This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Millikan, R. Articles by Bell, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Millikan, R. Articles by Bell, D.

Glutathione S-Transferases M1, T1, and P1 and Breast Cancer¹

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599 [R. M., G. P., C-K. T., D. A. S.]; Genetic Risk Group, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 [G. P., D. B.]; and School of Public Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4059, Queensland, Australia [B. N.]

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
We examined associations for glutathione S-transferases M1 (GSTM1), T1 (GSTT1), and P1 (GSTP1) genotypes and breast cancer in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based, case-control study in North Carolina. Odds ratios were close to the null value for each GST locus among African-American women (278 cases and 271 controls) and white women (410 cases and 392 controls), as well as pre- and postmenopausal women. For women with a history of breast cancer in one or more first-degree relatives, odds ratios were 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.0–4.2) for GSTM1 null and 1.9 (0.8–4.6) for GSTT1 null genotypes. Among women with a family history, age at diagnosis was significantly earlier for those with the GSTM1 null genotype. We did not observe strong evidence for modification of odds ratios for smoking according to GST genotypes. There was no evidence for combined effects of GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 genotypes, and there were no combined effects for GST genotypes and the catechol O-methyltransferase genotype. We conclude that GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 genotypes do not play a strong role in susceptibility to breast cancer. However, the role of GST genotypes in age at onset and risk of breast cancer among women with a family history merits further investigation.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
GSTs³ are a family of enzymes involved in detoxication of benzo(a)pyrene and other carcinogens found in tobacco smoke, cytotoxic drugs, and chemical solvents (1 , 2) . Deletions in two GST genes, GSTM1 and GSTT1, occur at frequencies of 15% or greater in human populations (3) . Individuals who are deletion homozygotes, classified as GSTM1 null or GSTT1 null, exhibit absence of enzymatic activity and are hypothesized to be at increased risk for the carcinogenic effects of a wide range of environmental exposures. Associations between GSTM1 and GSTT1 null genotypes and cancer of the lung, bladder, and colon have been reported, but results are inconsistent across studies (2, 3, 4, 5) . An amino acid substitution variant in a third GST gene, GSTP1 codon 105 IleVal, has been identified recently that encodes an enzyme with reduced catalytic activity (6) . The GSTP1 Valallele is common in human populations but has not been extensively examined in association with cancer.

Several previous studies investigated GSTM1 and GSTT1 genotypes and breast cancer risk (reviewed in Refs. 4 , 7, and 8 ), and one study examined the role of GSTP1 genotype (9) . We examined the relation of GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 genotypes and breast cancer risk in the CBCS, a large, population-based, case-control study of African-American and white women residents of North Carolina. To address issues raised by previous studies, we estimated main effects for each GST locus; conducted analyses stratified on smoking, family history, and other factors; and determined age at onset according to GST genotype and family history. We investigated joint effects for combinations of GST genotypes, as well as joint effects for GST genotypes and the COMT genotype, a gene involved in detoxication of catechol estrogens (10) .

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Study Population.
The CBCS is a population-based, case-control study of breast cancer conducted in 24 counties of North Carolina (11) . Incident cases of invasive breast cancer among women of ages 20–74 were identified in cooperation with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, and controls were identified using Division of Motor Vehicles and Medicare beneficiary lists. Randomized recruitment (12) was used to oversample younger women and African-American women. Between 1993 and 1996, 889 cases of primary invasive breast cancer and 841 population-based controls were enrolled. Overall response rates (number of completed interviews/number of eligible women) were 74% for cases and 53% for controls (13) . In-person interviews were conducted in participants’ homes. Over 98% of women who were interviewed agreed to provide a blood sample.

Genotyping for GSTs was conducted for the first 688 cases and 663 controls enrolled in the CBCS (278 African-American cases and 271 African-American controls; 410 white cases and 392 white controls). There were no appreciable differences in risk factors for breast cancer or response rates between participants genotyped for GSTs and the remaining participants in the CBCS (data not shown).

