AIM: To investigate the association between statin use and colorectal cancer risk, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of published studies. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search for studies published up to July 2013. Eligible studies for this meta-analysis were either randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies (case-control or cohort) evaluating any exposure to statins and the risk of colorectal cancer. Two reviewers selected studies based on predefined inclusion criteria, and abstracted the data. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates with their 95%CI were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models. Then, we assessed the potential presence of publication bias and between-studies heterogeneity. To evaluate the results, we also performed a "leave-one-out" sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: A total of 40 studies, involving more than eight million subjects, contributed to the analysis. They were grouped on the basis of study design and, consequently, three separate meta-analyses were conducted. A similar modest reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer with statin use was observed, which was not statistically significant among RCTs (RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.74-1.07; n = 8), but reached statistical significance among cohort studies (RR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.83-1.00; n = 13) and case-control studies (RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.87-0.98; n = 19). While we did not find significant evidence of selective outcome reporting or publication bias, substantial heterogeneity was detected, mainly among the observational studies. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of our results. CONCLUSION: A modest reduction in risk of colorectal cancer among statin users cannot be disproved. Further targeted research is warranted.
AIM: To investigate the association between statin use and colorectal cancer risk, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of published studies. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search for studies published up to July 2013. Eligible studies for this meta-analysis were either randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies (case-control or cohort) evaluating any exposure to statins and the risk of colorectal cancer. Two reviewers selected studies based on predefined inclusion criteria, and abstracted the data. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates with their 95%CI were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models. Then, we assessed the potential presence of publication bias and between-studies heterogeneity. To evaluate the results, we also performed a "leave-one-out" sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: A total of 40 studies, involving more than eight million subjects, contributed to the analysis. They were grouped on the basis of study design and, consequently, three separate meta-analyses were conducted. A similar modest reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer with statin use was observed, which was not statistically significant among RCTs (RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.74-1.07; n = 8), but reached statistical significance among cohort studies (RR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.83-1.00; n = 13) and case-control studies (RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.87-0.98; n = 19). While we did not find significant evidence of selective outcome reporting or publication bias, substantial heterogeneity was detected, mainly among the observational studies. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of our results. CONCLUSION: A modest reduction in risk of colorectal cancer among statin users cannot be disproved. Further targeted research is warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors; Cancer chemoprevention; Colorectal cancer; Meta-analysis; Statins; Systematic review
Authors: Matthijs R Graaf; Annette B Beiderbeck; Antoine C G Egberts; Dick J Richel; Henk-Jan Guchelaar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Denise M Boudreau; Elizabeth Koehler; Stephen J Rulyak; Sebastien Haneuse; Robert Harrison; Margaret T Mandelson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-10-28 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Timo E Strandberg; Kalevi Pyörälä; Thomas J Cook; Lars Wilhelmsen; Ole Faergeman; Gudmundur Thorgeirsson; Terje R Pedersen; John Kjekshus Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Aug 28-Sep 3 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J Shepherd; S M Cobbe; I Ford; C G Isles; A R Lorimer; P W MacFarlane; J H McKillop; C J Packard Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fatim Lakha; Evropi Theodoratou; Susan M Farrington; Albert Tenesa; Roseanne Cetnarskyj; Farhat V N Din; Mary E Porteous; Malcolm G Dunlop; Harry Campbell Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan; Andrew Cagan; Tianxi Cai; Vivian S Gainer; Stanley Y Shaw; Susanne Churchill; Elizabeth W Karlson; Shawn N Murphy; Katherine P Liao; Isaac Kohane Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Xin Hong; Whijae Roh; Ryan J Sullivan; Keith H K Wong; Ben S Wittner; Hongshan Guo; Taronish D Dubash; Moshe Sade-Feldman; Benjamin Wesley; Elad Horwitz; Genevieve M Boland; Dieuwke L Marvin; Todd Bonesteel; Chenyue Lu; François Aguet; Risa Burr; Samuel S Freeman; Laxmi Parida; Katherine Calhoun; Michelle K Jewett; Linda T Nieman; Nir Hacohen; Anders M Näär; David T Ting; Mehmet Toner; Shannon L Stott; Gad Getz; Shyamala Maheswaran; Daniel A Haber Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 39.397