Aspirin use and head and neck cancer survival: an observational study of 11,623 person-years follow-up

Low-dose aspirin use and mortality risk in patients with head and neck cancer: A nationwide cohort study of 10 770 patients

Several recent observational studies have linked low-dose aspirin use to improved survival in patients with head and neck cancer. However, studies of patterns of aspirin use and risk of cancer-specific mortality are lacking. This nationwide cohort study included all patients in the Danish Cancer Registry with a primary diagnosis of head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) during 2000 to 2016, aged 30 to 84 years, without prior cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer) and alive 1 year after diagnosis. Nationwide registries provided information on filled prescriptions, mortality and potential confounding factors. For a subpopulation, a clinical database provided additional information, including human papillomavirus (HPV) tumor status. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between postdiagnostic low-dose aspirin use (≥1 prescription within first year after diagnosis) and risk of cancer-specific mortality. We identified 10 770 patients with HNSCC during a median follow-up of 3.9 years. Of these, 1799 (16.7%) were low-dose aspirin users. Postdiagnostic use of low-dose aspirin was associated with a HR of 0.97 (95% CI 0.82-1.15) for cancer-specific mortality. Similar neutral associations were found according to patterns of aspirin use. No apparent trends emerged according to age, sex, topography or stage. A tendency towards a decreased cancer-specific mortality risk with low-dose aspirin use was observed among HPV-positive patients; however, the statistical precision was low. In conclusion, we did not observe an association between postdiagnostic low-dose aspirin use and cancer-specific mortality in a nationwide cohort of patients with HNSCC.

Aspirin and cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analyses of 118 observational studies of aspirin and 18 cancers

BACKGROUND

Despite the accumulation of research papers on aspirin and cancer, there is doubt as to whether or not aspirin is an acceptable and effective adjunct treatment of cancer. The results of several randomised trials are awaited, and these should give clear evidence on three common cancers: colon, breast and prostate. The biological effects of aspirin appear likely however to be of relevance to cancer generally, and to metastatic spread, rather than just to one or a few cancers, and there is already a lot of evidence, mainly from observational studies, on the association between aspirin and survival in a wide range of cancers.

AIMS

In order to test the hypothesis that aspirin taking is associated with an increase in the survival of patients with cancer, we conducted a series of systematic literature searches to identify clinical studies of patients with cancer, some of whom took aspirin after having received a diagnosis of cancer.

RESULTS

Three literature searches identified 118 published observational studies in patients with 18 different cancers. Eighty-one studies report on aspirin and cancer mortality and 63 studies report on all-cause mortality. Within a total of about a quarter of a million patients with cancer who reported taking aspirin, representing 20%-25% of the total cohort, we found aspirin to be associated with a reduction of about 20% in cancer deaths (pooled hazard ratio (HR): 0.79; 95% confidence intervals: 0.73, 0.84 in 70 reports and a pooled odds ratio (OR): 0.67; 0.45, 1.00 in 11 reports) with similar reductions in all-cause mortality (HR: 0.80; 0.74, 0.86 in 56 studies and OR: 0.57; 0.36, 0.89 in seven studies). The relative safety of aspirin taking was examined in the studies and the corresponding author of every paper was written to asking for additional information on bleeding. As expected, the frequency of bleeding increased in the patients taking aspirin, but fatal bleeding was rare and no author reported a significant excess in fatal bleeds associated with aspirin. No author mentioned cerebral bleeding in the patients they had followed.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a considerable body of evidence suggestive of about a 20% reduction in mortality in patients with cancer who take aspirin, and the benefit appears not to be restricted to one or a few cancers. Aspirin, therefore, appears to deserve serious consideration as an adjuvant treatment of cancer, and patients with cancer, and their carers, have a right to be informed of the available evidence.

Aspirin Use and Common Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Whether aspirin use can decrease or increase cancer risk remains controversial. In this study, a meta-analysis of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to evaluate the effect of aspirin use on common cancer risk.

Method

Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Meta-analyses of cohort studies and RCTs were performed to assess the effect of aspirin use on the risk of colorectal, gastric, breast, prostate and lung cancer. Cochran Q test and the I square metric were calculated to detect potential heterogeneity among studies. Subgroup meta-analyses according to exposure categories (frequency and duration) and timing of aspirin use (whether aspirin was used before and after cancer diagnosis) were also performed. A dose-response analysis was carried out to evaluate and quantify the association between aspirin dose and cancer risk.

