4.7 Article

Statin use in primary inflammatory breast cancer: a cohort study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 109, 期 2, 页码 318-324

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.342

关键词

inflammatory breast cancer; statin; hydrophilic; lipophilic; progression-free survival; overall survival

类别

资金

  1. National Institute of Health grants [R01 CA123318]
  2. MD Anderson's Cancer Center Support Grant [CA016672]
  3. Morgan Welch Inflammatory Breast Cancer Research Program and Clinic
  4. State of Texas Rare and Aggressive Breast Cancer Research Program Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Some studies have suggested that statins, which have cholesterol-lowering and anti-inflammatory properties, may have antitumor effects. Effects of statins on inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) have never been studied. Methods: We reviewed 723 patients diagnosed with primary IBC in 1995-2011 and treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Statin users were defined as being on statins at the initial evaluation. Based on Ahern et al's statin classification (JNCI, 2011), clinical outcomes were compared by statin use and type (weakly lipophilic to hydrophilic (H-statin) vs lipophilic statins (L-statin)). We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS), and a Cox proportional hazards regression model to test the statistical significance of potential prognostic factors. Results: In the multivariable Cox model, H-statins were associated with significantly improved PFS compared with no statin (hazard ratio = 0.49; 95% confidence interval = 0.28-0.84; P<0.01); OS and DSS P-values were 0.80 and 0.85, respectively. For L-statins vs no statin, P-values for PFS, DSS, and OS were 0.81, 0.4, and 0.74, respectively. Conclusion: H-statins were associated with significantly improved PFS. A prospective randomised study evaluating the survival benefits of statins in primary IBC is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据