| Literature DB >> 23589726 |
Abstract
Although the anti-cancer effects of aspirin were first identified in pre-clinical models four decades ago, a clear role for the drug in either the prevention or treatment of cancer has not been established. Concerns about toxicity, particularly major haemorrhage, and a lack of randomised evidence demonstrating efficacy have limited its use in primary prevention; there was also doubt that a simple aspirin could have a significant therapeutic effect against established malignancy. Three new pieces of evidence: a series of meta-analyses focusing on cancer outcomes from randomised-controlled trials designed to assess the vascular benefits of daily aspirin; the first positive results from a randomised-controlled trial designed to demonstrate that aspirin can prevent cancer in those with a hereditary predisposition; and observational data showing that aspirin use after a cancer diagnosis improves both cancer mortality and overall survival; have led to a re-evaluation of aspirin as a potential anti-cancer agent both for the prevention and treatment of cancer.Entities:
Keywords: aspirin; cancer; mechanisms; toxicity; treatment
Year: 2013 PMID: 23589726 PMCID: PMC3622409 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2013.297
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecancermedicalscience ISSN: 1754-6605
Recent evidence confirming the anti-cancer effects of aspirin. Cancer deaths from a meta-analysis of 51 randomised trials designed primarily to assess vascular outcomes where participants were assigned to daily aspirin versus no aspirin or other anti-platelet agent (n = 77,000) [12]. The outcome was not affected by aspirin dose or whether aspirin was administered for primary or secondary vascular prevention.
| Follow up (years) | Aspirin – cancer deaths | Control – cancer deaths | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-2.9 years | 292 | 325 | 0.90 (0.76 – 1.06) | 0.18 |
| 3.0–4.9 years | 161 | 173 | 0.93 (0.75 – 1.16) | 0.51 |
| >5 years | 92 | 145 | 0.63 (0.49 – 0.82) | 0.0005 |
| Unknown | 17 | 21 | ||
Figure 1:Recent evidence confirming the anti-cancer effects of aspirin. Proportion of patients developing a Lynch Syndrome related cancer over time in the randomised-placebo controlled CAPP2 trial [14]. Participants received aspirin (600 mg daily) or a placebo. with the analysis restricted to those who took trial treatment for 2 years or more. From Burn J et al (2012) Long-term effect of aspirin on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial Lancet 378 (9809), 2081-7. Reprinted with kind permission from Elsevier.
Recent evidence confirming the anti-cancer effects of aspirin. Summary of observational data assessing the effect of aspirin after a cancer diagnosis by tumour type. OS overall survival, HR hazard ratio, RR relative risk, estimates given with 95% confidence intervals, $ data not available for OS, * data not available for cancer specific mortality
| Tumour | Study/Year/Reference | Result (in favour of aspirin) |
|---|---|---|
| Chan 2009 [ | CRC mortality HR 0.71 (0.53–0.95) | |
| Bastiaannet 2012 [ | OS RR 0.65 (0.50 - 0.84) | |
| McCowan 2012 [ | CRC mortality HR 0.67 (0.57-0.79) | |
| Holmes 2010 [ | BC mortality RR 0.36 (0.24–0.65) | |
| Zaorsky 2012 [ | Reduced interval to biochemical failure – aspirin non-use OR 2.05 (1.33-3.17) | |
| Choe 2012 [ | PC mortality HR 0.43 (0.21-0.87)$ | |
| Liu 2009 [ | 5 year OS aspirin 51.2%, placebo 41%, no tablet 42.3%* |
Summary of relative risks of developing cancer in regular aspirin users (at least 1-2 tablets per week) compared to non-users in several common solid tumours. Data from Bosetti et al. 2012 [24]—a meta-analysis of observational studies assessing aspirin use and cancer incidence. Data on pancreatic, endometrial, ovarian, bladder, and renal cancer are also available, but for these tumour types, the overall results did not reach statistical significance.
| Cancer Type/Study | No of Studies | No of Cases | RR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case-control | 15 | 21,414 | 0.63 (0.56-0.70) |
| Cohort | 15 | 16,105 | 0.82 (0.75-0.89) |
| Overall | 30 | 37,519 | |
| Case-control | 7 | 2411 | 0.60 (0.44-0.82) |
| Cohort | 6 | 2108 | 0.77 (0.58-1.04) |
| Overall | 13 | 4519 | |
| Case-control | 9 | 3222 | 0.60 (0.48-0.75) |
| Cohort | 2 | 499 | 0.88 (0.68-1.15) |
| Overall | 11 | 3721 | |
| Case-control | 7 | 1075 | 0.54 (0.44-0.67) |
| Cohort | 4 | 1118 | 0.73 (0.51-1.07) |
| Overall | 11 | 2193 | |
| Case-control | 10 | 28.835 | 0.83 (0.76-0.91) |
| Cohort | 22 | 27,091 | 0.93 (0.87-1.00) |
| Overall | 32 | 52.926 | |
| Case-control | 9 | 5795 | 0.87 (0.74-1.02) |
| Cohort | 15 | 31,657 | 0.91 (0.85-0.97) |
| Overall | 24 | 37,452 | |
| Case-control | 5 | 4863 | 0.73 (0.55-0.98) |
| Cohort | 15 | 11,356 | 0.98 (0.92-1.05) |
| Overall | 20 | 16,219 |