Predictions of survival up to 10 years after diagnosis for European women with breast cancer in 2000-2002

Few studies have addressed longer-term survival for breast cancer in European women. We have made predictions of 10-year survival for European women diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000-2002. Data for 114,312 adult women (15-99 years) diagnosed with a first primary malignant cancer of the breast during 2000-2002 were collected in the EUROCARE-4 study from 24 population-based cancer registries in 14 European countries. We estimated relative survival at 1, 5, and 10 years after diagnosis for women who were alive at some point during 2000-2002, using the period approach. We also estimated 10-year survival conditional on survival to 1 and 5 years after diagnosis. Ten-year survival exceeded 70% in most regions, but was only 54% in Eastern Europe, with the highest value in Northern Europe (about 75%). Ten-year survival conditional on survival for 1 year was 2-6% higher than 10-year survival in all European regions, and geographic differences were smaller. Ten-year survival for women who survived at least 5 years was 88% overall, with the lowest figure in Eastern Europe (79%) and the highest in the UK (91%). Women aged 50-69 years had higher overall survival than older and younger women (79%). Six cancer registries had adequate information on stage at diagnosis; in these jurisdictions, 10-year survival was 89% for local, 62% for regional and 10% for metastatic disease. Data on stage are not collected routinely or consistently, yet these data are essential for meaningful comparison of population-based survival, which provides vital information for improving breast cancer control. What's new? Policy-makers and health-care planners need accurate data on long-term survival to improve cancer control. This Europe-wide study of 10-year survival identified low survival in Eastern Europe for women with breast cancer in 2000-2002, and wide variation by age at diagnosis. Data on stage at diagnosis are crucial for meaningful comparison of population-based survival, and fundamental for improving breast cancer control, but our analyses confirmed that stage data are not collected routinely or consistently Copyright © 2012 UICC.

Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK:A population-based study, 2004-2007

Background: The authors consider whether differences in stage at diagnosis could explain the variation in lung cancer survival between six developed countries in 2004-2007. Methods: Routinely collected population-based data were obtained on all adults (15-99 years) diagnosed with lung cancer in 2004-2007 and registered in regional and national cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Stage data for 57 352 patients were consolidated from various classification systems. Flexible parametric hazard models on the log cumulative scale were used to estimate net survival at 1 year and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis. Results: Age-standardised 1-year net survival from non-small cell lung cancer ranged from 30% (UK) to 46% (Sweden). Patients in the UK and Denmark had lower survival than elsewhere, partly because of a more adverse stage distribution. However, there were also wide international differences in stage-specific survival. Net survival from TNM stage I non-small cell lung cancer was 16% lower in the UK than in Sweden, and for TNM stage IV disease survival was 10% lower. Similar patterns were found for small cell lung cancer. Conclusions: There are comparability issues when using population-based data but, even given these constraints, this study shows that, while differences in stage at diagnosis explain some of the international variation in overall lung cancer survival, wide disparities in stage-specific survival exist, suggesting that other factors are also important such as differences in treatment. Stage should be included in international cancer survival studies and the comparability of population-based data should be improved.

Stage at diagnosis and colorectal cancer survival in six high-income countries:A population-based study of patients diagnosed during 2000-2007

Background. Large international differences in colorectal cancer survival exist, even between countries with similar healthcare. We investigate the extent to which stage at diagnosis explains these differences. Methods. Data from population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK were analysed for 313 852 patients diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer during 2000-2007. We compared the distributions of stage at diagnosis. We estimated both stage-specific net survival and the excess hazard of death up to three years after diagnosis, using flexible parametric models on the log-cumulative excess hazard scale. Results. International differences in colon and rectal cancer stage distributions were wide: Denmark showed a distribution skewed towards later-stage disease, while Australia, Norway and the UK showed high proportions of 'regional' disease. One-year colon cancer survival was 67% in the UK and ranged between 71% (Denmark) and 80% (Australia and Sweden) elsewhere. For rectal cancer, one-year survival was also low in the UK (75%), compared to 79% in Denmark and 82-84% elsewhere. International survival differences were also evident for each stage of disease, with the UK showing consistently lowest survival at one and three years. Conclusion. Differences in stage at diagnosis partly explain international differences in colorectal cancer survival, with a more adverse stage distribution contributing to comparatively low survival in Denmark. Differences in stage distribution could arise because of differences in diagnostic delay and awareness of symptoms, or in the thoroughness of staging procedures. Nevertheless, survival differences also exist for each stage of disease, suggesting unequal access to optimal treatment, particularly in the UK. © 2013 Informa Healthcare.

Stage at diagnosis and ovarian cancer survival:Evidence from the international cancer benchmarking partnership

Objective: We investigate what role stage at diagnosis bears in international differences in ovarian cancer survival. Methods: Data from population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the UK were analysed for 20,073 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 2004-07. We compare the stage distribution between countries and estimate stage-specific one-year net survival and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis, using flexible parametric models on the log cumulative excess hazard scale. Results: One-year survival was 69% in the UK, 72% in Denmark and 74-75% elsewhere. In Denmark, 74% of patients were diagnosed with FIGO stages III-IV disease, compared to 60-70% elsewhere. International differences in survival were evident at each stage of disease; women in the UK had lower survival than in the other four countries for patients with FIGO stages III-IV disease (61.4% vs. 65.8-74.4%). International differences were widest for older women and for those with advanced stage or with no stage data. Conclusion: Differences in stage at diagnosis partly explain international variation in ovarian cancer survival, and a more adverse stage distribution contributes to comparatively low survival in Denmark. This could arise because of differences in tumour biology, staging procedures or diagnostic delay. Differences in survival also exist within each stage, as illustrated by lower survival for advanced disease in the UK, suggesting unequal access to optimal treatment. Population-based data on cancer survival by stage are vital for cancer surveillance, and global consensus is needed to make stage data in cancer registries more consistent. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Dose, dose-rate and field size effects on cell survival following exposure to non-uniform radiation fields

For the delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), highly modulated fields are used to achieve dose conformity across a target tumour volume. Recent in vitro evidence has demonstrated significant alterations in cell survival occurring out-of-field which cannot be accounted for on the basis of scattered dose. The radiobiological effect of area, dose and dose-rate on out-of-field cell survival responses following exposure to intensity-modulated radiation fields is presented in this study. Cell survival was determined by clonogenic assay in human prostate cancer (DU-145) and primary fibroblast (AG0-1522) cells following exposure to different modulated field configurations delivered using a X-Rad 225 kVp x-ray source. Uniform survival responses were compared to in- and out-of-field responses in which 25-99% of the cell population was shielded. Dose delivered to the out-of-field region was varied from 1.6-37.2% of that delivered to the in-field region using different levels of brass shielding. Dose rate effects were determined for 0.2-4 Gy min⁻¹ for uniform and modulated exposures with no effect seen in- or out-of-field. Survival responses showed little dependence on dose rate and area in- and out-of-field with a trend towards increased survival with decreased in-field area. Out-of-field survival responses were shown to scale in proportion to dose delivered to the in-field region and also local dose delivered out-of-field. Mathematical modelling of these findings has shown survival response to be highly dependent on dose delivered in- and out-of-field but not on area or dose rate. These data provide further insight into the radiobiological parameters impacting on cell survival following exposure to modulated irradiation fields highlighting the need for refinement of existing radiobiological models to incorporate non-targeted effects and modulated dose distributions.

Health status and 6 years survival of 552 90+ Italian sib-ships recruited within the EU Project GEHA (GEnetics of Healthy Ageing).

