Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Mar 1;68(4):400-7.
doi: 10.1002/pros.20694.

TNF polymorphisms and prostate cancer risk

Kim N Danforth  1 , Carmen Rodriguez, Richard B Hayes, Lori C Sakoda, Wen-Yi Huang, Kai Yu, Eugenia E Calle, Eric J Jacobs, Bingshu E Chen, Gerald L Andriole, Jonine D Figueroa, Meredith Yeager, Elizabeth A Platz, Dominique S Michaud, Stephen J Chanock, Michael J Thun, Ann W Hsing
Affiliations

TNF polymorphisms and prostate cancer risk

Kim N Danforth et al. Prostate. .

Abstract

Background: Inflammation has been hypothesized to increase prostate cancer risk. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is an important mediator of the inflammatory process, but the relationship between TNF variants and prostate cancer remains unclear.

Methods: We examined associations between six TNF single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (rs1799964, rs1800630, rs1799724, rs1800629, rs361525, rs1800610) and prostate cancer risk among 2,321 cases and 2,560 controls from two nested case-control studies within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO, n = 2,561, 5 SNPs) and the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort (Nutrition Cohort, n = 2,320, 6 SNPs). Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for individual SNPs and haplotypes in each cohort separately and in pooled analyses.

Results: No TNF SNP was associated with prostate cancer risk in PLCO (P-trend > or = 0.16), while in the Nutrition Cohort, associations were significant for 2 highly correlated variants (rs1799724, 1800610, r2 = 0.95; P-trend = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). In pooled analyses, no single SNP was associated with prostate cancer risk (P-trend > or = 0.08). After adjustment for multiple testing, no SNP was associated with prostate cancer risk in either cohort individually or in the pooled analysis (P-trend all > or = 0.10). Haplotypes based on 5 TNF SNPs did not vary by case/control status in PLCO, but showed marginal associations in the Nutrition Cohort (global P = 0.06) and the pooled analysis (global P = 0.05).

Conclusions: Despite somewhat suggestive haplotype results, overall our study does not support an association between TNF variants and prostate cancer risk.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources