Search

Background: Low-dose aspirin has been shown to reduce the incidence of cancer, but its role in the treatment of cancer is uncertain. Objectives: We conducted a systematic search of the scientific literature on aspirin taken by patients following a diagnosis of cancer, together with appropriate meta-analyses. Methods: Searches were completed in Medline and Embase in December 2015 using a pre-defined search strategy. References and abstracts of all the selected papers were scanned and expert colleagues were contacted for additional studies. Two reviewers applied pre-determined eligibility criteria (cross-sectional, cohort and controlled studies, and aspirin taken after a diagnosis of cancer), assessed study quality and extracted data on cancer cause-specific deaths, overall mortality and incidence of metastases. Random effects meta-analyses and planned sub-group analyses were completed separately for observational and experimental studies. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed in sensitivity analyses and appropriate omissions made. Papers were examined for any reference to bleeding and authors of the papers were contacted and questioned. Results: Five reports of randomised trials were identified, together with forty two observational studies: sixteen on colorectal cancer, ten on breast and ten on prostate cancer mortality. Pooling of eleven observational reports of the effect of aspirin on cause-specific mortality from colon cancer, after the omission of one report identified on the basis of sensitivity analyses, gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.76 (95% CI 0.66, 0.88) with reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.04). The cause specific mortality in five reports of patients with breast cancer showed significant heterogeneity (P<0.0005) but the omission of one outlying study reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.19) and led to an HR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.69, 1.09). Heterogeneity between nine studies of prostate cancer was significant, but again, the omission of one study led to acceptable homogeneity (P = 0.26) and an overall HR = 0.89 (95% CI 0.79–0.99). Six single studies of other cancers suggested reductions in cause specific mortality by aspirin, and in five the effect is statistically significant. There were no significant differences between the pooled HRs for the three main cancers and after the omission of three reports already identified in sensitivity analyses heterogeneity was removed and revealed an overall HR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.90). A mutation of PIK3CA was present in about 20% of patients, and appeared to explain most of the reduction in colon cancer mortality by aspirin. Data were not adequate to examine the importance of this or any other marker in the effect of aspirin in the other cancers. On bleeding attributable to aspirin two reports stated that there had been no side effect or bleeding attributable to aspirin. Authors on the other reports were written to and 21 replied stating that no data on bleeding were available. Conclusions and Implications: The study highlights the need for randomised trials of aspirin treatment in a variety of cancers. While these are awaited there is an urgent need for evidence from observational studies of aspirin and the less common cancers, and for more evidence of the relevance of possible bio-markers of the aspirin effect on a wide variety of cancers. In the meantime it is urged that patients in whom a cancer is diagnosed should be given details of this research, together with its limitations, to enable each to make an informed decision as to whether or not to take low-dose aspirin. Systematic Review Protocol Number: CRD42015014145 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preclinical evidence suggests statins may have anti-tumor properties. Large observational studies are also consistent with improved survival and cancer-specific outcomes among cancer patients on statins. We sought to evaluate the randomized controlled trials of statins in addition to usual anti-cancer therapy. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Papers First and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed from inception through to July 4, 2017 to identify randomized clinical trials that investigated statin therapy in cancer patients. Our primary outcome was overall survival and our secondary outcome was progression-free survival. We calculated summary hazard ratio’s (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on random-effects models using aggregate data. PROSPERO (CRD42017065503). Results: Ten studies with 1,881 individuals were included with 1,572 deaths and a median follow-up of 23 months. All trials included patients with advanced (stage 3 or higher) disease. There was minimal between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 1.8%, for OS; I2 = 0%, for PFS). The pooled HR for overall survival in patients randomized to statins plus standard anti-cancer therapy versus standard therapy alone was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04). In the 9 studies that reported progression-free survival (1,798 participants), the pooled HR for statin plus standard therapy versus standard therapy alone was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07). Conclusions: In patients with advanced cancer and a prognosis <2 years, the addition of statins to standard anti-cancer therapy does not appear to improve overall survival or progression-free survival. Future research should assess if cancer patients with better prognosis benefit from longer-term statin therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. This systematic review aims to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and hand searched reference lists for all reports that included the measurement of spin in the biomedical literature for at least 1 outcome. Two independent coders extracted data on the characteristics of reports and their included studies and all spin-related outcomes. Results were grouped inductively into themes by spin-related outcome and are presented as a narrative synthesis. We used meta-analyses to analyse the association of spin with industry sponsorship of research. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readers’ decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths in both sexes in the world. Improvement of existing therapy modalities and implementing new ones in order to improve survival of patients with colorectal cancer represents a great challenge for medicine. The aim of this paper was to assess the impact that adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy has on survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared to the use of chemotherapy alone. Methods: Hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined from the studies and pooled. Two-sided p values were reported and considered to indicate statistical significance if less than 0.05. Results: A total of 12 studies that meet the inclusion criteria were identified in the literature search, 3 phase II studies and 9 phase III studies. Based on the random effects meta-analysis, a statistically significant improvement was identified for both overall survival (HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74–0.94; p = 0.003) and progression free survival (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.55–0.73; p<0.00001) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when bevacizumab was added to chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy treatment alone. Conclusion: The findings of this meta analysis confirm the benefit of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy in terms of survival and progression free survival, but the magnitude of this effect is not consistent throughout the included studies. This suggests the need for further research of interaction of bevacizumab with chemotherapeutic agents as well as recognition of patients’ characteristics important for the treatment selection criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]