In a scenario of increasing life expectancy worldwide, it is mandatory to identify the characteristics of a healthy aging phenotype, including survival predictors, and to disentangle those related to environment/lifestyle versus those related to familiarity/genetics. To this aim we comprehensively characterised a cohort of 1,160 Italian subjects of 90 years and over (90+, mean age 93 years; age range 90-106 years) followed for 6 years survival, belonging to 552 sib-ships (familiar longevity) recruited (2005-2008) within the EU-funded GEHA project in three Italian geographic areas (Northern, Central and Southern Italy) different for urban/rural and socio-economical characteristics. On the whole, the following factors emerged as significant predictors of survival after 90 years of age: absence of cognitive impairment and physical disability, high hand grip strength scores and body mass index (BMI) values, "excellent/good" self-reported health, high haemoglobin and total cholesterol levels and low creatinine levels. These parameters, excluding BMI values, were also significantly associated within sib-ships, suggesting a strong familial/genetic component. Geographical micro-heterogeneity of survival predictors emerged, such as functional and physical status being more important in Southern than in Central and Northern Italy. In conclusion, we identified modifiable survival predictors related to specific domains, whose role and importance vary according to the geographic area considered and which can help in interpreting the genetic results obtained by the GEHA project, whose major aim is the comprehensive evaluation of phenotypic and genetic data.

The role of private care in the interval between diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in Northern Ireland: an analysis of Registry data

Objective: To examine the differences in the interval between diagnosis and initiation of treatment among women with breast cancer in Northern Ireland.

Design: A cross-sectional observational study.
Setting: All breast cancer care patients in the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry in 2006.
Participants: All women diagnosed and treated for breast cancer in Northern Ireland in 2006.
Main outcome measure: The number of days between diagnosis and initiation of treatment for breast cancer.

Results: The mean (median) interval between diagnosis and initiation of treatment among public patients was 19 (15) compared with 14 (12) among those whose care involved private providers. The differences between individual public providers were as marked as those between the public and private sector - the mean (median) ranging between 14 (12) and 25 (22) days. Multivariate models revealed that the differences were evident when a range of patient characteristics were controlled for including cancer stage.

Conclusions: A relatively small number of women received care privately in Northern Ireland but experienced shorter intervals between diagnosis and initiation of treatment than those who received care wholly in the public system. The variation among public providers was as great as that between the public and private providers. The impact of such differences on survival and in light of waiting time targets introduced in Northern Ireland warrants investigation.

Drugs affecting the renin-angiotensin system and survival from cancer: a population based study of breast, colorectal and prostate cancer patient cohorts

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly prescribed to the growing number of cancer patients (more than two million in the UK alone) often to treat hypertension. However, increased fatal cancer in ARB users in a randomized trial and increased breast cancer recurrence rates in ACEI users in a recent observational study have raised concerns about their safety in cancer patients. We investigated whether ACEI or ARB use after breast, colorectal or prostate cancer diagnosis was associated with increased risk of cancer-specific mortality.

Methods: Population-based cohorts of 9,814 breast, 4,762 colorectal and 6,339 prostate cancer patients newly diagnosed from 1998 to 2006 were identified in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and confirmed by cancer registry linkage. Cancer-specific and all-cause mortality were identified from Office of National Statistics mortality data in 2011 (allowing up to 13 years of follow-up). A nested case–control analysis was conducted to compare ACEI/ARB use (from general practitioner prescription records) in cancer patients dying from cancer with up to five controls (not dying from cancer). Conditional logistic regression estimated the risk of cancer-specific, and all-cause, death in ACEI/ARB users compared with non-users.

Results: The main analysis included 1,435 breast, 1,511 colorectal and 1,184 prostate cancer-specific deaths (and 7,106 breast, 7,291 colorectal and 5,849 prostate cancer controls). There was no increase in cancer-specific mortality in patients using ARBs after diagnosis of breast (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.06 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84, 1.35), colorectal (adjusted OR = 0.82 95% CI 0.64, 1.07) or prostate cancer (adjusted OR = 0.79 95% CI 0.61, 1.03). There was also no evidence of increases in cancer-specific mortality with ACEI use for breast (adjusted OR = 1.06 95% CI 0.89, 1.27), colorectal (adjusted OR = 0.78 95% CI 0.66, 0.92) or prostate cancer (adjusted OR = 0.78 95% CI 0.66, 0.92).

