Genetic polymorphisms of CYP24A1 gene and cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis including 40640 subjects

BACKGROUND: Whether cytochrome P450 24A1 (CYP24A1) polymorphism is associated with cancer susceptibility, the individual study results are still controversial. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive study to identify the association of CYP24A1 polymorphisms (rs4809960, rs6068816, rs2296241, rs4809957, rs2762939) with cancer susceptibility. METHODS: Electronic databases including Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were systematically retrieved for relevant publications. Fixed or random-effect model was selected to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: Eighteen published articles were identified. The results indicated that rs4809960 polymorphism was associated with a decreased cancer risk in Caucasian (TT vs. TC+CC: P=0.035; C vs. T: P=0.016) and Asian population (CC vs. TC+TT: OR P=0.044; TT vs. TC+CC: P=0.021; CC vs. TT: P=0.020; C vs. T: P=0.008) and breast cancer risk (TT vs. TC+CC: P = 0.007; TC vs. TT: P=0.004; C vs. T: P=0.033). A significant association was found between rs2296241 polymorphism and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma risk (AA vs. GG+AG: P = 0.023) and prostate cancer susceptibility (A vs. G: P=0.022). Furthermore, rs4809957 polymorphism was associated with prostate cancer susceptibility in Caucasian (GG vs. GA+AA: P=0.029; GA vs. GG: P=0.022) and breast cancer susceptibility (AA vs. GG+GA: P=0.012; AA vs. GG, P=0.010; A vs. G: P=0.024). Additionally, rs6068816 polymorphism significantly decreased the lung cancer (CC vs. CT+TT: P = 0.016; TT vs. CC: P = 0.044; CT vs. CC: P = 0.036; T vs. C: P = 0.016) and breast cancer risk (TT vs. CC+CT: P = 0.043; TT vs. CC: P = 0.039). No association was found for rs2762939 polymorphism with overall cancer risk. However, for rs2296241, rs4809957, and rs6068816 polymorphisms, there were no significant differences after the Bonferroni correction. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis suggested that rs4809960 was associated with cancer risk and might be a genetic marker for predicting cancer risk. More large-scale and large-sample studies are necessary to further confirm these results. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-023-03156-w.