4.7 Article

Statin use and risk of contralateral breast cancer: a nationwide cohort study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 119, Issue 10, Pages 1297-1305

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-018-0252-1

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Scientific Committee of the Danish Cancer Society [R90-A5792-14-S2]
  2. Henrik Henriksens Fond
  3. Holger og Inez Petersens Mindelegat
  4. Fru Astrid Thaysens Legat for Laegevidenskabelig Grundforskning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Statins have demonstrated antineoplastic effects in breast cancer cell lines, particularly in oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative cell lines. However, epidemiological studies have not supported a preventive effect of statin use against breast cancer. Therefore, we examined the association between statin use and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk among women with breast cancer. METHODS: We identified 52,723 women with non-metastatic breast cancer during 1996-2012 from the Danish Breast Cancer Group database. We defined time-varying post-diagnosis statin use as minimum two prescriptions lagged by 1 year. Cox regression analyses were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for CBC associated with statin use. RESULTS: Statin use was associated with a lower CBC risk (HR = 0.88; 95% Cl = 0.73-1.05). The inverse association was strongest for long-term use overall (HR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.43-0.96), although the HR specifically for long-term consistent use and high-intensity use approached unity. Among ER-negative breast cancer patients, statin use was associated with a CBC risk reduction (HR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.45-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: We found some indication that statins reduce the risk of CBC. Further evaluations are needed to disentangle the equivocal results for long-term use and to establish if ER-negative breast cancer patients may benefit most from statin use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available