E head and neck cancer risk. Genetic model Variables Na Total

E head and neck cancer risk. Genetic model Variables Na Total Ethnicity STI-571 chemical information Caucasians others Source of get ABT-737 controls HCCc PCCc Study sample size 500 <500 Matched control Yes Noa b cHomozygote Arg/Arg vs. His/His OR(95 CI) 0.79(0.57,1.09) 0.83(0.56,1.21) 0.70(0.38,1.30) 0.69(0.41,1.15) 0.86(0.57,1.32) 0.78(0.46,1.35) 0.79(0.53,1.19) 0.66(0.33,1.34) 0.83(0.57,1.20) Pvalueb 0.51 0.23 0.99 0.29 0.61 0.94 0.31 0.74 0.Heterozygote Arg/His vs. His/His OR(95 CI) 1.11(0.74,1.65) 1.24(0.72,2.16) 0.88(0.64,1.22) 1.08(0.29,3.99) 1.14(0.96,1.37) 1.17(0.94,1.47) 1.08(0.58,1.98) 0.46(0.12,1.80) 1.32(0.89,1.97) Pvalueb 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.98 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.Dominant model Arg/Arg+Arg/His vs. His/His OR(95 CI) 1.13(0.91,1.41) 1.27(0.98,1.64) 0.86(0.63,1.16) 1.28(0.73,2.25) 1.11(0.93,1.31) 1.12(0.90,1.40) 1.15(0.84,1.58) 1.04(0.76,1.42) 1.20(0.89,1.62) Pvalueb 0.02 0.03 0.50 0.00 0,91 0.94 0.01 0.19 0.Recessive model Arg/Arg vs.Arg/His +His/His OR(95 CI) 0.77(0.58,1.02) 0.77(0.56,1.07) 0.77(0.42,1.40) 0.72(0.49,1.07) 0.83(0.55,1.26) 0.74(0.43,1.28) 0.78(0.56,1.09) 0.64(0.32,1.29) 0.80(0.59,1.09) Pvalueb 0.60 0.30 0.94 0.34 0.62 0.92 0.40 0.81 0.Sample size Case/control 1982/2024 1608/1671 374/353 683/752 1299/1272 709/708 1273/1316 617/549 1365/10 7 3 4 5 2 8 3Number of comparisons. P value of Q-test for heterogeneity test. Random-effects model was used when Pvalue <0.1, otherwise, fixed-effects model was adoptedHCC, hospital-based case control; PCC, population-based case control.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123347.tHNC susceptibility. The main results of this pooled analysis are presented in Table 3 and Fig 3 shows forest plots illustrating the effect of the EPHX1 Tyr113His polymorphism on HNC risk. Overall, the EPHX1 His139Arg polymorphism was not significantly associated with HNC susceptibility in four genetic models: Arg/Arg+ Arg/His vs. His/His (dominant model, OR = 1.13, 95 CI = 0.91?.41), Arg/Arg vs. Arg/His+His/His (recessive model, OR = 0.77, 95 CI = 0.58?.02), Arg/Arg vs. His/His (homozygote comparison, OR = 0.79, 95 CI = 0.57?.09), and Arg/His vs. His/His (heterozygote comparison, OR = 1.11, 95 CI = 0.74?1.65). There were no significant associations found in the four genetic models between the His139Arg polymorphism and HNC susceptibility in any of the subgroup analyses (Table 3).Heterogeneity analysisFor the Tyr113His polymorphism, significant heterogeneity was found in the overall comparisons in four genetic models: dominant model P = 0.01, recessive model P = 0.01, homozygote comparison P = 0. 00, and heterozygote comparison P = 0.02. Significant heterogeneity was also detected for the His139Arg polymorphism. No significant heterogeneity was found in the homozygote comparison or the recessive model comparison; however, significant heterogeneity was detected in the heterozygote comparison and dominant model (dominant model P = 0.02, recessive model P = 0.60, homozygote comparison P = 0.51, and heterozygote comparison P = 0.00.). Galbraith plot analyses were used to evaluate the potential sources of heterogeneity in this article. In this analysis, three studies [24, 28, 32] were found to be contributors of heterogeneity for the Tyr113His polymorphism (S1 Fig). After excluding these three outlier studies, we re-evaluated the association with reduced heterogeneity (His/His vs. Tyr/Tyr: P = 0.55; Tyr/His vs. Tyr/Tyr: P = 0.66; His/His+ Tyr/His vs. Tyr/Tyr: P = 0.86; His/His vs. Tyr/His+ Tyr/Tyr: P = 0.32). Regarding the His139Arg polymorphism, twoPL.E head and neck cancer risk. Genetic model Variables Na Total Ethnicity Caucasians others Source of controls HCCc PCCc Study sample size 500 <500 Matched control Yes Noa b cHomozygote Arg/Arg vs. His/His OR(95 CI) 0.79(0.57,1.09) 0.83(0.56,1.21) 0.70(0.38,1.30) 0.69(0.41,1.15) 0.86(0.57,1.32) 0.78(0.46,1.35) 0.79(0.53,1.19) 0.66(0.33,1.34) 0.83(0.57,1.20) Pvalueb 0.51 0.23 0.99 0.29 0.61 0.94 0.31 0.74 0.Heterozygote Arg/His vs. His/His OR(95 CI) 1.11(0.74,1.65) 1.24(0.72,2.16) 0.88(0.64,1.22) 1.08(0.29,3.99) 1.14(0.96,1.37) 1.17(0.94,1.47) 1.08(0.58,1.98) 0.46(0.12,1.80) 1.32(0.89,1.97) Pvalueb 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.98 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.Dominant model Arg/Arg+Arg/His vs. His/His OR(95 CI) 1.13(0.91,1.41) 1.27(0.98,1.64) 0.86(0.63,1.16) 1.28(0.73,2.25) 1.11(0.93,1.31) 1.12(0.90,1.40) 1.15(0.84,1.58) 1.04(0.76,1.42) 1.20(0.89,1.62) Pvalueb 0.02 0.03 0.50 0.00 0,91 0.94 0.01 0.19 0.Recessive model Arg/Arg vs.Arg/His +His/His OR(95 CI) 0.77(0.58,1.02) 0.77(0.56,1.07) 0.77(0.42,1.40) 0.72(0.49,1.07) 0.83(0.55,1.26) 0.74(0.43,1.28) 0.78(0.56,1.09) 0.64(0.32,1.29) 0.80(0.59,1.09) Pvalueb 0.60 0.30 0.94 0.34 0.62 0.92 0.40 0.81 0.Sample size Case/control 1982/2024 1608/1671 374/353 683/752 1299/1272 709/708 1273/1316 617/549 1365/10 7 3 4 5 2 8 3Number of comparisons. P value of Q-test for heterogeneity test. Random-effects model was used when Pvalue <0.1, otherwise, fixed-effects model was adoptedHCC, hospital-based case control; PCC, population-based case control.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123347.tHNC susceptibility. The main results of this pooled analysis are presented in Table 3 and Fig 3 shows forest plots illustrating the effect of the EPHX1 Tyr113His polymorphism on HNC risk. Overall, the EPHX1 His139Arg polymorphism was not significantly associated with HNC susceptibility in four genetic models: Arg/Arg+ Arg/His vs. His/His (dominant model, OR = 1.13, 95 CI = 0.91?.41), Arg/Arg vs. Arg/His+His/His (recessive model, OR = 0.77, 95 CI = 0.58?.02), Arg/Arg vs. His/His (homozygote comparison, OR = 0.79, 95 CI = 0.57?.09), and Arg/His vs. His/His (heterozygote comparison, OR = 1.11, 95 CI = 0.74?1.65). There were no significant associations found in the four genetic models between the His139Arg polymorphism and HNC susceptibility in any of the subgroup analyses (Table 3).Heterogeneity analysisFor the Tyr113His polymorphism, significant heterogeneity was found in the overall comparisons in four genetic models: dominant model P = 0.01, recessive model P = 0.01, homozygote comparison P = 0. 00, and heterozygote comparison P = 0.02. Significant heterogeneity was also detected for the His139Arg polymorphism. No significant heterogeneity was found in the homozygote comparison or the recessive model comparison; however, significant heterogeneity was detected in the heterozygote comparison and dominant model (dominant model P = 0.02, recessive model P = 0.60, homozygote comparison P = 0.51, and heterozygote comparison P = 0.00.). Galbraith plot analyses were used to evaluate the potential sources of heterogeneity in this article. In this analysis, three studies [24, 28, 32] were found to be contributors of heterogeneity for the Tyr113His polymorphism (S1 Fig). After excluding these three outlier studies, we re-evaluated the association with reduced heterogeneity (His/His vs. Tyr/Tyr: P = 0.55; Tyr/His vs. Tyr/Tyr: P = 0.66; His/His+ Tyr/His vs. Tyr/Tyr: P = 0.86; His/His vs. Tyr/His+ Tyr/Tyr: P = 0.32). Regarding the His139Arg polymorphism, twoPL.