Laboratory Analysis.
DNA was extracted from peripheral blood lymphocytes using standard methods (14) . Genotyping for GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 was conducted using PCR-RFLP methods, as described in Helzlsouer et al. (9) , with slight modifications for GSTT1; the forward primer sequence was 5'-gcc ctg gct agt tgc tga ag, the reverse primer was 5'-gca tct gat ttg ggg acc aca, and the annealing temperature was 59°C.

The genotyping assays for GSTM1 and GSTT1 classify individuals with one or two copies of the relevant gene as "present" and individuals with homozygous deletions as "null." The assay for GSTP1 classifies individuals according to the alleles Ile and Val. Assays that were unreadable for each locus are reported as "missing." Approximately half of the samples listed as missing did not amplify for the relevant locus, and the remaining amplified too poorly to assign genotypes. The proportions of missing values were similar in cases and controls (5% of cases and 4% of controls were missing for GSTM1; 6% of cases and 4% of controls for GSTT1; 11% of cases and 9% of controls for GSTP1). Missing values for genotypes were not related to smoking or other covariates (data not shown). Sensitivity analyses were conducted by replacing missing values with different genotype combinations, and ORs remained within the confidence limits presented.

Positive and negative control samples were included with each batch of samples (one batch, 94 samples). Gels were scored by two different readers, and discordant samples were repeated. Reliability was assessed by selecting a random sample of 10% of samples from each batch. Batches with <95% agreement were rerun.

Methods for genotyping of COMT and associations with breast cancer in the CBCS have been reported previously (15) .

Statistical Analysis.
Genotype frequencies and 95% CI for GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 were calculated as the proportion of individuals with a given genotype divided by the total number of participants. For GSTP1, allele frequencies and 95% CI were calculated as the number of alleles divided by the number of chromosomes, and tests for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium were conducted by comparing observed and expected genotype frequencies using a ² test (16) .

Adjusted OR for breast cancer and 95% CI were calculated from unconditional logistic regression models using SAS (version 6.11; SAS Institute, Cary NC). PROC GENMOD was used to incorporate offset terms derived from the sampling probabilities used to identify eligible participants (12) and to adjust for race (as two-level categorical variable) and age (as an 11-level ordinal variable reflecting 5-year age categories). Race was defined according to self-report.

Multivariable logistic regression models were used to adjust for potential confounding factors. Covariates included menopausal status, a composite of parity and age at first full-term pregnancy, breastfeeding, family history of breast cancer, history of breast biopsy, smoking, and alcohol consumption, as described previously (17) . Family history was defined as having one or more first-degree relatives with breast cancer and was not verified by contacting relatives or reviewing pathology reports from relatives. Women were classified as exposed to ETS if they reported living with a smoker when they were 18 years or older and unexposed if they did not live with a smoker. Our assessment of ETS exposure did not include information on occupational, leisure, or recreational exposure. With the exception of ORs for smoking variables, ORs did not change after adjustment for additional covariates and therefore are adjusted only for sampling fractions, age, and race (where appropriate) in this report.

ORs for GST genotypes and breast cancer were calculated after stratifying on menopausal status, family history of breast cancer, use of hormone replacement therapy, alcohol consumption, and BMI. We conducted stratified analyses in this manner to compare our results with Helzlsouer et al. (9) . For BMI, we stratified on the median among controls in our study (27.7 kg/m²), as well as the cutpoint used by Helzlsouer et al. (Ref. 9 ; 24.7 kg/m²). ORs for smoking and breast cancer were stratified on GST genotype to compare our results with our previous study of N-acetyl transferase genotypes and breast cancer (17) . Thus, the method of stratification differed across tables but was necessary to compare results across studies. Interpretation of results did not differ when a uniform method of stratification based on a single common referent group was used (results not shown).

