Table 5.

VDR polymorphisms and breast cancer risk

First author (ref.), year, study placeYears of data collectionEthnicityStudy designNo. cases/controlsComparison*OR (95% CL)Variables adjusted for
Chen (78), 2005, United states1989/1990-2000Mainly CaucasianNested case-control study1,234/1,676FokI: ff vs FFBMI, parity/age at first birth, family history of breast cancer in first-degree relative, BBD, alcohol, age at menarche, and age at menopause
Premenopausal2.18 (1.18, 4.00)
Postmenopausal1.25 (0.94, 1.66)
BsmI: BB vs bb
Premenopausal0.92 (0.46, 1.85)
Postmenopausal0.94 (0.69, 1.26)
Lowe (49), 2005, United Kingdom1998-2003CaucasianHospital-based case-control study179/179BsmI: bb vs BB2.02 (1.03, 3.97)Matching variables, time of year, age at sampling, and menopausal status
BsmI: Bb vs BB0.71 (0.37, 1.36)
Guy (79), 2004, United Kingdom1998-2002CaucasianHospital-based case-control study398/427BsmI: bb vs BB1.88 (1.19, 2.95)Age, HRT usage, and menopausal status
Poly(A): LL vs SS1.90 (1.20, 3.01)
FokI: FF vs ff1.31 (0.84, 2.06)
Sillanpaa (83), 2004, Finland1990-1995CaucasianPopulation-based case-control study483/482ApaI: aa vs AA0.80 (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
TaqI: TT vs tt0.71 (0.42, 1.19)
Buyru (84), 2003, TurkeyNot statedTurkishCase-control study78/27BsmI: BB vs bb0.76 (0.25, 2.29)Not stated
TaqI: TT vs tt1.04 (0.27, 4.49)
Newcomb (85), 2002, United states1998Not statedPopulation-based case-control study403/383TaqI: tt vs TTAge, family history of breast cancer, BMI, age at first birth, HRT, and menopausal status
Premenopausal1.15 (0.67, 3.41)
Postmenopausal0.85 (0.47, 1.54)
Hou (86), 2002, TaiwanNot statedChineseHospital-based case-control study34/169BsmI: Bb vs bb1.81 (0.72, 4.55)Not stated
TaqI: Tt vs TT1.87 (0.64, 5.42)
ApaI: aa vs AA0.52 (0.19, 1.40)
Bretherton-Watt (80), 2001, United KingdomNot statedCaucasianHospital-based case-control study181/241BsmI: bb vs BB2.32 (1.23, 4.39)Not stated
Poly(A): LL vs SS2.46 (1.29, 4.70)
FokI: FF vs ff1.17 (0.65, 2.08)
Ingles (81), 2000, United StatesNot statedLatinasNested case-control study143/300BsmI: BB vs bb2.2 (1.0, 4.7)Age
Poly (A): SS vs LL3.2 (1.5, 6.9)
FokI: ff vs FF1.1 (0.6, 2.9)
Curran (82), 1999, AustraliaNot statedAustralianHospital-based case-control study135/110ApaI: a vs A1.56 (1.09, 2.24)Not stated
TaqI: T vs t1.45 (1.00, 2.00)
FokI: F vs f0.99 (0.69, 1.43)
Dunning (87), 1999, United Kingdom§1992-1996CaucasianCase-control study211/268TaqI: tt vs TT0.79 (0.45, 1.39)Not stated
Dunning (87), 1999, United Kingdom§1991-1996CaucasianCase-control study740/359TaqI: tt vs TT1.05 (0.72, 1.53)Not stated
Lundin (88), 1999, Sweden1980-1993SwedishHospital-based case-control study111/130TaqINo association
Ruggiero (89), 1998, ItalyNot statedItalianHospital-based case-control study88/167BsmI: bb vs BB0.89 (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.