BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and RASSF1A promoter methylation has been reported to be correlated with a worse survival in patients with breast cancer. However, the prognostic values of GSTP1, p16, ESR1, and PITX2 promoter methylation in breast cancer remain to be determined. Here, we performed this study to evaluate the prognostic significance of GSTP1, p16, ESR1, and PITX2 promoter methylation in breast cancer.
METHODS: A range of online databases was systematically searched to identify available studies based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were applied to estimate the prognostic effect of GSTP1, p16, ESR1, and PITX2 promoter methylation in breast cancer for multivariate regression analysis.
RESULTS: 13 eligible articles involving 3915 patients with breast cancer were analyzed in this meta-analysis. In a large patient population, GSTP1 showed a trend toward a worse prognosis in overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 0.93-2.87, P = .085). PITX2 promoter methylation was significantly correlated with a worse prognosis in OS (HR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.15-2.14, P = .004), but no association between p16 promoter methylation and OS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.31-2.71, P = .884). PITX2 promoter methylation was significantly correlated with an unfavorable prognosis of patients with breast cancer in metastasis-free survival (MFS) (HR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.33-2.26, P < .001). The result from 3 studies with 227 cases showed that ESR1 promoter methylation was linked to a worse prognosis in OS (HR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.06-2.28, P = .025).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest ESR1 and PITX2 promoter methylation may be correlated with a worse survival of patients with breast cancer (ESR1: OS, PITX2: OS and MFS). The clinical utility of aberrantly methylated ESR1 and PITX2 could be a promising factor for the prognosis of breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: There is an overwhelming abundance of genetic association studies available in the literature, which can often be collectively difficult to interpret. To address this issue, the Venice interim guidelines were established for determining the credibility of the cumulative evidence. The objective of this report is to evaluate the literature on the association of common glutathione S-transferase (GST) variants (GSTM1 null, GSTT1 null and GSTP1 Ile105Val polymorphism) and lung cancer, and to assess the credibility of the associations using the newly proposed cumulative evidence guidelines.
METHODS: Information from the literature was enriched with an updated meta-analysis and a pooled analysis using data from the Genetic Susceptibility to Environmental Carcinogens database.
RESULTS: There was a significant association between GSTM1 null and lung cancer for the meta-analysis (meta odds ratio=1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-1.25) and pooled analysis (adjusted odds ratio=1.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.16), although substantial heterogeneity was present. No overall association between lung cancer and GSTT1 null or GSTP1 Ile105Val was found. When the Venice criteria was applied, cumulative evidence for all associations were considered \'weak\', with the exception of East Asian carriers of the G allele of GSTP1 Ile105Val, which was graded as \'moderate\' evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large amounts of studies, and several statistically significant summary estimates produced by meta-analyses, the application of the Venice criteria suggests extensive heterogeneity and susceptibility to bias for the studies on association of common genetic polymorphisms, such as with GST variants and lung cancer.