= 15), I-squared = 50.2%, P = 0.012), so we used the random-effect model to analyze the data and found that there was no relationship between Arg/His+His/His genotype and the risk of breast cancer (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.97-1.17, P = 0.164). In the recessive model (His/His vs Arg/Arg+ Arg/His), there was no between-study heterogeneity in the odds ratios (ORs) of the studies (Heterogeneity chi-squared = 18.25 (d.f. this website = 12) I-squared = 34.3%, P = 0.108). = 14) I-squared = 55.0%, P = 0.005) to analyze Arg/Arg vs Arg/His

(OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.95-1.18, P = 0.291) (Fig. 1) and fixed-effect model (Heterogeneity chi-squared = 15.21 (d.f. = 12) I-squared = 21.1%, P = 0.230) to analyze Arg/Arg vs His/His (OR = 1.07, 95%CI: 0.97-1.18, P = 0.197)

(Fig. 2), there was no relationship between SULT1A1 and breast cancer risk either. Meanwhile, we analyzed the subgroups of the studies and found that genotype Arg213His increased the risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.04-1.58, P = 0.019) but not in the premenopausal women (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.88-1.27, P = 0.537) by both M-H AZD5363 method and D-L method. Because of the different heterogeneity results for postmenopausal women (Heterogeneity chi-squared = 20.01 (d.f. = 6) I-squared = 70%, P = 0.003) and premenopausal www.selleckchem.com/products/gsk2126458.html women (Heterogeneity chi-squared = 0.73 (d.f. = 3) I-squared = 0.0%, P = 0.866), we used both M-H method and D-L method.

For all the studies included in the menses subgroup (Heterogeneity chi-squared = Protirelin 20.74 (d.f. = 10) I-squared = 51.8%, P = 0.023), there was also statistical significance (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.03-1.36, P = 0.017) (Fig. 3). As for the ethnic subgroups, we used fixed-effects to analyze the studies. We found that racial difference influenced the relationship between the polymorphism and the breast cancer risk, especially in Asian women (M-H method, Heterogeneity chi-squared = 0.95 (d.f. = 2) I-squared = 0.0%, P = 0.621, OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.00-4.14, P = 0.051) but not Caucasian women (M-H method, Heterogeneity chi-squared = 10.12 (d.f. = 6) I-squared = 40.7%, P = 0.120, OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.13, P = 0.678) (Fig. 4). Table 2 ORs of studies included in the meta-analysis         OR(95%CI) OR(95%CI OR(95%CI) OR(95%CI) Author Population Menses Year Arg/His+His/His vs Arg/Arg His/His vs Arg/Arg+ Arg/His Arg/Arg vs Arg/His Arg/Arg vs His/His MARIE-GENICA Caucasian postmenopausal 2009 0.96(0.88-1.05) 1.14 (1.00-1.30) 0.93 (0.84-1.02) 1.10 (0.95-1.26) Gulyaeva Caucasian NM 2008 1.38(0.78-2.44) 0.67 (0.37-1.22) 1.80 (0.96-3.35) 0.93 (0.46-1.88) Rebbeck Caucasian postmenopausal 2007 1.19(0.97-1.47) Excluded Excluded Excluded Rebbeck African postmenopausal 2007         Yang Asian premenopausal 2005 1.13(0.90-1.