Conclusions: Overall, we found no evidence of increased risks of cancer-specific mortality in breast, colorectal or prostate cancer patients who used ACEI or ARBs after diagnosis. These results provide some reassurance that these medications are safe in patients diagnosed with these cancers.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer; Breast cancer; Prostate cancer; Mortality; Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers

Beta-blocker usage after malignant melanoma diagnosis and survival: a population-based nested case-control study

Background: Beta-blockers have potential antiangiogenic and antimigratory activity. Studies have demonstrated a survival benefit in patients with malignant melanoma treated with beta-blockers.

Objectives: To investigate the association between postdiagnostic beta-blocker usage and risk of melanoma-specific mortality in a population-based cohort of patients with malignant melanoma.

Methods: Patients with incident malignant melanoma diagnosed between 1998 and 2010 were identified within the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and confirmed using cancer registry data. Patients with malignant melanoma with a melanoma-specific death (cases) recorded by the Office of National Statistics were matched on year of diagnosis, age and sex to four malignant melanoma controls (who lived at least as long after diagnosis as their matched case). A nested case–control approach was used to investigate the association between postdiagnostic beta-blocker usage and melanoma-specific death and all-cause mortality. Conditional logistic regression was applied to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for beta-blocker use determined from general practitioner prescribing.

Results: Beta-blocker medications were prescribed after malignant melanoma diagnosis to 20·2% of 242 patients who died from malignant melanoma (cases) and 20·3% of 886 matched controls. Consequently, there was no association between beta-blocker use postdiagnosis and cancer-specific death (OR 0·99, 95% CI 0·68–1·42), which did not markedly alter after adjustment for confounders including stage (OR 0·87, 95% CI 0·56–1·34). No significant associations were detected for individual beta-blocker types, by defined daily doses of use or for all-cause mortality.

Conclusions: Contrary to some previous studies, beta-blocker use after malignant melanoma diagnosis was not associated with reduced risk of death from melanoma in this U.K. population-based study.

Beta-blocker usage and breast cancer survival: a nested case-control study within a UK clinical practice research datalink cohort.

Background: To investigate the association between post-diagnostic beta-blocker usage and risk of cancer-specific mortality in a large population-based cohort of female breast cancer patients.

Methods: A nested case-control study was conducted within a cohort of breast cancer patients identified from cancer registries in England(using the National Cancer Data repository) and diagnosed between 1998 and 2007. Patients who had a breast cancer-specific death(ascertained from Office of National Statistics death registration data) were each matched to four alive controls by year and age at diagnosis. Prescription data for these patients were available through the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Conditional logistic regression models were used to investigate the association between breast cancer-specific death and beta-blocker usage.

Results: Post-diagnostic use of beta-blockers was identified in 18.9% of 1435 breast cancer-specific deaths and 19.4% of their 5697 matched controls,indicating little evidence of association between beta-blocker use and breast cancer-specific mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.97,95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.13]. There was also little evidence of an association when analyses were restricted to cardio non-selective beta-blockers (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.69, 1.17). Similar results were observed in analyses of drug dosage frequency and duration, and beta-blocker type.

Conclusions: In this large UK population-based cohort of breast cancer patients,there was little evidence of an association between post-diagnostic beta-blocker usage and breast cancer progression. Further studies which include information on tumour receptor status are warranted to determine whether response to beta-blockers varies by tumour subtypes.

Survival for haematological malignancies in Europe between 1997 and 2008 by region and age: results of EUROCARE-5, a population-based study

