4.3 Review

Non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in prevention of colorectal cancer in people aged 40 or older: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 58, Issue -, Pages 52-62

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2018.11.002

Keywords

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NSAIDs; Colorectal cancer; Chemoprevention; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

Funding

  1. European Commission

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is still insufficient data about the risk-benefit profile about recommending non-aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NA-NSAIDs) for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention, especially in people aged 40 years or older. This study specifically addressed the association between regular NA-NSAIDs use and CRC risk in the population aged 40 years or older, performing a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies on this topic until April 2018, by a search of PubMed, Scopus and Web of science databases and clinical trial registries. Two reviewers independently selected studies based on predefined inclusion criteria and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Otawa scale. The data was combined with the random effects model. Potential heterogeneity was calculated as Q statistic and I-2 value. A total of 23 studies involving more than 1 million subjects contributed to the analysis. Pooled odds ratio (OR) of NA-NSAIDs effects on CRC risk was 0.74 (0.67-0.81), I-2 = 75.9%, p < 0.001. Heterogeneity was explained by a number of variables including the quality of the studies. Significant protective effects of NA-NSAIDs use were found for women (risk reduction of 19%), higher doses (risk reduction of 18%), distal colon cancer (risk reduction of 22%) and white people (risk reduction from 31% to 41%). From the results NA-NSAIDs use appears to be CRC chemopreventive for a specific subgroup of the population.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available