Joint effects of GST genotypes were estimated using the a priori low-risk genotype combination (GSTM1 present, GSTT1 present, and GSTP1 Ile/Ile) as a common referent group. Joint effects of GST genotype and COMT were assessed using the low-risk GST genotype in combination with COMT HH or HLgenotypes as a common referent group. The COMT L allele encodes a thermolabile form of the enzyme that displays reduced ability to inactivate catechol estrogens through O-methylation (10) .

Tests for interaction on multiplicative and additive scales were performed by comparing ORs for the joint effects of genotype and environmental factors (or joint effects for genotypes) using a common referent group (18) . No evidence of departure from additive or multiplicative effects was seen (results not shown).

² tests were used to compare the prevalence of GST genotypes across stages of breast cancer among cases, and t tests were used to compare mean age at diagnosis among cases according to GST genotypes. Trend tests were conducted by calculating Ps for the ß coefficient in a logistic regression model with the exposure coded as an ordinal variable. All Ps are two-sided.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Characteristics of participants in the CBCS have been described previously (17) . Briefly, onset of menarche prior to age 12, nulliparity, first full-term pregnancy at age 26 or older, breast cancer in a first-degree relative, and smoking cigarettes for >20 years were positively associated with breast cancer, whereas breastfeeding showed an inverse association. Genotype frequencies for GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 in the CBCS are presented in Table 1 . Estimates among controls are similar to previous studies, including a higher prevalence of GSTM1 null genotype among white compared with African-American controls (2 , 4) . Allele frequencies for the GSTP1 Val allele were 0.49 (95% CI 0.45–0.53) in African-American cases and 0.51 (0.46–0.55) in African-American controls (P = 0.6), and 0.31 (0.27–0.34) in white cases and 0.35 (0.32–0.39) in white controls (P = 0.1). We did not observe significant departures from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for GSTP1 genotypes among African-American cases (P = 0.8), African-American controls (P = 0.5), white cases (P = 0.9), or white controls (P = 0.8).

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
We examined the relation of GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 genotypes and breast cancer risk in a population-based, case-control study of African-American and white women in North Carolina. GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 genotypes were not associated with breast cancer risk in African-American or white women, or among pre- or postmenopausal women. Two previous studies reported no overall association between GSTM1 genotype and breast cancer risk (19 , 20) . Helzlsouer et al. (9) and Charrier et al. (21) reported positive associations for the GSTM1 null genotype among postmenopausal but not premenopausal women, whereas Ambrosone et al. (22) reported a positive association for GSTM1 null genotype among younger postmenopausal women. In contrast, Garcia-Closas et al. (23) reported no association for GSTM1 null genotype in pre- or postmenopausal women. Helzlsouer et al. (9) reported no association for GSTT1 null genotype and breast cancer in pre- or postmenopausal women, whereas Garcia-Closas et al. (23) observed an inverse association for GSTT1 null genotype among premenopausal women. All of the aforementioned studies were conducted primarily among white women. In the single previous study to include substantial numbers of African-American women, Bailey et al. (24) observed no association between GSTM1 null or GSTT1 null genotypes and breast cancer among African-American or white women. Only one previous study investigated GSTP1 and breast cancer (9) . The authors reported a positive association for GSTP1 Val/Val genotype in postmenopausal women. It is likely that the differences in results across studies are attributable to chance, because they are based upon small subgroups of women.

ORs for GSTM1 null and GSTT1 null genotypes were elevated slightly among women with family history of breast cancer, and age at diagnosis was lower among women with a family history and GSTM1 null genotype. Helzlsouer et al. (9) reported 2-fold elevated ORs for all three GST genes among women with a family history of breast cancer, whereas Kelsey et al. (20) reported no modification of ORs for GSTM1 by family history. The positive associations for GSTM1 and GSTT1 genotypes among women with a family history could be attributable to unmeasured genetic or environmental factors that interact with GST genes to increase risk of breast cancer and/or age at onset. Family-based studies that incorporate genotyping and environmental exposure assessment are the ideal study design to test such a hypothesis (25) . We did not estimate joint effects for GST genotypes and BRCA1 or BRCA2 status because of the small number of BRCA carriers in the CBCS. In fact, the majority of CBCS cases with a family history did not carry mutations in BRCA1 (26) . Our results for family history could be biased, because we did not verify family history information using medical records.

