Table 5.

VDR polymorphisms and breast cancer risk

First author (ref.), year, study place	Years of data collection	Ethnicity	Study design	No. cases/controls	Comparison*	OR (95% CL)	Variables adjusted for
Chen (78), 2005, United states	1989/1990-2000	Mainly Caucasian	Nested case-control study	1,234/1,676	FokI: ff vs FF			BMI, parity/age at first birth, family history of breast cancer in first-degree relative, BBD, alcohol, age at menarche, and age at menopause
									Premenopausal	2.18 (1.18, 4.00)
									Postmenopausal	1.25 (0.94, 1.66)
									BsmI: BB vs bb
									Premenopausal	0.92 (0.46, 1.85)
									Postmenopausal	0.94 (0.69, 1.26)
Lowe (49), 2005, United Kingdom	1998-2003	Caucasian	Hospital-based case-control study^†	179/179	BsmI: bb vs BB	2.02 (1.03, 3.97)	Matching variables, time of year, age at sampling, and menopausal status
Lowe (49), 2005, United Kingdom	1998-2003	Caucasian	Hospital-based case-control study^†	179/179					BsmI: Bb vs BB	0.71 (0.37, 1.36)
Guy (79), 2004, United Kingdom^‡	1998-2002	Caucasian	Hospital-based case-control study^†	398/427	BsmI: bb vs BB	1.88 (1.19, 2.95)	Age, HRT usage, and menopausal status
									Poly(A): LL vs SS	1.90 (1.20, 3.01)
									FokI: FF vs ff	1.31 (0.84, 2.06)
Sillanpaa (83), 2004, Finland	1990-1995	Caucasian	Population-based case-control study	483/482	ApaI: aa vs AA	0.80 (0.54, 1.19)	Age, age at menarche, age at first full-term pregnancy, no. pregnancies, family history of breast cancer, and history of BBD
Sillanpaa (83), 2004, Finland	1990-1995	Caucasian	Population-based case-control study	483/482					TaqI: TT vs tt	0.71 (0.42, 1.19)
Buyru (84), 2003, Turkey	Not stated	Turkish	Case-control study	78/27	BsmI: BB vs bb	0.76 (0.25, 2.29)	Not stated
Buyru (84), 2003, Turkey	Not stated	Turkish	Case-control study	78/27			Not stated		TaqI: TT vs tt	1.04 (0.27, 4.49)
Newcomb (85), 2002, United states	1998	Not stated	Population-based case-control study	403/383	TaqI: tt vs TT			Age, family history of breast cancer, BMI, age at first birth, HRT, and menopausal status
									Premenopausal	1.15 (0.67, 3.41)
									Postmenopausal	0.85 (0.47, 1.54)
Hou (86), 2002, Taiwan	Not stated	Chinese	Hospital-based case-control study	34/169	BsmI: Bb vs bb	1.81 (0.72, 4.55)	Not stated
									TaqI: Tt vs TT	1.87 (0.64, 5.42)
									ApaI: aa vs AA	0.52 (0.19, 1.40)
Bretherton-Watt (80), 2001, United Kingdom^‡	Not stated	Caucasian	Hospital-based case-control study^†	181/241	BsmI: bb vs BB	2.32 (1.23, 4.39)	Not stated
									Poly(A): LL vs SS	2.46 (1.29, 4.70)
									FokI: FF vs ff	1.17 (0.65, 2.08)
Ingles (81), 2000, United States	Not stated	Latinas	Nested case-control study	143/300	BsmI: BB vs bb	2.2 (1.0, 4.7)	Age
									Poly (A): SS vs LL	3.2 (1.5, 6.9)
									FokI: ff vs FF	1.1 (0.6, 2.9)
Curran (82), 1999, Australia	Not stated	Australian	Hospital-based case-control study	135/110	ApaI: a vs A	1.56 (1.09, 2.24)	Not stated
									TaqI: T vs t	1.45 (1.00, 2.00)
									FokI: F vs f	0.99 (0.69, 1.43)
Dunning (87), 1999, United Kingdom^§	1992-1996	Caucasian	Case-control study	211/268	TaqI: tt vs TT	0.79 (0.45, 1.39)	Not stated
Dunning (87), 1999, United Kingdom^§	1991-1996	Caucasian	Case-control study	740/359	TaqI: tt vs TT	1.05 (0.72, 1.53)	Not stated
Lundin (88), 1999, Sweden	1980-1993	Swedish	Hospital-based case-control study	111/130	TaqI	No association^∥
Ruggiero (89), 1998, Italy	Not stated	Italian	Hospital-based case-control study	88/167	BsmI: bb vs BB	0.89 (0.44, 1.81)	Not stated

↵* The associations are presented by menopausal status whenever the studies reported them separately or the studies were restricted to either premenopausal or postmenopausal women. Otherwise, the associations for a combination of premenopausal and postmenopausal women are presented.
↵† Prevalent breast cancer cases were included.
↵‡ The study by Bretherton-Watt is the pilot study for the study by Guy.
↵§ The same article presented two separate studies.
↵∥ No OR and 95% CL were presented. Genotype distributions were similar for cases and controls.