As part of a population-based case-control study in Shanghai, China, we investigated whether variants in several DNA repair genes, either alone or in conjunction with other risk factors, are associated with prostate cancer risk. Genomic DNA from 162 patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and 251 healthy men randomly selected from the population were typed for five nonsynonymous DNA repair markers. We found that the XRCC1-Arg399Gln AA and the MGMT-Leu84Phe CT+TT genotypes were associated

more »

... ith an increased risk of prostate cancer [odds ratio (OR), 2.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-4.81 and OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.19-3.34, respectively]. In contrast, XRCC3-Thr241Met, XPD-Lys751Gln, and MGMT-Ile143Val markers showed no significant associations with risk, although due to the much lower frequency of their variant alleles in this population we cannot rule out small to modest effects. There was a significant interaction between the MGMT-84 marker and insulin resistance (P interaction = 0.046). Relative to men with the MGMT-84 CC genotype and a low insulin resistance (<0.097), those having the CT-TT genotype and a greater insulin resistance had a 5.4-fold risk (OR, 5.39; 95% CI, 2.46-11.82). In addition, for the XRCC3-241 marker, relative to men with the CC genotype and a low intake of preserved foods (<12.7 g/d), those harboring the CT+TT genotype and having a higher intake of preserved foods (>12.7 g/d), which contain nitrosamines and nitrosamine precursors, had a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer risk (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.13-6.06). In contrast, men with the CT+TT genotype and a low intake of preserved foods had a 69% reduction in risk (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.96; P interaction = 0.005). These results suggest that genetic variants in the DNA repair pathways may be involved in prostate cancer etiology and that other risk factors, including preserved foods and insulin resistance, may modulate prostate cancer risk in combination with genetic susceptibility in these repair pathways. Replication in larger studies is necessary to preclude chance findings, particularly those among subgroups, and clarify the mechanisms involved.