Aspirin Exposure and Mortality Risk among Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Fan, Lai lai; Xie, Cheng Peng; Wu, Yi Ming; Gu, Xi jie; Chen, Ying he; Wang, Yi jun

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9379602

BioMed Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 | Article ID 9379602 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9379602

Aspirin Exposure and Mortality Risk among Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lai lai Fan,¹Cheng Peng Xie,¹Yi Ming Wu,¹Xi jie Gu,¹Ying he Chen,¹and Yi jun Wang¹

Academic Editor: Robert J. Lee

Received17 Dec 2018

Accepted20 Mar 2019

Published03 Apr 2019

Abstract

Background. Prostate cancer (PCa) is the ninth most common cause of cancer death globally. Many studies have investigated aspirin exposure and mortality risk among PCa patients, returning inconsistent results. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to explore the association between aspirin exposure and mortality risk among PCa patients and to investigate potential dose/duration/frequency-response relationships. Methods and Results. Studies published from 1980 to 2018 of PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched. We included 14 studies with 110,000 participants. Multivariate-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using random-effect models. Potential dose/duration/frequency-response relationships were evaluated for aspirin exposure and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) risk. We did not detect an association between the highest aspirin exposure and mortality risk (PCSM of prediagnostic aspirin exposure, OR: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-1. 07, I²= 0%; PCSM of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure, OR:0.92, 95% CI: 0.77-1.10, I² = 56.9%; all-cause mortality [ACM] of prediagnostic aspirin exposure, OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.88-1.04, I² = 9.4%; ACM of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.73-1.23, I² = 88.9%). There was no significant dose/frequency-response association observed for aspirin exposure and PCSM risk. On duration-response analysis, we found that short-term postdiagnostic aspirin exposure (shorter than 2.5 years) increased the risk of PCSM. Conclusions. Our meta-analysis suggests that there is no association between aspirin exposure and PCSM risk. Nor is there an association between the highest aspirin exposure and ACM risk among PCa patients. More studies are needed for a further dose/duration/frequency-response meta-analysis.

1. Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men in over one-half of the countries of the world [1]. PCa is also the ninth most common cause of cancer death globally. It is estimated that there will be almost 1.3 million new cases of PCa and 359,000 associated deaths worldwide in 2018 [2]. Because of earlier diagnosis and improved treatment, death rates for PCa have been decreasing in many countries [3–5]. Epidemiologic studies have revealed many risk factors for PCa progression and death [6], possibly linked to a more westernized lifestyle, in combination with limited access to effective treatments [5, 7].

Aspirin as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that is widely used for preventing recurrent cardiovascular events [8] has been proposed as an anticancer agent to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality [9–12], especially for colorectal cancer. The molecular mechanism remains unclear; most researchers believe that the anticancer effect may be mediated through antithrombotic and anti-inflammation mechanisms via blockade of cyclooxygenase- (COX-) 1 and 2 isozymes, respectively [13]. In human PCa, the expression of both COX-1 and COX-2 is increased, possibly playing a role in the progression of the PCa [14, 15]. Many observational studies have examined whether aspirin affected PCa survival [11, 16–29]. However, the evidence from these studies has been inconsistent.

A meta-analysis had analyzed the association between aspirin exposure and mortality risk among PCa patients with an insignificant outcome [30]. This analysis used data published before 2016. However, they missed some important studies and included conference abstracts; they also committed errors of data extraction and did not explain heterogeneous source. Most important, they did not investigate potential dose/duration/frequency-response associations. To further explore the association between aspirin exposure and mortality risk among PCa patients, we included the latest studies and conducted a dose/duration/frequency-response meta-analysis to quantify the association between high dose/long term/high frequency exposure of aspirin and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) risk. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate potential dose/duration/frequency-response associations between aspirin exposure and PCSM risk.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

We followed the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines [32]. In order to systematically retrieve studies describing the association between aspirin exposure and mortality risk, we first searched PubMed and EMBASE on April 10, 2018. We repeated the literature search on October 25, 2018, to verify that our research was based on latest data. References list of included studies and reviews were also checked. The search focused on four themes of subject terms and keywords: aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, prostate neoplasms, and mortality. The detailed search strategies are shown in the supplemental material (available here).

