4.7 Review

Statins and prostate cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 1427-1434

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt077

Keywords

meta-analysis; prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy; radiotherapy; recurrence; statin

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [5 T32 CA 9001-36]
  2. Prostate Cancer Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In this meta-analysis, we evaluated associations between statins and recurrence-free survival (RFS) following treatment of localized prostate cancer, with attention to potential benefits among patients treated primarily with radiotherapy (RT) versus radical prostatectomy. Patients and methods: We identified original studies examining the effect of statins on men who received definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer using a systematic search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases through August 2012. Our search yielded 17 eligible studies from 794 references; 13 studies with hazard ratios (HRs) for RFS were included in the formal meta-analysis. Results: Overall, statins did not affect RFS (HR 0.90, 95% Cl 0.74-1.08). However, in AT patients (six studies), statins were associated with a statistically significant improvement in RFS (HR 0.68; 95% Cl 0.49-0.93); this benefit was not observed in radical prostatectomy patients (seven studies). Sensitivity analyses suggested that primary treatment modality may impact the effect of statins on prostate cancer recurrence. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests a potentially beneficial effect of statins on prostate cancer patients treated with RT but not among radical prostatectomy patients. Although limited by the lack of randomized data, these results suggest that primary treatment modality should be considered in future studies examining associations between statins and oncologic outcomes.

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