Results

A total of 88 cohort studies and seven RCTs were included in the final analysis. Meta-analyses of cohort studies revealed that regular aspirin use reduced the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR=0.85, 95%CI: 0.78-0.92), gastric cancer (RR=0.67, 95%CI: 0.52-0.87), breast cancer (RR=0.93, 95%CI: 0.87-0.99) and prostate cancer (RR=0.92, 95%CI: 0.86-0.98), but showed no association with lung cancer risk. Additionally, meta-analyses of RCTs showed that aspirin use had a protective effect on CRC risk (OR=0.74, 95%CI: 0.56-0.97). When combining evidence from meta-analyses of cohorts and RCTs, consistent evidence was found for the protective effect of aspirin use on CRC risk. Subgroup analysis showed that high frequency aspirin use was associated with increased lung cancer risk (RR=1.05, 95%CI: 1.01-1.09). Dose-response analysis revealed that high-dose aspirin use may increase prostate cancer risk.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence for low-dose aspirin use for the prevention of CRC, but not other common cancers. High frequency or high dose use of aspirin should be prescribed with caution because of their associations with increased lung and prostate cancer risk, respectively. Further studies are warranted to validate these findings and to find the minimum effective dose required for cancer prevention.

Head and neck cancer and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: Systematic review and meta-analysis

The objective was to assess the effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on head and neck cancer (HNC) outcomes. A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register databases were searched. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were performed with the RevMan software. Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria. Quality scores for observational studies ranged between 5 and 8 stars and the RCT was assessed as high risk of bias. NSAIDs use was associated with a 13% risk reduction of HNC (OR: 0.87 95% CI 0.77-0.99). NSAIDs use was associated with a 30% reduced cancer-specific mortality and with a 40% decreased risk on disease-recurrence. NSAIDs may have a modest protective effect on HNC risk and a positive impact on cancer-specific survival and disease-recurrence. The findings do not support a protective role of aspirin on HNC outcomes.

New Insights into Oral Cancer-Risk Factors and Prevention: A Review of Literature

The oral cancer constitutes 48% of head and neck cancer cases. Ninety percent of oral cancer cases are histologically diagnosed as oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCCs). Despite new management strategies, the 5-year survival rate of oral cancer is still below 50% in most countries. Head and neck cancers are heterogeneous tumors, and this characteristic of them provides a challenge to treatment plan. Due to the poor outcomes in oral cancer, prevention is a necessity. In this review, a relevant English Literature search in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from 2000 to mid-2018 was performed. All published articles related to oral cancer and its prevention were included. The risk factors of oral cancer and strategies of oral cancer prevention will be discussed.

Association of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Use With Survival in Patients With Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck Treated With Chemoradiation Therapy

IMPORTANCE

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as aspirin, are commonly prescribed medications with anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet properties used long term to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events. A recent study showed that aspirin was associated with improved survival in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) who were treated with surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether use of NSAIDs during definitive chemoradiation therapy (CRT) was associated with improved outcomes in patients with HNSCC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study analyzed patients with HNSCC who were treated with CRT at a single institution between January 1, 2005, and August 1, 2017. Patient and tumor characteristics included age, race/ethnicity, smoking status, alcohol use, comorbidities (respiratory, cardiovascular, immune, renal, endocrine), disease stage, human papillomavirus status, and treatment duration. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2019, to March 17, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Patients were dichotomized by NSAID use during treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The association of NSAID use with patterns of failure, disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS) was examined using multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. Survival estimates for OS and DSS were generated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

A total of 460 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 60 [53.9-65.6] years; 377 [82.0%] men) were included in the analysis. Among these patients, 201 (43.7%) were taking NSAIDs during treatment. On univariate analysis, NSAID use (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.92; P = .02) was associated with better OS. On Cox regression analysis, after backward selection adjustment for potentially confounding factors (age, smoking status, primary tumor site, human papillomavirus status, diabetes, stroke, hyperlipidemia), NSAID use remained significantly associated with better OS (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.90; P = .02). NSAID use was associated with significantly better OS at 5 years compared with patients who did not take concurrent NSAIDs (63.6% [56 of 88 patients]; 95% CI, 58%-73% vs 56.1% [83 of 148 patients]; 95% CI, 50%-63%; P = .03). NSAID use was not associated with better DSS in univariate (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.48-1.41; P = .47) or multivariate (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.57-1.70; P = .44) analysis. NSAID use was not associated with better response to treatment (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.91-2.27; P = .12) or distant failure (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.84; P = .65). Change in local control with NSAID use was not statistically significant (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31-1.10; P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study suggests a possible OS advantage for patients taking NSAIDs during chemoradiation for HNSCC. Further studies examining this association are warranted.

NSAID therapy for PIK3CA-Altered colorectal, breast, and head and neck cancer

Epidemiologic evidence indicates that regular use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) provides a protective effect against the development of colorectal, breast, and head and neck cancers. Genomic characterization of these cancers has lent considerable insight into the subpopulations of cancer patients who are most likely to benefit from NSAID therapy. The PIK3CA gene encodes the catalytic subunit of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) and is among the most frequently mutated genes in solid tumor malignancies. Cancer-associated mutations in PIK3CA promote signaling via the PI3K pathway and stimulate tumor cell growth. In addition, activation of the PI3K pathway leads to induction of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) enzyme and production of immunosuppressive prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). Notably, in both colorectal cancer and head and neck cancer the subpopulation of patients that benefit from NSAID use is restricted to those whose tumors exhibit PIK3CA genomic alterations. Preclinical studies, particularly in models of head and neck cancer, support the hypothesis that the chemopreventive impact of NSAIDs may be due, in part, to inhibition of COX-2 and reduction of PGE2 levels in the tumor microenvironment.