We did not observe modification of ORs for GST genotype by use of hormone replacement therapy, alcohol consumption, or body mass index. Our results contrast with Helzlsouer et al. (9) , who reported a strong positive association for GSTM1 null genotype among postmenopausal women with BMI >24.47 kg/m² and a positive association for GSTT1 null genotype among women who consumed alcoholic beverages. We did not observe modification of ORs for GST genotype by consumption of fruits and vegetables, in agreement with Ambrosone et al. (27) . Smoking effects were modified only slightly by GST genotypes, as in previous studies (9 , 20 , 22 , 23) . We only partially addressed exposure to ETS, because the CBCS questionnaire did not include exposure during work or leisure time. Our results suggest that although GST enzymes are expressed in breast tissue (28) , polymorphisms in GST genes do not play a strong role in modifying the association of smoking and breast cancer.

Helzlsouer et al. (9) , in a study of 100 cases and 115 controls, reported an OR for breast cancer of 3.77 (95% CI, 1.10–12.88) for the combination of GSTM1 null + GSTT1 null + GSTP1 Ile/Val or Val/Valgenotypes, compared with GSTM1 present + GSTT1 present + GSTP1 Ile/Ile. In contrast, we observed an OR of 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3–1.0) for the same comparison of GST genotypes. Garcia-Closas et al. (23) , in a study of 466 cases and 466 controls, reported ORs close to the null for all combinations of GSTM1 and GSTT1 genotypes. Only our study and that of Garcia-Closas et al. (23) had 80% power to detect joint effects for GST genotypes, and the positive finding in the aforementioned study (9) may represent a chance finding because of the small number of participants (29) . Lavigne et al. (10) , using data from the same study as Helzlsouer et al. (9) , reported an OR of 4.10 (95% CI 1.17–14.27) for the combination of COMT LL + GSTM1 null genotypes, and an OR of 3.40 (95% CI, 1.17–12.33) for COMT LL + GSTP1 Ile/Val or Val/Valgenotypes, whereas we did not observe positive associations for any combination of COMT or GST genotypes.

We did not observe an association between GSTM1, GSTT1, or GSTP1 genotype and stage at diagnosis of breast cancer. Our results are in agreement with Shea et al. (30) but contradict Kristensen et al. (31) who reported an association between GSTM1 null and GSTT1 null genotype status and more advanced stage at diagnosis in breast cancer patients. Kristensen et al. (31) reported that patients with GSTM1 null genotype had shorter overall survival, whereas Kelsey et al. (20) reported increased survival for patients with GSTM1 null genotype. We were unable to examine the relation of GST genotype and survival because we do not have information on long-term survival for women in our study.

Our results suggest that GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 genotypes do not play a strong role in susceptibility to breast cancer, in agreement with most previous studies. However, inability to detect effects for GSTs could result from failure to include relevant environmental exposures or genes that interact with GSTs. The presence of positive associations for GSTs in women with a family history suggests that unknown genetic or environmental exposures may modify the effects of GST genes, a hypothesis that could be investigated further in family-based association studies. Unmeasured genetic or environmental factors that interact with GSTs could also contribute to differences in results across epidemiological studies. A potential role for GST genotypes in breast cancer prognosis and response to treatment, as well as the possibility that GSTM1 status might modify age at onset for breast cancer, also merit further investigation.

	Acknowledgments

 
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the nurse interviewers for the Carolina Breast Cancer Study: Martha Beach, Carolyn Dunmore, Dianne Mattingly, Theresa Nalevaiko, Patricia Plummer, Georgette Regan, and Cheryl Robinson. We also acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Susan Jackson and Patricia Moorman as Project Managers of the CBCS and Daynise Skeen for processing of blood samples. We thank three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript.

