Anticoagulants and cancer mortality in the Finnish randomized study of screening for prostate cancer

Impact of comorbidities on prostate cancer-specific mortality: A population-based cohort study

AIM

To assess the impact of comorbidities on prostate cancer mortality.

METHODS

We studied 15,695 South Australian men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2003 and 2019 from state-wide administrative linked data sets. Comorbidity was measured 1-year before prostate cancer diagnosis using Rx-Risk, a medication-based comorbidity index. Flexible parametric competing risk regression was used to estimate the independent association between comorbidities and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Specific common comorbidities within Rx-Risk (cardiac disorders, diabetes, chronic airway diseases, depression and anxiety, thrombosis, and pain) were also assessed to determine their association with mortality. All models were adjusted for sociodemographic variables, tumor characteristics, and treatment type.

RESULTS

Prostate cancer-specific mortality was higher for patients with a Rx-Risk score ≥3 versus 0 (adjusted sub-hazard ratio (sHR) 1.34, 95% CI: 1.15-1.56). Lower comorbidity scores (Rx-Risk score 2 vs. 0 and Rx-Risk score 1 vs. 0) were not significantly associated with prostate cancer-specific mortality. Men who were using medications for cardiac disorders (sHR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.13-1.52), chronic airway disease (sHR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.01-1.44), depression and anxiety (sHR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.02-1.35), and thrombosis (sHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.04-1.42) were at increased risk of dying from prostate cancer compared with men not on those medications. Use of medications for diabetes and chronic pain were not associated with prostate cancer-specific mortality. All Rx-Risk score categories and the specific comorbidities were also associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

The findings showed that ≥3 comorbid conditions and specific comorbidities including cardiac disease, chronic airway disease, depression and anxiety, and thrombosis were associated with poor prostate cancer-specific survival. Appropriate management of these comorbidities may help to improve survival in prostate cancer patients.

Metabolic dysfunction-associated profiles and subsequent site-specific risk of obesity-related cancers among Chinese patients with diabetes: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To compare metabolic dysfunction-associated profiles between patients with diabetes who developed different obesity-related site-specific cancers and those who remained free of cancer during follow-up.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Public general outpatient clinics in Hong Kong.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with diabetes without a history of malignancy (n=391 921).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcomes of interest were diagnosis of site-specific cancers (colon and rectum, liver, pancreas, bladder, kidney and stomach) during follow-up. Cox proportional hazards regression was applied to assess the associations between metabolic dysfunction and other clinical factors with each site-specific cancer.

RESULTS

Each 0.1 increase in waist-to-hip ratio was associated with an 11%-35% elevated risk of colorectal, bladder and liver cancers. Each 1% increase in glycated haemoglobin was linked to a 4%-9% higher risk of liver and pancreatic cancers. While low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides were inversely associated with the risk of liver and pancreatic cancers, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was negatively associated with pancreatic, gastric and kidney cancers, but positively associated with liver cancer. Furthermore, liver cirrhosis was linked to a 56% increased risk of pancreatic cancer. No significant association between hypertension and cancer risk was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Metabolic dysfunction-associated profiles contribute to different obesity-related cancer outcomes differentially among patients with diabetes. This study may provide evidence to help identify cancer prevention targets during routine diabetes care.