Beyond a chemopreventive reagent, aspirin is a master regulator of the hallmarks of cancer

PURPOSE

Aspirin, one of the most commonly used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NAIDS), not only shows cancer chemoprevention effects but also improves cancer therapeutic effects when combined with other therapies. Studies that focus on aspirin regulation of the hallmarks of cancer and the associated molecular mechanisms facilitate a more thorough understanding of aspirin in mediating chemoprevention and may supply additional information for the development of novel cancer therapeutic agents.

METHODS

The relevant literatures from PubMed have been reviewed in this article.

RESULTS

Current studies have revealed that aspirin regulates almost all the hallmarks of cancer. Within tumor tissue, aspirin suppresses the bioactivities of cancer cells themselves and deteriorates the tumor microenvironment that supports cancer progression. In addition to tumor tissues, blocking of platelet activation also contributes to the ability of aspirin to inhibit cancer progression. In terms of the molecular mechanism, aspirin targets oncogenes and cancer-related signaling pathways and activates certain tumor suppressors.

CONCLUSION

Beyond a chemopreventive agent, aspirin is a master regulator of the hallmarks of cancer.

Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs predicts improved patient survival for PIK3CA-altered head and neck cancer

Head and neck cancer patients taking NSAIDs with PIK3CA tumor alterations demonstrate improved survival. Studies in relevant preclinical models implicate signaling via COX2-mediated production of PGE₂ as an underlying mechanism for this survival benefit.

PIK3CA is the most commonly altered oncogene in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We evaluated the impact of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on survival in a PIK3CA-characterized cohort of 266 HNSCC patients and explored the mechanism in relevant preclinical models including patient-derived xenografts. Among subjects with PIK3CA mutations or amplification, regular NSAID use (≥6 mo) conferred markedly prolonged disease-specific survival (DSS; hazard ratio 0.23, P = 0.0032, 95% CI 0.09–0.62) and overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.31, P = 0.0043, 95% CI 0.14–0.69) compared with nonregular NSAID users. For PIK3CA-altered HNSCC, predicted 5-yr DSS was 72% for NSAID users and 25% for nonusers; predicted 5-yr OS was 78% for regular NSAID users and 45% for nonregular users. PIK3CA mutation predicted sensitivity to NSAIDs in preclinical models in association with increased systemic PGE₂ production. These findings uncover a biologically plausible rationale to implement NSAID therapy in PIK3CA-altered HNSCC.

K. J, Lanas A. Systematic review update of observational studies further supports aspirin role in cancer treatment: Time to share evidence and decision-making with patients?

BACKGROUND

Evidence is growing that low-dose aspirin used as an adjuvant treatment of cancer is associated with an increased survival and a reduction in metastatic spread. We therefore extended up to August 2017 an earlier systematic search and meta-analyses of published studies of low-dose aspirin taken by patients with a diagnosis of cancer.

METHODS

Searches were completed in Medline and Embase to August 2017 using a pre-defined search strategy to identify reports of relevant studies. References in all the selected papers were scanned. Two reviewers independently applied pre-determined eligibility criteria and extracted data on cause-specific cancer deaths, overall mortality and the occurrence of metastatic spread. Meta-analyses were then conducted for different cancers and heterogeneity and publication bias assessed. Sensitivity analyses and attempts to reduce heterogeneity were conducted.

RESULTS

Analyses of 29 studies reported since an earlier review up to April 2015 are presented in this report, and these are then pooled with the 42 studies in our earlier publication. Overall meta-analyses of the 71 studies are presented, based on a total of over 120 thousand patients taking aspirin. Ten of the studies also give evidence on the incidence of metastatic cancer spread. There are now twenty-nine observational studies describing colorectal cancer (CRC) and post-diagnostic aspirin. Pooling the estimates of reduction by aspirin which are reported as hazard ratios (HR), gives an overall HR for aspirin and CRC mortality 0.72 (95% CI 0.64-0.80). Fourteen observational studies have reported on aspirin and breast cancer mortality and pooling those that report the association with aspirin as a hazard ratio gives HR 0.69 (0.53-0.90). Sixteen studies report on aspirin and prostate cancer mortality and a pooled estimate yields an HR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.73-1.05). Data from 12 reports relating to other cancers are also listed. Ten studies give evidence of a reduction in metastatic spread; four give a pooled HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.18, 0.54) and five studies which reported odds ratio of metastatic spread give OR 0.79 (0.66 to 0.95).

CONCLUSION

Being almost entirely from observational studies, the evidence of benefit from aspirin is limited. There is heterogeneity between studies and the results are subject to important biases, only some of which can be identified. Nevertheless, the evidence would seem to merit wide discussion regarding whether or not it is adequate to justify the recommendation of low-dose therapeutic aspirin, and if it is, for which cancers?