	Footnotes

 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

¹ Supported by the Specialized Program of Research Excellence in Breast Cancer, NIH/NCI P50-CA58223; Pesticides and Breast Cancer in North Carolina, NIH/NIEHS R01-ES07128; and Environment and Breast Cancer Program, R21-CA66201.

² To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Department of Epidemiology, CB #7400, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7400.

³ The abbreviations used are: GST, glutathione S-transferase; CBCS, Carolina Breast Cancer Study; BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; COMT, catechol O-methyltransferase; df, degrees of freedom; ETS, environmental tobacco smoke; OR, odds ratio.

Received 11/ 2/99; revised 3/ 8/00; accepted 4/11/00.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. Ketterer B. Protective role of glutathione and glutathione transferases in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Mutat. Res., 202: 343-361, 1988.[Medline]
2. Strange R., Fryer A. The glutathione S-transferases: influence of polymorphism on cancer susceptibility Vineis P. Malats N. Lang M. D’Errico A. Caporaso N. Cuzick J. Boffetta P. eds. . Metabolic Polymorphisms and Susceptibility to Cancer. IARC Scientific Publication No. 148, 231-250, IARC Lyon, France 1999.
3. Smith G., Stanley L., Sim E., Strange R., Wolf C. Metabolic polymorphisms and cancer susceptibility. Cancer Surv., 25: 27-65, 1995.[Medline]
4. Rebbeck T. Molecular epidemiology of the human glutathione S-transferase genotypes GSTM1 and GSTT1 in cancer susceptibility. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 6: 733-743, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Vineis P., D’Errico A., Malats N., Boffetta P. Overall evaluation and research perspectives Vineis P. Malats N. Lang M. D’Errico A. Caporaso N. Cuzick J. Boffetta P. eds. . Metabolic Polymorphisms and Susceptibility to Cancer. IARC Scientific Publication No. 148, 403-408, IARC Lyon, France 1999.
6. Watson M., Stewart R., Smith G., Massey T., Bell D. Glutathione S-transferase P1 polymorphism: relationship to lung tissue enzyme activity and population frequency distribution. Carcinogenesis (Lond.), 19: 275-280, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Kelsey K., Wiencke J. Growing pains for the environmental genetics of breast cancer: observations on a study of the glutathione S-transferases. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 90: 484-485, 1998.[Free Full Text]
8. D’Errico A., Taioli E., Chen X., Vineis P. Genetic polymorphisms and the risk of cancer: a review of the literature. Biomarkers, 1: 149-173, 1996.
9. Helzlsouer K., Selmin O., Huang H-Y., Strickland P., Hoffman S., Alberg A., Watson M., Comstock G., Bell D. Association between glutathione S-transferase M1, P1 and T1 genetic polymorphisms and development of breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 90: 512-518, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Lavigne J., Helzlsouer K., Huang H-Y., Strickland P., Bell D., Selmin O., Watson M., Hoffman S., Comstock G., Yager J. An association between the allele coding for a low activity variant of catechol-O-methyltransferase and the risk for breast cancer. Cancer Res., 57: 5493-5497, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Newman B., Moorman P., Millikan R., Qaqish B., Geradts J., Aldrich T., Liu E. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study: integrating population-based epidemiology and molecular biology. Breast Cancer Res Treat., 34: 51-60, 1995.
12. Weinberg C., Sandler D. Randomized recruitment in case-control studies. Am. J. Epidemiol., 134: 421-432, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Moorman P., Newman B., Millikan R., Tse C-K., Sandler D. Participation rates in a case-control study: the impact of age, race and race of interviewer. Ann. Epidemiol., 9: 188-195, 1999.[Medline]
14. Sambrook J., Maniatis T., Fritsch F. . Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, Ed 2 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Cold Spring Harbor, NY 1988.
