Jia-Li Feng1,2, Xiwen Qin3,4. 1. Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Jia-Li.Feng@health.qld.gov.au. 2. Prevention Division, Queensland Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Jia-Li.Feng@health.qld.gov.au. 3. Centre for Medicine Use and Safety (CMUS), Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Inconsistent results of lipid-lowering medications (LLMs) on improved cancer survival need more investigations. We tested the hypothesis that adherence to the drug would be associated with a lower cancer-specific mortality in a homogeneous population who has ever used the drug. METHODS: Utilising data from the Australian Cancer database, linked to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data and the National Death Index, we identified two separate cohorts of 4519 and 3083 women patients with newly diagnosed endometrial and lung cancer respectively between 2003 and 2013. Adherence to this drug was calculated by proportion of days covered. Cox regression models with time-varying covariates were used to estimate the multivariable-adjusted cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of adherence to LLMs, statins, lipophilic and hydrophilic statins, and cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Each 10% increase in 1-year adherence to LLMs reduced cancer-specific mortality among women with endometrial cancer (adjusted HR=0.93, 95% CI 0.90-0.96) or lung cancer (adjusted HR=0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.97). The inverse associations remained unchanged in different subgroup analyses. The reductions in lung cancer mortality were not apparent for women who adhered to lipophilic statins albeit better endometrial cancer survival appeared in the lipophilic statin group and borderline statistical improvement in the hydrophilic statin group. CONCLUSIONS: Among LLM users, adherence to this drug is inversely associated with reduced cancer-specific mortality. Together with previous evidence, randomised controlled trials are called for to confirm whether LLMs could be considered as an adjuvant treatment to improve prognosis.
PURPOSE: Inconsistent results of lipid-lowering medications (LLMs) on improved cancer survival need more investigations. We tested the hypothesis that adherence to the drug would be associated with a lower cancer-specific mortality in a homogeneous population who has ever used the drug. METHODS: Utilising data from the Australian Cancer database, linked to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data and the National Death Index, we identified two separate cohorts of 4519 and 3083 womenpatients with newly diagnosed endometrial and lung cancer respectively between 2003 and 2013. Adherence to this drug was calculated by proportion of days covered. Cox regression models with time-varying covariates were used to estimate the multivariable-adjusted cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of adherence to LLMs, statins, lipophilic and hydrophilic statins, and cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Each 10% increase in 1-year adherence to LLMs reduced cancer-specific mortality among women with endometrial cancer (adjusted HR=0.93, 95% CI 0.90-0.96) or lung cancer (adjusted HR=0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.97). The inverse associations remained unchanged in different subgroup analyses. The reductions in lung cancermortality were not apparent for women who adhered to lipophilic statins albeit better endometrial cancer survival appeared in the lipophilic statin group and borderline statistical improvement in the hydrophilic statin group. CONCLUSIONS: Among LLM users, adherence to this drug is inversely associated with reduced cancer-specific mortality. Together with previous evidence, randomised controlled trials are called for to confirm whether LLMs could be considered as an adjuvant treatment to improve prognosis.
Authors: Thomas P Ahern; Timothy L Lash; Per Damkier; Peer M Christiansen; Deirdre P Cronin-Fenton Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Christine H Feng; Charlie M Miller; Meaghan E Tenney; Nita K Lee; S Diane Yamada; Yasmin Hasan Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Nicole S Nevadunsky; Anne Van Arsdale; Howard D Strickler; Lori A Spoozak; Alyson Moadel; Gurpreet Kaur; Eugenia Girda; Gary L Goldberg; Mark H Einstein Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Monica N Schointuch; Timothy P Gilliam; Jessica E Stine; Xiaoyun Han; Chunxiao Zhou; Paola A Gehrig; Kenneth Kim; Victoria L Bae-Jump Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Nick A Iarrobino; Beant S Gill; Mark Bernard; Rainer J Klement; Maria Werner-Wasik; Colin E Champ Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 6.244