Xu for their laboratory assistance, and Zhensheng Liu for laboratory management and Li-E Wang for data management.

              Authors’ Affiliations

              (1)
              Department of Epidemiology, the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center
              (2)
              Department of Pathology, the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center
              (3)
              Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center

              References

              1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P: Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005,55(2):74–108.View ArticlePubMed
              2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al.: Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008,58(2):71–96.View ArticlePubMed
              3. Peto J: Cancer epidemiology in the last century and the next decade. Nature 2001,411(6835):390–395.View ArticlePubMed
              4. Li T, Cao BW, Dai Y, Cui H, Yang HL, Xu CQ: Correlation of transforming growth factor beta-1 gene polymorphisms C-509T and T869C and the risk of gastric cancer in China. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008,23(4):638–642.View ArticlePubMed
              5. Liu DH, Zhang XY, Fan DM, et al.: Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and its role in oncogenesis of human gastric carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2001,7(4):500–505.PubMed
              6. Watson CJ, Webb NJ, Bottomley MJ, Brenchley PE: Identification of polymorphisms within the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene: correlation with variation in VEGF protein production. Cytokine 2000,12(8):1232–1235.View ArticlePubMed
              7. Renner W, Kotschan S, Hoffmann C, Obermayer-Pietsch B, Pilger E: A common 936 C/T mutation in the gene for vascular endothelial growth factor is associated with vascular endothelial growth factor plasma levels. J Vasc Res 2000,37(6):443–448.View ArticlePubMed
              8. Stevens A, Soden J, Brenchley PE, Ralph S, Ray DW: Haplotype analysis of the polymorphic human vascular endothelial growth factor gene promoter. Cancer Res 2003,63(4):812–816.PubMed
              9. Lee KM, Park SK, Hamajima N, et al.: Genetic polymorphisms of TGF-beta1 & TNF-beta and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005,90(2):149–155.View ArticlePubMed
              10. Nikolova PN, Pawelec GP, Mihailova SM, et al.: Association of cytokine gene polymorphisms with malignant melanoma in Caucasian population. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2007,56(3):371–379.View ArticlePubMed
              11. Howell WM, Bateman AC, Turner SJ, Collins A, Theaker JM: Influence of vascular endothelial growth factor single nucleotide polymorphisms on tumour development in cutaneous malignant melanoma. Genes Immun 2002,3(4):229–232.View ArticlePubMed
              12. Lin CC, Wu HC, Tsai FJ, Chen HY, Chen WC: Vascular endothelial growth factor gene-460 C/T polymorphism is a biomarker for prostate cancer. Urology 2003,62(2):374–377.View ArticlePubMed
              13. Wu GY, Hasenberg T, Magdeburg R, Bonninghoff R, Sturm JW, Keese M: Association Between EGF, TGF-beta1, VEGF Gene Polymorphism and Colorectal Cancer. World J Surg 2009,33(1):124–129.View ArticlePubMed
              14. Le Marchand L, Haiman CA, Berg D, Wilkens LR, Kolonel LN, Henderson BE: T29C polymorphism in the transforming growth factor beta1 gene and postmenopausal breast cancer risk: the Multiethnic Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004,13(3):412–415.PubMed
              15. Shin A, Shu XO, Cai Q, Gao YT, Zheng W: Genetic polymorphisms of the transforming growth factor-beta1 gene and breast cancer risk: a possible dual role at different cancer stages. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005,14(6):1567–1570.View ArticlePubMed
              16. Kataoka N, Cai Q, Wen W, et al.: Population-based case-control study of VEGF gene polymorphisms and breast cancer risk among Chinese women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006,15(6):1148–1152.View ArticlePubMed
              17. Lee SJ, Lee SY, Jeon HS, et al.: Vascular endothelial growth factor gene polymorphisms and risk of primary lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005,14(3):571–575.View ArticlePubMed
              18. Kang HG, Chae MH, Park JM, et al.: Polymorphisms in TGF-beta1 gene and the risk of lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2006,52(1):1–7.View ArticlePubMed
              19. Jin G, Wang L, Chen W, et al.: Variant alleles of TGFB1 and TGFBR2 are associated with a decreased risk of gastric cancer in a Chinese population. Int J Cancer 2007,120(6):1330–1335.View ArticlePubMed