15. Millikan R., Pittman G., Tse C-K., Duell E., Newman B., Savitz D., Moorman P., Boissy P., Bell D. Catechol O-methyltransferase and beast cancer risk. Carcinogenesis (Lond.), 19: 1943-1947, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Cavalli-Sforza L., Bodmer W. . The Genetics of Human Populations, W. H. Freeman San Francisco 1971.
17. Millikan R., Pittman G., Newman B., Tse C-K., Selmin O., Rockhill B., Savitz D., Moorman P., Bell D. Cigarette smoking, N-acetyltransferases 1 and 2, and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 7: 371-378, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Rothman K., Greenland S. . Modern Epidemiology, Ed. 2 329-342, Lippincott-Raven Philadelphia 1998.
19. Zhong S., Wyllie A., Barnes D., Wolf C., Spurr N. Relationship between the GSTM1 genetic polymorphism and susceptibility to bladder, breast and colon cancer. Carcinogenesis (Lond.), 14: 1821-1824, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Kelsey K., Hankinson S., Colditz G., Springer K., Garcia-Closas M., Spiegelman D., Manson J., Garland M., Stampfer M., Willett W., Speizer F., Hunter D. Glutathione S-transferase class µ deletion polymorphism and breast cancer: results from prevalent versus incident cases. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 6: 511-515, 1997.[Abstract]
21. Charrier J., Maugard C., LeMevel B., Bignon Y. Allelotype influence at glutathione S-transferase M1 locus on breast cancer susceptibility. Br. J. Cancer, 79: 346-353, 1999.[Medline]
22. Ambrosone C., Freudenheim J., Graham S., Marshall J., Vena J., Brasure J., Laughlin R., Nemoto T., Michalek A., Harrington A., Ford T., Shields P. Cytochrome P450IA1 and glutathione S-transferase (M1) genetic polymorphisms and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Cancer Res., 55: 3483-3485, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Garcia-Closas M., Kelsey K., Hankinson S., Spiegelman D., Springer K., Willett W., Speizer F., Hunter D. Glutathione S-transferase class mu and theta polymorphisms and breast cancer susceptibility. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 91: 1960-1964, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Bailey L., Roodi N., Verrier C., Yee C., Dupont W., Parl F. Breast cancer and CYPIA1, GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphisms: evidence of a lack of association in Caucasians and African Americans. Cancer Res., 58: 65-70, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Zhao L., Hsu L., Davidov O., Potter J., Elston R., Prentice R. Population-based family study designs: an interdisciplinary research framework for genetic epidemiology. Genet. Epidemiol., 14: 365-388, 1997.[Medline]
26. Newman B., Mu H., Butler L., Millikan R., Moorman P., King M-C. Frequency of breast cancer attributable to BRCA1 in a population-based series of American women. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 279: 915-921, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Ambrosone C., Coles B., Freudenheim J., Shields P. Glutathione-S-transferase (GSTM1) genetic polymorphisms do not affect human breast cancer risk, regardless of dietary antioxidants. J. Nutr., 129: ((2SSuppl.))565S-568S, 1999.
28. Forrester L., Hayes J., Millis R., Barnes D., Harris A., Schlager J., Powis G., Wolf C. Expression of glutathione S-transferases and cytochrome P450 in normal and tumor breast tissue. Carcinogenesis (Lond.), 11: 2163-2170, 1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Smith P., Day N. The design of case-control studies: influence of confounding and interaction effects. Int. J. Epidemiol., 13: 356-365, 1984.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Shea T., Claflin G., Comstock K., Sanderson B., Burstein N., Keenan E., Mannervik B., Henner W. Glutathione transferase activity and isoenzyme composition in primary human breast cancers. Cancer Res., 50: 6848-6853, 1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Kristensen V., Andersen T., Erikstein B., Geitvik G., Skovlund E., Nesland J., Borresen-Dale A-L. Single tube multiplex polymerase chain reaction genotype analysis of GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1: relation of genotypes to TP53 tumor status and clinicopathologic variables in breast cancer patients. Pharmacogenetics, 8: 441-447, 1998.[Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S.-A. Lee, J. H Fowke, W. Lu, C. Ye, Y. Zheng, Q. Cai, K. Gu, Y.-T. Gao, X.-o. Shu, and W. Zheng Cruciferous vegetables, the GSTP1 Ile105Val genetic polymorphism, and breast cancer risk Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, March 1, 2008; 87(3): 753 - 760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. L. Leavens, B. C. Blount, D. M. DeMarini, M. C. Madden, J. L. Valentine, M. W. Case, L. K. Silva, S. H. Warren, N. M. Hanley, and R. A. Pegram Disposition of Bromodichloromethane in Humans Following Oral and Dermal Exposure Toxicol. Sci., October 1, 2007; 99(2): 432 - 445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S.E. Steck, M.M. Gaudet, J.A. Britton, S.L. Teitelbaum, M.B. Terry, A.I. Neugut, R.M. Santella, and M.D. Gammon Interactions among GSTM1, GSTT1 and GSTP1 polymorphisms, cruciferous vegetable intake and breast cancer risk Carcinogenesis, September 1, 2007; 28(9): 1954 - 1959. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. E. Steck, M. D. Gammon, J. R. Hebert, D. E. Wall, and S. H. Zeisel GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTP1, and GSTA1 Polymorphisms and Urinary Isothiocyanate Metabolites following Broccoli Consumption in Humans J. Nutr., April 1, 2007; 137(4): 904 - 909. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. D. Terry and M. Goodman Is the Association between Cigarette Smoking and Breast Cancer Modified by Genotype? A Review of Epidemiologic Studies and Meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2006; 15(4): 602 - 611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. D. Vogl, E. Taioli, C. Maugard, W. Zheng, L. F. Ribeiro Pinto, C. Ambrosone, F. F. Parl, V. Nedelcheva-Kristensen, T. R. Rebbeck, P. Brennan, et al. Glutathione S-transferases M1, T1, and P1 and Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., September 1, 2004; 13(9): 1473 - 1479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. M. Egan, Q. Cai, X.-O. Shu, F. Jin, T.-L. Zhu, Q. Dai, Y.-T. Gao, and W. Zheng Genetic Polymorphisms in GSTM1, GSTP1, and GSTT1 and the Risk for Breast Cancer: Results from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study and Meta-Analysis Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2004; 13(2): 197 - 204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. D. Terry and T. E. Rohan Cigarette Smoking and the Risk of Breast Cancer in Women: A Review of the Literature Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2002; 11(10): 953 - 971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Gudmundsdottir, L. Tryggvadottir, and J. E. Eyfjord GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 Genotypes in Relation to Breast Cancer Risk and Frequency of Mutations in the p53 Gene Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2001; 10(11): 1169 - 1173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. B. Ambrosone, C. Sweeney, B. F. Coles, P. A. Thompson, G. Y. McClure, S. Korourian, M. Y. Fares, A. Stone, F. F. Kadlubar, and L. F. Hutchins Polymorphisms in Glutathione S-Transferases (GSTM1 and GSTT1) and Survival after Treatment for Breast Cancer Cancer Res., October 1, 2001; 61(19): 7130 - 7135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Mitrunen, N. Jourenkova, V. Kataja, M. Eskelinen, V.-M. Kosma, S. Benhamou, H. Vainio, M. Uusitupa, and A. Hirvonen Glutathione S-Transferase M1, M3, P1, and T1 Genetic Polymorphisms and Susceptibility to Breast Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2001; 10(3): 229 - 236. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				R. C. Millikan Re: Population Stratification in Epidemiologic Studies of Common Genetic Variants and Cancer: Quantification of Bias J Natl Cancer Inst, January 17, 2001; 93(2): 156 - 157. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Millikan, R. Articles by Bell, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Millikan, R. Articles by Bell, D.