Statin use and breast cancer survival: a nationwide cohort study in Scotland

Background: Preclinical evidence suggests that statins could delay cancer progression. Previous epidemiological findings have been inconsistent and some have been limited by small sample sizes, as well as certain time-related biases. This study aimed to investigate whether breast cancer patients who were exposed to statins had reduced breast cancer-specific mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 15,140 newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2009 to 2012 within the Scottish Cancer Registry. Dispensed medication usage was obtained from linkages to the Scottish Prescribing Information System and breast cancer-specific deaths were identified from National Records of Scotland Death Records. Using time-dependent Cox regression models, hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the association between post-diagnostic exposure to statins (including simvastatin) and breast cancer-specific mortality. Adjustments were made for a range of potential confounders including age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, cancer stage, grade, cancer treatments received, comorbidities, socioeconomic status and use of aspirin. Results: A total of 1,190 breast cancer-specific deaths occurred up to January 2015. Overall, after adjustment for potential confounders, there was no evidence of an association between statin use and breast cancer-specific death (adjusted HR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.77, 1.12). No significant associations were observed in dose–response analyses or in analysis of all-cause mortality. For simvastatin use specifically, a weak non-significant reduction in breast cancer-specific mortality was observed compared to non-users (adjusted HR 0.89, 95 % CI 0.73, 1.08). Statin use before diagnosis was weakly associated with a reduction in breast cancer-specific mortality (adjusted HR 0.85, 95 % CI 0.74, 0.98). Conclusion: Overall, we found little evidence of a protective association between post-diagnostic statin use and cancer-specific mortality in a large nation-wide cohort of breast cancer patients. These findings will help inform the decision whether to conduct randomised controlled trials of statins as an adjuvant treatment in breast cancer.

An investigation of routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 international jurisdictions, as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: survey development and implementation

Objectives This paper describes the methods used in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 Survey (ICBPM4) which examines time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 jurisdictions. We present the study design with defining and measuring time intervals, identifying patients with cancer, questionnaire development, data management and analyses.<br/>Design and setting Recruitment of participants to the ICBPM4 survey is based on cancer registries in each jurisdiction. Questionnaires draw on previous instruments and have been through a process of cognitive testing and piloting in three jurisdictions followed by standardised translation and adaptation. Data analysis focuses on comparing differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis in the jurisdictions.<br/>Participants Our target is 200 patients with symptomatic breast, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer in each jurisdiction. Patients are approached directly or via their primary care physician (PCP). Patients’ PCPs and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) are surveyed, and ‘data rules’ are applied to combine and reconcile conflicting information. Where CTS information is unavailable, audit information is sought from treatment records and databases.<br/>Main outcomes Reliability testing of the patient questionnaire showed that agreement was complete (κ=1) in four items and substantial (κ=0.8, 95% CI 0.333 to 1) in one item. The identification of eligible patients is sufficient to meet the targets for breast, lung and colorectal cancer. Initial patient and PCP survey response rates from the UK and Sweden are comparable with similar published surveys. Data collection was completed in early 2016 for all cancer types.<br/>Conclusion An international questionnaire-based survey of patients with cancer, PCPs and CTSs has been developed and launched in 10 jurisdictions. ICBPM4 will help to further understand international differences in cancer survival by comparing time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis.

Digoxin use after diagnosis of prostate cancer and survival: a population-based cohort study

PURPOSE:<br/>Preclinical studies have shown that digoxin exerts anticancer effects on different cancer cell lines including prostate cancer. A recent observational study has shown that digoxin use was associated with a 25% reduction in prostate cancer risk. The aim of this study was to investigate whether digoxin use after diagnosis of prostate cancer was associated with decreased prostate cancer-specific mortality.<br/>METHODS:<br/>A cohort of 13 134 patients with prostate cancer newly diagnosed from 1998 to 2009 was identified from English cancer registries and linked to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (to provide digoxin and other prescription records) and to the Office of National Statistics mortality data (to identify 2010 prostate cancer-specific deaths). Using time-dependent Cox regression models, unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the association between post-diagnostic exposure to digoxin and prostate cancer-specific mortality.<br/>RESULTS:<br/>Overall, 701 (5%) patients with prostate cancer used digoxin after diagnosis. Digoxin use was associated with an increase in prostate cancer-specific mortality before adjustment (HR = 1.59; 95% CI 1.32-1.91), but after adjustment for confounders, the association was attenuated (adjusted HR = 1.13; 95% CI 0.93-1.37) and there was no evidence of a dose response.<br/>CONCLUSIONS:<br/>In this large population-based prostate cancer cohort, there was no evidence of a reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality with digoxin use after diagnosis.

Statin use and survival in colorectal cancer: Results from a population-based cohort study and an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

<p>BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between statin use and survival in a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) cohort and perform an updated meta-analysis to quantify the magnitude of any association.</p><p>METHODS: A cohort of 8391 patients with newly diagnosed Dukes' A-C CRC (2009-2012) was identified from the Scottish Cancer Registry. This cohort was linked to the Prescribing Information System and the National Records of Scotland Death Records (until January 2015) to identify 1064 colorectal cancer-specific deaths. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cancer-specific mortality by statin use were calculated using time dependent Cox regression models. The systematic review included relevant studies published before January 2016. Meta-analysis techniques were used to derive combined HRs for associations between statin use and cancer-specific and overall mortality.</p><p>RESULTS: In the Scottish cohort, statin use before diagnosis (HR=0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94), but not after (HR=0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.05), was associated with significantly improved cancer-specific mortality. The systematic review identified 15 relevant studies. In the meta-analysis, there was consistent (I(2)=0%,heterogeneity P=0.57) evidence of a reduction in cancer-specific mortality with statin use before diagnosis in 6 studies (n=86,622, pooled HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.79-0.86) but this association was less apparent and more heterogeneous (I(2)=67%,heterogeneity P=0.03) with statin use after diagnosis in 4 studies (n=19,152, pooled HR=0.84, 95% CI 0.68-1.04).</p><p>CONCLUSION: In a Scottish CRC cohort and updated meta-analysis there was some evidence that statin use was associated with improved survival. However, these associations were weak in magnitude and, particularly for post-diagnosis use, varied markedly between studies.</p>