2.2. Study Selection

Literature eligibility was assessed by two investigators independently; discordant conclusions were resolved through discussion and consensus. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the study was a cohort study or case-control study because of higher quality of evidence-based medical evidence; (2) reviews, case reports, letters, comments, and lectures were excluded; (3) the authors reported data from an original, peer-reviewed study; and (4) the exposure interest was aspirin exposure and the outcome was death, and the investigators reported multivariate-adjusted risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When articles had the same data source or included multiple publications, the articles of the most informative one or with the higher quality were included.

2.3. Data Extraction

The following information was extracted and transferred to specially designed forms from the included studies by two investigators independently: author name, publish year, study type, region, data source, age (mean age or age range), follow-up years or study period, number of participants with PCa, number of participants who died of PCa, death assessment method, aspirin assessment method, time of aspirin use, diagnostic method of PCa, T-stage of PCa, treatment of PCa, confounders adjustment, reference number, quality assessment, and corresponding risk estimates with 95% CIs on PCSM and all-cause mortality (ACM) of prediagnostic and postdiagnostic aspirin exposure. We took the highest dose of aspirin intake as the highest dose exposure. When the highest dose of aspirin was not available in the reports, we assigned the longest duration aspirin exposure as the highest dose exposure. For studies which provided a data of dose/duration/frequency-response analysis, risk estimates with 95% CIs for at least three quantitative categories of aspirin exposure were generated. If the required data was not readily available or clear from the published study, we attempted to collect relevant data by contacting the authors at least once.

We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) [33] to evaluate the quality of include studies. For nonrandomized studies, quality assessment includes the following aspects: selection, comparability, and exposure [34]. Different evaluation criteria were used for the cohort and case-control studies. The score of this scale is nine points, high quality is awarded bigger than or equal to seven points, four to six points is considered moderate quality, and poor quality is awarded less than or equal to three points. Poor quality studies would be excluded in the sensitivity analysis.

2.4. Data Synthesis and Analysis

We evaluated the association between aspirin exposure and mortality risk by using risk estimates. Hazard ratio (HR), relative ratio (RR), and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) values were considered reasonable approximations to odds ratio (OR) for the relatively rare outcome [35, 36]. Because studies report different exposure categories as tertiles, quartiles, and quintiles, study-specific OR for the highest dose of aspirin exposure was compared to the lowest dose of aspirin exposure. Forest plots were created to visually assess the mortality risk of the highest dose of aspirin exposure across studies. Cochrane Q statistic and the I² statistic were used to test the heterogeneity across studies [37]. A p value < 0.10 was considered statistically significant for the Cochrane Q statistic. For I² statistic, a value > 50% indicated a measure of heterogeneity. Pooled ORs were obtained using inverse-variance-weighted random-effects models of DerSimonian and Laird [38].

The method described by Greenland and Longnecker was used for the meta-analysis of the dose/duration/frequency-response association between aspirin exposure and PCSM risk [39, 40]. The method requires that the distributions of cases and controls, cumulative exposure, ORs, and 95% CIs for at least three quantitative exposure categories were known. When there were more than two studies reporting relevant data, the dose/duration/frequency-response meta-analyses were allowed. The median or mean dose/duration/frequency exposure in each category was used as the corresponding exposure. When there was no median or mean dose/duration/frequency exposure for each category in the reports, the midpoint of the upper and lower boundaries in each category was specified as average exposure. If the highest category was open ended, the midpoint of the category was set to 1.5 times the lower boundary. When the lowest category was open ended, the lower boundary was set to zero. Additionally, restricted cubic spine models with three (10, 50, and 90%) or four knots (5, 35, 65, and 95%) of the distribution of exposure were used to evaluate the potential linear or nonlinear associations between aspirin exposure and PCSM risk [41]. Linearity or nonlinearity relation was calculated by testing the null hypothesis that the coefficient of the second spline is equal to zero [42].

The impacts of study characteristics on the results were assessed by meta-regression of region, study type, number of participants, follow-up time, study quality, and mean age. Further subgroup analysis estimated the effects of region, study type, number of participants, follow-up time, study quality, mean age, adjusted for smoking, and adjusted for cardiovascular events. Remaining studies were reanalyzed following the omission of one study at a time to evaluate the stability and reliability of the results [43]. When the number of studies included was bigger than ten, the potential publication bias was examined by visual inspection of the funnel plot and the result of Egger regression asymmetry test [44].

Analyses were done with STATA version 14.1 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas). A two-tailed p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search

Our initial search yielded 6,687 articles, of which we identified 204 duplicate articles. 24 articles were retained for further review after screening based on titles and abstracts. After detailed examination of these 24 full-text articles, 11 articles were excluded. 1 study [45] was excluded because the study was a review; 7 studies [31, 46–51] were excluded because they were conference abstracts; 2 studies were excluded because the exposure interests reported were nonaspirin NSAIDs [29, 52]; 1 study was excluded because the study used the normal population as a control group [11]. Ultimately, 13 articles [16–28] were included in our meta-analysis (Figure 1).

3.2. Study Characteristics

The characteristics of the included 13 articles are presented in Table 1. 1 article [16] included two studies of different data sources. Our meta-analysis included nearly 110 thousand participants with PCa, and we observed that nearly 10 thousand participants died of PCa. The participants of 9 studies [16–18, 21, 22, 26–28] were in America, and 5 [19, 20, 23–25] in Europe. 1 study [25] was designed as a case-control study; the remaining studies were designed as cohort studies. All the studies were published in or after 2012. 10 studies [16, 17, 19–21, 24–27] were graded as having high quality, and the remainder were of moderate quality; no study was evaluated as poor quality. The follow-up duration of cohort studies ranged from 3.25 to 9.3 years. The aspirin exposure assessment method was based on self-report in 6 studies [16, 22, 26–28], questionnaires in 2 studies [17, 21], and prescriptions in 5 studies [19, 20, 23–25]. The PCa death assessment method in most studies was based on death certificates. Diagnostic method of PCa was based on clinical or/and pathologic information in 8 studies [20–24, 26–28], medical records in 4 studies [16, 17, 19], and international statistical classification of diseases (ICD) codes in 1 study [25].

3.3. The Highest Dose of Aspirin Exposure and Mortality Risk

8 studies [16, 17, 19–21, 24, 25] examined prediagnostic aspirin exposure and 13 studies [16–23, 25–28] examined postdiagnostic aspirin exposure in relation to PCSM risk. 4 studies [16, 17, 20] examined prediagnostic aspirin exposure and 5 studies [16, 17, 20, 25] examined postdiagnostic aspirin exposure in relation to ACM risk. The outcome of prediagnostic aspirin exposure reported by Downer et al. [17] was excluded because they used the normal population as a control group. For ORs of the highest dose of aspirin exposure on PCSM, 1 study [24] reported a negative association of prediagnostic aspirin exposure, 1 study [20] reported a positive association of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure, and 2 studies [17, 28] reported a negative association of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure; the remaining studies reported that the ORs were not statistically different than 1.00. For ORs of the highest dose of aspirin exposure on ACM risk among PCa patients, 2 studies [16, 17] reported a negative association of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure and 2 studies [20, 25] reported a positive association of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure; the remaining studies reported that the ORs were not statistically different than 1.00.

In the random-effects model, the pooled OR (95% CI) of the PCSM risk of prediagnostic aspirin exposure was 0.96(95% CI: 0.87-1. 07, Figure 2); the pooled OR (95% CI) of the PCSM risk of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure was 0.92(95% CI: 0.77-1. 10, Figure 2). We found an obvious heterogeneity (I² =56.9%; p =0.006) in terms of outcome of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure. For ACM risk, the pooled OR (95% CI) of prediagnostic aspirin exposure from random-effects model was 0.96(95% CI: 0.88-1. 04, Figure 3); the pooled OR (95% CI) of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure from random-effects model was 0.95(95% CI: 0.73-1. 23, Figure 3). We also detected substantial heterogeneity (I²=88.9%; p≤0.001) in terms of outcome of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure.

For PCSM risk, we detected a substantial heterogeneity of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure. To ascertain the heterogeneity of sources, we conducted a meta-regression analysis and the results were shown in the supplemental material. However, the results did not detect the source of the heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted by region, study type, number of participants, follow-up time, study quality, mean age, adjusted for smoking, and adjusted for cardiovascular events (Table 2). The subgroup of region (America: I² =48.1%, 0R: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.65-1.03), participants (<5000: I² =41.7%, 0R: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.74-1.11), age (<=68: I² =0%, 0R: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.32-0.80), follow-up time (<=5: I² =0%, 0R: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.76-1.05), quality (high: I² =49.5%, 0R: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.84-1.21), adjusted for smoking (no: I² =31.3%, 0R: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.18), and adjusted for cardiovascular events (no: I² =37.4%, 0R: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.78-1.19) exhibited a decreases in heterogeneity. To further explore the sources of the heterogeneity, we performed the sensitivity analysis and found that the study by Assayag et al. was a major source of heterogeneity (from 42.1% to 56.9%). We omitted this study and performed the analysis again; the result remained insignificant (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.75-1.05). The results of meta-regression and subgroup analyses did not indicate the source of heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis showed significant decreases of heterogeneity after excluding the study of Assayag et al. We found that the study of Assayag et al. reported the only positive result of PCSM risk on postdiagnostic aspirin exposure. Therefore, we speculated that the heterogeneity might derive from the study reported by Assayag et al. We found that the subgroup of less than or equal to 68 years old showed a significant negative association. Aspirin might have a little protective effect on younger patients with PCa. This result needed to be further verified because there were only 4 studies included. There was no publication bias according to the visual inspection of the funnel plot of prediagnostic aspirin exposure (Figure 4(a)) and postdiagnostic aspirin exposure (Figure 4(b)). The result of Egger’s test of prediagnostic aspirin exposure (p = 0.276) and postdiagnostic aspirin exposure (p = 0.078) also showed no publication bias.

(a)

(b)

For ACM risk, we also detected substantial heterogeneity of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure. The sensitivity analysis of omitting one study at a time showed no substantial change in terms of results and heterogeneity. Because of the low number of studies that reported the aspirin exposure and ACM risk, subgroup and publication bias analyses were not pursued. Further studies are warranted.

3.4. Dose/Duration/Frequency-Response Meta-Analysis

For PCSM risk, 3 studies [21, 25, 27] examined dose of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure, 3 studies [17, 19, 20] examined duration of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure, and 3 studies [16, 21] examined frequency of both prediagnostic and postdiagnostic aspirin exposure. Every study contained relevant risk estimates with information for each exposure category reported. All studies were included in our meta-analysis. Because of a lack of data, we did not conduct a dose/duration/frequency-response meta-analysis on associations between aspirin exposure and ACM risk.

In the analysis of association between dose of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure and PCSM risk, we did not detect substantial heterogeneity (Q = 5.18, p =0.3937) and found a linearity association (p =0.7017). However, the result was not significant (Figure 5(a)). In the analysis of association between duration of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure and PCSM risk. We did not detect substantial heterogeneity (Q = 40.94, p ≤0.001) and found a nonlinearity association (p ≤0.001). The combined ORs of PCSM risk for 1.5, 2.5, and 3 years of duration exposure were 1.36 (95% CI: 1.19-1.55), 1.13 (95% CI: 0.99-1.29), and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.90-1.21), respectively (Figure 5(b)). Short-term aspirin exposure (shorter than 2.5 years) increased the risk of PCSM. The result needs to be further because of the limited number studies included. In the analysis of the association between frequency of prediagnostic aspirin exposure and PCSM risk, we did not detect substantial heterogeneity (Q = 1.89, p =0.7553) and found a linearity association (p =0.7956). The result was not significant (Figure 5(c)). In the analysis of association between frequency of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure and PCSM risk, we also did not detect substantial heterogeneity (Q = 2.07, p = 0.5327) and found a linearity association (p =0.5327). And the result was still not significant (Figure 5(d)).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 5

(a) Dose-response relationship between postdiagnostic aspirin exposure and prostate cancer-specific mortality risk; (b) duration-response relationship between postdiagnostic aspirin exposure and prostate cancer-specific mortality risk; (c) frequency-response relationship between prediagnostic aspirin exposure and prostate cancer-specific mortality risk; (d) frequency-response relationship between postdiagnostic aspirin exposure and prostate cancer-specific mortality risk. (The solid lines represent the linear/nonlinear trend. The dashed lines dashes represent the pointwise 95% confidence intervals for the linear trend.)

4. Discussion

Many studies had investigated prediagnostic and postdiagnostic aspirin exposure with respect to mortality risk among PCa patients, with inconsistent results. The meta-analysis reported by Thakker et al. [30] had analyzed the association between aspirin exposure and mortality risk; they used the data published before 2016 and showed an insignificant outcome with substantial heterogeneity. They concluded that aspirin exposure was not associated with ACM and PCSM. However, they missed some important studies and included conference abstracts; they committed errors in data extraction and did not explain heterogeneous sources. Most important, they did not investigate potential dose/duration/frequency-response associations. The effect could have significant implications with respect to dose, frequency, and duration of aspirin use. To further explore the association between aspirin exposure and mortality risk, we updated the analysis and conducted a dose/duration/frequency-response meta-analysis to quantify the association between high dose/long term/high frequency exposure of aspirin and PCSM risk.

In this meta-analysis of 110,000 participants, we did not detect an association between the highest aspirin exposure and PCSM risk or any association regarding the highest aspirin exposure and ACM risk. The pooled ORs for PCSM of the highest postdiagnostic aspirin exposure were consistent in case-control and cohort studies. There was no significant dose-response association for dose of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure and PCSM risk. There was no significant frequency-response association for frequency of prediagnostic and postdiagnostic aspirin exposure and PCSM risk. In the meta-analysis of duration-response association, we found a nonlinearity association between duration of postdiagnostic aspirin exposure and PCSM risk. The result implied that short-term aspirin exposure (shorter than 2.5 years) increased the risk of PCSM. Indeed, premature discontinuation of drugs might mean disease progression; healthier men may continue to take aspirin. Androgen deprivation therapy had been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events [53, 54]. Health-conscious men with better prognosis might take aspirin earlier and longer for primary prevention. However, patients with chronic cardiovascular disease were more likely to be those long-term users of aspirin. The results require further verification for small studies. We did not conduct dose/duration/frequency-response meta-analysis of aspirin exposure and ACM risk because of lack of data. In the subgroup analysis, we found the subgroup of less than or equal to 68 years old had a significant negative association. Aspirin might have a small protective effect on younger patients with PCa, though age itself was a protective factor. This result needs to be further verified because there were only 4 studies included.

Whether aspirin protects against lethality of PCa is largely unknown. However, there have been various proposed mechanisms by which aspirin may improve oncologic outcomes. In colorectal cancer, clinical studies demonstrated that aspirin intake was associated with long-term incidence and mortality [55, 56]. Scholars who support this protective effect believe that platelets play a role in PCa metastasis by inducing angiogenesis, protecting tumor cells from immune surveillance, and promoting interactions between tumor cells and blood vessels [57–59]. Therefore, the antithrombotic effect of COX-1 inhibition of aspirin may impair PCa metastasis. The blockade of COX-2 could inhibit inflammation, suppress angiogenesis, and retain antimetastasis markers [60, 61]. The inhibition of COX-2 has inhibited PCa growth in both preclinical and human studies [62, 63]. Expression of both COX-1 and COX-2 was associated with increase in PCa [14, 15]. There are also COX-independent mechanisms that have been reported. However, the outcomes of our study did not accord with this view. Relative to inhibition of COX-1, aspirin has less potent COX-2 inhibitory action [64]. However, evidence reported recently is more likely to support the antitumor effect of COX-2 blockade [61, 65–67]. Therefore, a potent and selective inhibitor of COX-2 might represent an opportunity to augment current therapies. This is particularly of interest to patients with pain or undergoing radiation therapy where inflammation is a common side-effect. Further studies of selective inhibitors of COX-2 are needed.

Nevertheless, several limitations of our study should be acknowledged. First, this was a meta-analysis of observational studies; we could at best demonstrate an association but not a causal relationship. Second, heterogeneity was a potential problem when interpreting the results of our analysis. In analysis of PCSM risk and the highest postdiagnostic aspirin exposure, we found substantial heterogeneity, and we found the study by Assayag et al. was a major source of heterogeneity. The result remained insignificant after excluding this study. Third, the summary results might be influenced by the conversion of other measures to OR. Finally, the studies included in the dose/duration/frequency-response meta-analysis were limited; further studies are needed.

Our study also had several strengths: we performed a comprehensive systematic search for eligible studies; we conducted a dose/duration/frequency-response meta-analysis to quantify the association between high dose/long term/high frequency exposure of aspirin and PCSM risk; it was the first study to investigate potential dose/duration/frequency-response associations between aspirin exposure and PCSM risk; we included large enough numbers of participants; there was less possibility of publication bias; no substantial change in the results was found in the sensitivity analysis.

5. Conclusions

Our meta-analysis indicates that there is no association between aspirin exposure and PCSM risk. No association was found between highest aspirin exposure and ACM risk among PCa patients. More studies are needed to develop a further dose/duration/frequency-response meta-analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Yi jun Wang and Ying he Chen designed the study. Lai lai Fan and Cheng peng Xie completed the literature eligibility assessment, extraction, and analysis of data. Yi jun Wang, Yi Ming Wu, and Xi jie Gu reviewed the results. Lai lai Fan wrote the report. All authors participated in the discussion and modification of the text. All authors approved the final version of the paper.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge that the Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children’s Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University for supporting the work of our study.

Supplementary Materials

S1: search strategies in PubMed and EMBASE. S2: meta-regression of the highest postdiagnostic aspirin exposure and prostate cancer-specific mortality risk. (Supplementary Materials)

References

C. Fitzmaurice, C. Allen, R. M. Barber et al., “Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study,” JAMA Oncology, vol. 2017, no. 3, pp. 524–548, 1990.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. L. Siegel, L. A. Torre, and A. Jemal, “Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 394–424, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. C. S. Wong, W. B. Goggins, H. H. X. Wang et al., “Global incidence and mortality for prostate cancer: analysis of temporal patterns and trends in 36 countries,” European Urology, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 862–874, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Bray and M. Piñeros, “Cancer patterns, trends and projections in latin america and the caribbean: a global context,” Salud Pública de México, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 104–117, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Center, A. Jemal, J. Lortet-Tieulent et al., “International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates,” European Urology, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1079–1092, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. H. Pernar, E. M. Ebot, K. M. Wilson, and L. A. Mucci, “The epidemiology of prostate cancer,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, vol. 8, no. 12, Article ID a030361, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Bray and L. A. Kiemeney, “Epidemiology of prostate cancer in europe: patterns, trends and determinants,” in Management of Prostate Cancer, pp. 1–27, Springer, 2nd edition, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Capodanno and D. J. Angiolillo, “Aspirin for primary cardiovascular risk prevention and beyond in diabetes mellitus,” Circulation, vol. 134, no. 20, pp. 1579–1594, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. T. Chan, J. E. Manson, D. Feskanich, M. J. Stampfer, G. A. Colditz, and C. S. Fuchs, “Long-term aspirin use and mortality in women,” JAMA Internal Medicine, vol. 167, no. 6, pp. 562–572, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Thun, M. M. Namboodiri, and C. W. Heath Jr., “Aspirin use and reduced risk of fatal colon cancer,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 325, no. 23, pp. 1593–1596, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. D. Ratnasinghe, B. I. Graubard, L. Kahle, J. A. Tangrea, P. R. Taylor, and E. Hawk, “Aspirin use and mortality from cancer in a prospective cohort study,” Anticancer Reseach, vol. 24, no. 5 B, pp. 3177–3184, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
M. J. Thun, S. Jane Henley, and C. Patrono, “Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as anticancer agents: mechanistic, pharmacologic, and clinical issues,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 252–266, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. E. Harris, J. Beebe-Donk, H. Doss, and D. B. Doss, “Aspirin, ibuprofen, and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in cancer prevention: a critical review of non-selective COX-2 blockade (review),” Oncology Reports, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 559–583, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Kirschenbaum, A. P. Klausner, R. Lee et al., “Expression of cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2 in the human prostate,” Urology, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 671–676, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Gupta, M. Srivastava, N. Ahmad, D. G. Bostwick, and H. Mukhtar, “Over-expression of cyclooxygenase-2 in human prostate adenocarcinoma,” The Prostate, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 73–78, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. K. Zhou, S. E. Daugherty, L. M. Liao et al., “Do aspirin and other NSAIDs confer a survival benefit in men diagnosed with prostate cancer? a pooled analysis of NIH-AARP and PLCO cohorts,” Cancer Prevention Research, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 410–420, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. K. Downer, C. B. Allard, M. A. Preston et al., “Regular aspirin use and the risk of lethal prostate cancer in the physicians’ health study,” European Urology, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 821–827, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. W. Osborn, S.-C. Chen, J. Weiner, D. Schwartz, and D. Schreiber, “Impact of aspirin on clinical outcomes for African American men with prostate cancer undergoing radiation,” TUMORI, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 65–70, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Veitonmäki, T. J. Murtola, L. Määttänen et al., “Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and prostate cancer survival in the finnish prostate cancer screening trial,” The Prostate, vol. 75, no. 13, pp. 1394–1402, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Assayag, M. N. Pollak, and L. Azoulay, “The use of aspirin and the risk of mortality in patients with prostate cancer,” The Journal of Urology, vol. 193, no. 4, pp. 1220–1225, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. J. Jacobs, C. C. Newton, V. L. Stevens, P. T. Campbell, S. J. Freedland, and S. M. Gapstur, “Daily aspirin use and prostate cancer-specific mortality in a large cohort of men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 32, no. 33, pp. 3716–3722, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. D. Jacobs, S. G. Chun, J. Yan et al., “Aspirin improves outcome in high risk prostate cancer patients treated with radiation therapy,” Cancer Biology & Therapy, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 699–706, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. H. Grytli, M. W. Fagerland, S. D. Fosså, and K. A. Taskén, “Association between use of β-blockers and prostate cancer-specific survival: a cohort study of 3561 prostate cancer patients with high-risk or metastatic disease,” European Urology, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 635–641, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. M. Flahavan, K. Bennett, L. Sharp, and T. I. Barron, “A cohort study investigating aspirin use and survival in men with prostate cancer,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 154–159, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. R. Cardwell, E. M. Flahavan, C. M. Hughes et al., “Low-dose aspirin and survival in men with prostate cancer: a study using the UK clinical practice research datalink,” Cancer Causes & Control, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 33–43, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Caon, M. Paquette, J. Hamm, and T. Pickles, “Does statin or ASA affect survival when prostate cancer is treated with external beam radiation therapy?” Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, vol. 2014, Article ID 184297, 6 pages, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. K. Dhillon, S. A. Kenfield, M. J. Stampfer, E. L. Giovannucci, and J. M. Chan, “Aspirin use after a prostate cancer diagnosis and cancer survival in a prospective cohort,” Cancer Prevention Research, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 1223–1228, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. S. Choe, J. E. Cowan, J. M. Chan, P. R. Carroll, A. V. D'Amico, and S. L. Liauw, “Aspirin use and the risk of prostate cancer mortality in men treated with prostatectomy or radiotherapy,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 30, no. 28, pp. 3540–3544, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. C. Stock, P. A. Groome, D. R. Siemens, S. L. Rohland, and Z. Song, “Effects of non‐selective non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs on the aggressiveness of prostate cancer,” The Prostate, vol. 68, no. 15, pp. 1655–1665, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Thakker, A. Raval, N. Raval, and A. Vyas, “Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and clinical outcomes among men with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 127–141, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. K. Zhou, S. E. Daugherty, Black A. et al., “Pre- and post-diagnostic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and prostate cancer mortality among men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the NIH-AARP and PLCOM2012 cohorts,” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, vol. 26, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
D. F. Stroup, J. A. Berlin, S. C. Morton et al., “Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 283, no. 15, pp. 2008–2012, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Stang, “Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses,” European Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 603–605, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. V. Margulis, M. Pladevall, N. Riera-guardia et al., “Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 6, pp. 359–368, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Zhang and K. F. Yu, “What's the relative risk? a method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 280, no. 19, pp. 1690-1691, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Greenland, “Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature,” Epidemiologic Reviews, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–30, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. T. Higgins, S. G. Thompson, J. J. Deeks, and D. G. Altman, “Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses,” British Medical Journal, vol. 327, no. 7414, pp. 557–560, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. DerSimonian and N. Laird, “Meta-analysis in clinical trials,” Controlled Clinical Trials, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 177–188, 1986.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Orsini, R. Bellocco, and S. Greenland, “Generalized least squares for trend estimation of summarized dose-response data,” Stata Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 40–57, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Greenland and M. P. Longnecker, “Methods for trend estimation from summarized dose-response data, with applications to meta-analysis,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 135, no. 11, pp. 1301–1309, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. E. Harre Jr., K. L. Lee, B. G. Pollock et al., “Regression models in clinical studies: determining relationships between predictors and response,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 80, no. 15, pp. 1198–1202, 1988.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Orsini, R. Li, A. Wolk, P. Khudyakov, and D. Spiegelman, “Meta-analysis for linear and nonlinear dose-response relations: examples, an evaluation of approximations, and software,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 66–73, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. H. Chen, C. J. Nan, L. L. Fan, H. X. Su, and X. J. Gu, “Carbohydrate intake and the risk of prostate cancer,” Clinica Chimica Acta, vol. 484, pp. 60–71, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Egger, G. D. Smith, M. Schneider, and C. Minder, “Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test,” British Medical Journal, vol. 315, pp. 629–634, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. K. Barton, “Daily aspirin may reduce mortality from prostate cancer with risk of high recurrence,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 83-84, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. V. Raittinen, K. Talala, K. Taari et al., “Association between NSAID, statins, and bisphosphonates and prostate cancer survival during androgen deprivation therapy,” Cancer Research, vol. 78, no. 13, pp. 4226–4226, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Skriver, C. Dehlendorff, M. Borre et al., “Use of low-dose aspirin and mortality after prostate cancer: a nationwide cohort study. pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety,” Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, vol. 26, pp. 224-225, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Cao, M. Stampfer, W. Willett et al., “Long-term aspirin use and total and cancer-specific mortality,” Cancer Research, vol. 77, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
