4.5 Article

The effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the incident and recurrent risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Journal

ONCOTARGETS AND THERAPY
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages 4645-4656

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S143154

Keywords

NSAIDs; aspirin; hepatocellular carcinoma; incidence; recurrence

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81600452]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Recent studies have showed that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs) could reduce the risk of several types of cancer. However, epidemiological evidence of the association between NSAIDs intake and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. Methods: To assess the preventive benefit of NSAIDs in HCC, we simultaneously searched the databases of PubMed, EmBase, Web of Science, and Scopus and screened eligible publications. Results: A total of twelve articles (published from 2000 to 2017) from five countries were identified by retrieval. We observed a significantly lower risk of HCC incidence among users of NSAIDs than among those who did not use NSAIDs (pooled hazard ratio [HR] value = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.94). No evidence of publication bias was observed (Begg's test, P= 0.755; Egger's test, P= 0.564). However, when stratified according to the categories of NSAIDs, users of non-aspirin NSAIDs (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94), but not aspirin (HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.58-1.02), showed a statistically significant reduced HCC incidence. We also found that NSAIDs use significantly reduced the recurrent risk of HCC, with a HR value of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.84), whereas there was no statistically significant association between NSAIDs use and HCC mortality, with a HR value 0.65 (95% CI: 0.40-1.06). Conclusion: Taken together, our meta-analysis demonstrates that NSAIDs significantly reduce the incident and recurrent risk of HCC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available