              20. Zhang P, Di JZ, Zhu ZZ, et al.: Association of transforming growth factor-beta 1 polymorphisms with genetic susceptibility to TNM stage I or II gastric cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008,38(12):861–866.View ArticlePubMed
              21. Ke Q, Liang J, Wang LN, et al.: Potentially functional polymorphisms of the vascular endothelial growth factor gene and risk of gastric cancer. Mol Carcinog 2008,47(8):647–651.View ArticlePubMed
              22. Chae YS, Kim JG, Sohn SK, et al.: Investigation of vascular endothelial growth factor gene polymorphisms and its association with clinicopathologic characteristics in gastric cancer. Oncology 2006,71(3–4):266–272.View ArticlePubMed
              23. An J, Liu Z, Hu Z, et al.: Potentially functional single nucleotide polymorphisms in the core nucleotide excision repair genes and risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007,16(8):1633–1638.View ArticlePubMed
              24. Xianglin Yuan ZL, Liu Z, Wang L-E, Tucker SL, Mao L, Wang XS, Martel M, Komaki R, Cox JD, Milas L, Wei Q: Single Nucleotide Polymorphism at rs1982073:T869C of the TGF-beta1 Gene Associated with Reduced Risk of Severe Radiation Pneumonitis in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Definitive Radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2009, in press.
              25. Correa P, Haenszel W, Cuello C, Tannenbaum S, Archer M: A model for gastric cancer epidemiology. Lancet 1975,2(7924):58–60.View ArticlePubMed
              26. Gao L, Nieters A, Brenner H: Meta-analysis: tumour invasion-related genetic polymorphisms and gastric cancer susceptibility. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008,28(5):565–573.View ArticlePubMed
              27. Crandall WV, Mackner LM: Infusion reactions to infliximab in children and adolescents: frequency, outcome and a predictive model. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003,17(1):75–84.View ArticlePubMed
              28. Massague J: TGFbeta in Cancer. Cell 2008,134(2):215–230.View ArticlePubMed
              29. Siegel PM, Massague J: Cytostatic and apoptotic actions of TGF-beta in homeostasis and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2003,3(11):807–821.View ArticlePubMed
              30. Shu XO, Gao YT, Cai Q, et al.: Genetic polymorphisms in the TGF-beta 1 gene and breast cancer survival: a report from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study. Cancer Res 2004,64(3):836–839.View ArticlePubMed
              31. Dunning AM, Ellis PD, McBride S, et al.: A transforming growth factorbeta1 signal peptide variant increases secretion in vitro and is associated with increased incidence of invasive breast cancer. Cancer Res 2003,63(10):2610–2615.PubMed
              32. Ewart-Toland A, Chan JM, Yuan J, Balmain A, Ma J: A gain of function TGFB1 polymorphism may be associated with late stage prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004,13(5):759–764.PubMed
              33. Li Z, Habuchi T, Tsuchiya N, et al.: Increased risk of prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia associated with transforming growth factor-beta 1 gene polymorphism at codon10. Carcinogenesis 2004,25(2):237–240.View ArticlePubMed
              34. Migita K, Miyazoe S, Maeda Y, et al.: Cytokine gene polymorphisms in Japanese patients with hepatitis B virus infection--association between TGF-beta1 polymorphisms and hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2005,42(4):505–510.View ArticlePubMed
              35. Kim YJ, Lee HS, Im JP, et al.: Association of transforming growth factor-beta1 gene polymorphisms with a hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Exp Mol Med 2003,35(3):196–202.PubMed
              36. Crew KD, Neugut AI: Epidemiology of gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2006,12(3):354–362.PubMed
              37. Jacobs EJ, Feigelson HS, Bain EB, et al.: Polymorphisms in the vascular endothelial growth factor gene and breast cancer in the Cancer Prevention Study II cohort. Breast Cancer Res 2006,8(2):R22.View ArticlePubMed
              38. Tzanakis N, Gazouli M, Rallis G, et al.: Vascular endothelial growth factor polymorphisms in gastric cancer development, prognosis, and survival. J Surg Oncol 2006,94(7):624–630.View ArticlePubMed
              39. Pre-publication history

                1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1471-230X/​9/​77/​prepub

              Copyright

              © Guan et al. 2009

              This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.