Background: More effective treatments have become available for haematological malignancies from the early 2000s, but few large-scale population-based studies have investigated their effect on survival. Using EUROCARE data, and HAEMACARE morphological groupings, we aimed to estimate time trends in population-based survival for 11 lymphoid and myeloid malignancies in 20 European countries, by region and age. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we included patients (aged 15 years and older) diagnosed with haematological malignancies, diagnosed up to Dec 31, 2007, and followed up to Dec 31, 2008. We used data from the 30 cancer registries (across 20 countries) that provided continuous incidence and good quality data from 1992 to 2007. We used a hybrid approach to estimate age-standardised and age-specific 5-year relative survival, for each malignancy, overall and for five regions (UK, and northern, central, southern, and eastern Europe), and four 3-year periods (1997–99, 2000–02, 2003–05, 2006–08). For each malignancy, we also estimated the relative excess risk of death during the 5 years after diagnosis, by period, age, and region. Findings: We analysed 560 444 cases. From 1997–99 to 2006–08 survival increased for most malignancies: the largest increases were for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (42·0% [95% CI 40·7–43·4] to 55·4% [54·6–56·2], p<0·0001), follicular lymphoma (58·9% [57·3–60·6] to 74·3% [72·9–75·5], p<0·0001), chronic myeloid leukaemia (32·3% [30·6–33·9] to 54·4% [52·5–56·2], p<0·0001), and acute promyelocytic leukaemia (50·1% [43·7–56·2] to 61·9% [57·0–66·4], p=0·0038, estimate not age-standardised). Other survival increases were seen for Hodgkin's lymphoma (75·1% [74·1–76·0] to 79·3% [78·4–80·1], p<0·0001), chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (66·1% [65·1–67·1] to 69·0% [68·1–69·8], p<0·0001), multiple myeloma/plasmacytoma (29·8% [29·0–30·6] to 39·6% [38·8–40·3], p<0·0001), precursor lymphoblastic leukaemia/lymphoma (29·8% [27·7–32·0] to 41·1% [39·0–43·1], p<0·0001), acute myeloid leukaemia (excluding acute promyelocytic leukaemia, 12·6% [11·9–13·3] to 14·8% [14·2–15·4], p<0·0001), and other myeloproliferative neoplasms (excluding chronic myeloid leukaemia, 70·3% [68·7–71·8] to 74·9% [73·8–75·9], p<0·0001). Survival increased slightly in southern Europe, more in the UK, and conspicuously in northern, central, and eastern Europe. However, eastern European survival was lower than that for other regions. Survival decreased with advancing age, and increased with time only slightly in patients aged 75 years or older, although a 10% increase in survival occurred in elderly patients with follicular lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and chronic myeloid leukaemia. Interpretation: These trends are encouraging. Widespread use of new and more effective treatment probably explains much of the increased survival. However, the persistent differences in survival across Europe suggest variations in the quality of care and availability of the new treatments. High-resolution studies that collect data about stage at diagnosis and treatments for representative samples of cases could provide further evidence of treatment effectiveness and explain geographic variations in survival.

Post-diagnostic prescriptions for low-dose aspirin and breast cancer-specific survival: a nested case-control study in a breast cancer cohort from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink

INTRODUCTION: Recent observational studies indicate that post-diagnostic use of aspirin in breast cancer patients may protect against cancer progression perhaps by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-2 dependent mechanisms. Evidence also supports a crucial role for interactions between tumour cells and circulating platelets in cancer growth and dissemination, therefore, use of low-dose aspirin may reduce the risk of death from cancer in breast cancer patients.

METHODS: A cohort of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients (1998 to 2006) were identified in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (and confirmed by cancer registry linkage). Cancer-specific deaths were identified up to 2011 from Office for National Statistics mortality data. A nested case-control analysis was conducted using conditional logistic regression to compare post-diagnostic aspirin exposure using General Practice prescription data in 1,435 cases (breast cancer deaths) with 5,697 controls (matched by age and year of diagnosis).

RESULTS: After breast cancer diagnosis, 18.3% of cancer-specific deaths and 18.5% of matched controls received at least one prescription for low-dose aspirin, corresponding to an odds ratio (OR) of 0.98 (95% CI 0.83, 1.15). Adjustment for potential confounders (including stage and grade) had little impact on this estimate. No dose response relationship was observed when the number of tablets was investigated and no associations were seen when analyses were stratified by receipt of prescriptions for aspirin in the pre-diagnostic period, by stage at diagnosis or by receipt of prescriptions for hormone therapy.

CONCLUSIONS: Overall, in this large population-based cohort of breast cancer patients, there was little evidence of an association between receipt of post-diagnostic prescriptions for low-dose aspirin and breast cancer-specific death. However, information was not available on medication compliance or over-the-counter use of aspirin, which may have contributed to the null findings.

