3.8 Review

Statin use and risk of cancer: An overview of meta-analyses

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF META-ANALYSIS
Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 41-53

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v5.i2.41

Keywords

Statin; Cancer; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM To conduct an overview of meta-analyses to critically appraise the evidence and present a comprehensive evaluation of the association between statin use and risk of site specific cancers. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until 31st May 2016. The electronic database search was supplemented by a hand search in PROSPERO and relevant journals which are not indexed in above databases. Meta-analyses that examined the association between statin use and risk of site specific cancers were included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data, and assessed study quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. RESULTS Overall, 38 meta-analyses covered 13 site specific cancers were included. More than half (68%) of the meta-analyses were moderate in quality with an AMSTAR score 4-7 out of a possible 11. Based on current evidence from meta-analyses, use of statin decreases the risk of certain cancers, such as colorectal (8%-12%), gastric (27%-44%), hematological (19%), liver (37%-42%), oesophageal (14%-28%), ovarian (21%) and prostate cancer (7%). On the other side, evidence from meta-analyses also suggests that there is no association between statin use and risk of bladder, breast, endometrial, kidney, lung, pancreatic and skin cancers. CONCLUSION This overview of meta-analyses with variable quality has been shown that the statins may have a potential role in cancer chemoprevention and reduce the risk of some site specific cancers, but not all.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available