N. D. James, M. R. Sydes, N. W. Clarke et al., “Celecoxib with or without zoledronic acid for hormone-naive prostate cancer: Survival results from STAMPEDE (NCT00268476),” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 34, 2, pp. 162–162, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. Daugherty, R. Pfeiffer, A. Ghazarian et al., “Frequency of aspirin use and prostate cancer mortality among prostate cancer cases in the control arm of the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial,” Cancer Research, vol. 73, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Caon, M. Paquette, and T. Pickles, “Statin and ASA use in regards to comorbidity and outcome in men with prostate cancer treated with curative intent radiation therapy,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 81, no. 2, p. S420, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Lipworth, S. Friis, W. J. Blot et al., “A population-based cohort study of mortality among users of ibuprofen in Denmark,” American Journal of Therapeutics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 156–163, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Laurent, Y. Hui, B. Serge et al., “Androgen-deprivation therapy and the risk of stroke in patients with prostate cancer,” European Urology, vol. 60, pp. 1244–1250, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
V. H. Mieke, G. Hans, H. Lars et al., “Absolute and relative risk of cardiovascular disease in men with prostate cancer: results from the Population-Based PCBaSe Sweden,” Journal of Clinical Oncology Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, p. 3448, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
P. M. Rothwell, M. Wilson, C. E. Elwin et al., “Long-term effect of aspirin on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: 20-year follow-up of five randomised trials,” The Lancet, vol. 376, no. 9754, pp. 1741–1750, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. M. Rothwell, J. F. Price, F. G. R. Fowkes et al., “Short-term effects of daily aspirin on cancer incidence, mortality, and non-vascular death: analysis of the time course of risks and benefits in 51 randomised controlled trials,” The Lancet, vol. 379, no. 9826, pp. 1602–1612, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. J. Gay and B. Felding-Habermann, “Contribution of platelets to tumour metastasis,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 123–134, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Li, M. Ren, N. Chen et al., “Presence of intratumoral platelets is associated with tumor vessel structure and metastasis,” BMC Cancer, vol. 14, no. 1, article 167, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Labelle, S. Begum, and R. O. Hynes, “Platelets guide the formation of early metastatic niches,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 111, no. 30, pp. E3053–E3061, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Gupta, V. M. Adhami, M. Subbarayan et al., “Suppression of prostate carcinogenesis by dietary supplementation of celecoxib in transgenic adenocarcinoma of the mouse prostate model,” Cancer Research, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 3334–3343, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. H. Liu, A. Kirschenbaum, S. Yao, R. Lee, J. F. Holland, and A. C. Levine, “Inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 suppresses angiogenesis and the growth of prostate cancer in vivo,” The Journal of Urology, vol. 164, no. 3 I, pp. 820–825, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. E. Harris, “Cyclooxygenase-2 (cox-2) blockade in the chemoprevention of cancers of the colon, breast, prostate, and lung,” Inflammopharmacology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 55–67, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L.-Y. Khor, K. Bae, A. Pollack et al., “COX-2 expression predicts prostate-cancer outcome: analysis of data from the RTOG 92-02 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 912–920, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Cryer and M. Feldman, “Cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2 selectivity of widely used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” American Journal of Medicine, vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 413–421, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A.-L. Hsu, T.-T. Ching, D.-S. Wang, X. Song, V. M. Rangnekar, and C.-S. Chen, “The cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib induces apoptosis by blocking Akt activation in human prostate cancer cells independently of Bcl-2,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 275, no. 15, pp. 11397–11403, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Pommery, T. Taverne, A. Telliez et al., “New COX-2/5-LOX inhibitors: Apoptosis-inducing agents potentially useful in prostate cancer chemotherapy,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 47, no. 25, pp. 6195–6206, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Edwards, R. Mukherjee, A. F. Munro, A. C. Wells, A. Almushatat, and J. M. S. Bartlett, “HER2 and COX2 expression in human prostate cancer,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 50–55, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2019 Lai lai Fan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1406

Downloads

1244

Citations