The DietCompLyf study: A prospective cohort study of breast cancer survival and phytoestrogen consumption

DietCompLyf is a multi-centre prospective study designed to investigate associations between phytoestrogens - naturally occurring plant compounds with oestrogenic properties - and other diet and lifestyle factors with breast cancer recurrence and survival. 3159 women with grades I-III breast cancer were recruited 9-15 months post-diagnosis from 56 UK hospitals. Detailed information on clinico-pathological, diet, lifestyle and quality of life is collected annually up to 5 years. Biological samples have also been collected as a resource for subsequent evaluation. The characteristics of the patients and associations between pre-diagnosis intake of phytoestrogens (isoflavones and lignans; assessed using the EPIC-Norfolk UK 130 question food frequency questionnaire) and breast cancer (i) risk factors and (ii) prognostic factors are described for 1797 women who had complete data for all covariates and phytoestrogens of interest. Isoflavone intakes were higher in the patients who were younger at diagnosis, in the non-smokers, those who had breast-fed and those who took supplements. Lignan intakes were higher in patients with a higher age at diagnosis, in ex-smokers, those who had breast-fed, who took supplements, had a lower BMI at diagnosis, lower age at menarche and were nulliparous. No significant associations between pre-diagnosis phytoestrogen intake and factors associated with improved breast cancer prognosis were observed. The potential for further exploration of the relationship between phytoestrogens and breast cancer recurrence and survival, and for the establishment of evidence to improve dietary and lifestyle advice offered to patients following breast cancer diagnosis using DietCompLyf data is discussed.

The effect of warfarin therapy on breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer survival: a population-based cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

PURPOSE: Pre-clinical studies suggest that oral anticoagulant agents, such as warfarin, may inhibit metastases and potentially prolong survival in cancer patients. However, few population-based studies have examined the association between warfarin use and cancer-specific mortality.

METHODS: Using prescribing, cause of death, and cancer registration data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, four population-based cohorts were constructed, comprising breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 1 January 1998, and the 31 December 2010. Comparing pre-diagnostic warfarin users to non-users, multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS: Overall, 16,525 breast, 12,902 colorectal, 12,296 lung, and 12,772 prostate cancers were included. Pre-diagnostic warfarin use ranged from 2.4 to 4.7 %. There was little evidence of any strong association between warfarin use pre-diagnosis and cancer-specific mortality in prostate (adjusted HR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.84-1.26), lung (adjusted HR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.96-1.16), breast (adjusted HR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.62-1.07), or colorectal (adjusted HR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.77-1.01) cancer patients. Dose-response analyses did not reveal consistent evidence of reductions in users of warfarin defined by the number of prescriptions used and daily defined doses.

CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence of associations between pre-diagnostic use of warfarin and cancer-specific mortality in lung, prostate, breast, or colorectal cancer patients.

Statin Use and Survival from Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background: Preclinical evidence from lung cancer cell lines and animal models suggest that statins could have anticancer properties. We investigated whether statin users had reduced risk of cancer-specific mortality in a population based cohort of lung cancer patients.
Methods: Newly diagnosed lung cancer patients, from 1998 to 2009, were identified from English cancer registry data and linked to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, providing prescription records, and to Office of National Statistics mortality data up to 2012. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for cancer-specific mortality and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by statin use before and after diagnosis and to adjust these HRs for potential confounders.
Results: In 3,638 lung cancer patients, there was some evidence that statin use after diagnosis was associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality (adjusted HR=0.89, 95% CI 0.78, 1.02; P=0.09). Associations were more marked after 12 prescriptions (adjusted HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.67, 0.98; P=0.03) and when lipophilic statins were investigated (adjusted HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.70, 0.94; P=0.01) but were attenuated in some sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, in 11,051 lung cancer patients, statin use before diagnosis was associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality (adjusted HR=0.88, 95% CI, 0.83, 0.93; P<0.001).
Conclusions: There was some evidence that lung cancer patients who used statins, and particularly simvastatin, had reduced rates of cancer-specific mortality.
 Impact: These findings should first be confirmed in observational studies, but provide some support for conducting randomized controlled trials of simvastatin as adjuvant cancer therapy in lung cancer patients.