Survival outcomes with warfarin compared with direct oral anticoagulants in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the United States: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have comparable efficacy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether there is a mortality benefit of DOACs compared with warfarin in the management of VTE in cancer is not established.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Utilizing the United States' Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked databases from 2012 through 2016, we analyzed overall survival in individuals diagnosed with a primary gastric, colorectal, pancreas, lung, ovarian, or brain cancer and VTE who received a prescription of DOAC or warfarin within 30 days of VTE diagnosis. Patients were matched 1:2 (DOAC to warfarin) through exact matching for cancer stage and propensity score matching for age, cancer site, cancer stage, and time interval from cancer to VTE diagnosis. The analysis identified 4,274 patients who received a DOAC or warfarin for the treatment of VTE within 30 days of cancer diagnosis (1,348 in DOAC group and 2,926 in warfarin group). Patients were of median age 75 years and 56% female. Within the DOAC group, 1,188 (88%) received rivaroxaban, and 160 (12%) received apixaban. With a median follow-up of 41 months, warfarin was associated with a statistically significantly higher overall survival compared to DOACs (median overall survival 12.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 10.9 to 13.5] versus 9.9 months [95% CI: 8.4 to 11.2]; hazard ratio (HR) 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78 to 0.91; p < 0.001). Observed differences in survival were consistent across subgroups of cancer sites, cancer stages, and type of VTE. The study limitations include retrospective design with potential for unaccounted confounders along with issues of generalizability beyond the cancer diagnoses studied.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of a population-based registry, warfarin was associated with prolonged overall survival compared to DOACs for treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

The impact of warfarin on overall survival in cancer patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer. Warfarin has largely been replaced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as the standard of care in cancer-associated VTE. The survival benefit of these anticoagulants over warfarin in the cancer population was not demonstrated in clinical trials, possibly due to insufficient sample size and limited follow-up duration. There are emerging population-based studies suggesting that warfarin may be associated with improved overall survival in cancers and may have a protective effect against certain types of cancers. Warfarin may exert its anti-neoplastic properties through both coagulation pathway -dependent and -independent mechanisms, the latter of which are mediated by inhibition of the Gas6-AXL signaling pathway. Further research should emphasize on identifying clinical and laboratory predictors of beneficial effects of warfarin. In this review article, we summarize and update the current evidence regarding the potential impact of warfarin on the overall survival of cancer patients and incidence of cancer, as well as review the potential mechanism of such effect and future perspectives.

Pharmacoepidemiological Evaluation in Prostate Cancer-Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Simple Summary

Pharmacoepidemiologic research provides opportunities to evaluate how commonly used drug groups, such as cholesterol-lowering drugs, may affect the prostate cancer risk or mortality. However, such studies need to be carefully designed in order to avoid biases caused by systematic differences between medication users and non-users. Similarly, data must be carefully analyzed and interpreted while acknowledging possible biases that can lead to erroneous conclusions. Here, we review common pitfalls in such studies and describe ways to avoid them in an effort to aid future research.

Abstract

Pharmacoepidemiologic research provides opportunities to evaluate how commonly used drug groups, such as cholesterol-lowering or antidiabetic drugs, may affect the prostate cancer risk or mortality. This type of research is valuable in estimating real-life drug effects. Nonetheless, pharmacoepidemiological studies are prone to multiple sources of bias that mainly arise from systematic differences between medication users and non-users. If these are not appreciated and properly controlled for, there is a risk of obtaining biased results and reaching erroneous conclusions. Therefore, in order to improve the quality of future research, we describe common biases in pharmacoepidemiological studies, particularly in the context of prostate cancer research. We also list common ways to mitigate these biases and to estimate causality between medication use and cancer outcomes.

The effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients based on Khorana score: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy are a high risk of VTE, yet the importance of thromboprophylaxis for cancer patients that are at high risk of developing VTE is still controversial.

AIM

To calculate the benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis, compared to placebo, in ambulatory high-risk cancer patients that are receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, WANFANG Data, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese Scientific Journal Database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) describing benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata software (version 15.1).

RESULTS

We included six studies, which contained a total of 3240 cancer patients with thromboprophylaxis and 2874 cancer patients without thromboprophylaxis. Thromboprophylaxis was effective in high-risk patients with two points or higher (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.71, I² = 0.0%, P = 0.526). It was associated with an increase in bleeding events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.14-2.40, I² = 0.0%, P = 0.498) and was mainly efficient in reducing the risk of pulmonary embolism (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.96, I² = 0.0%, P = 0.263). The risk of major (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.87-3.94, I² = 0.0%, P = 0.888) and non-major (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.96-2.62, I² = 16.3%, P = 0.303) bleeding showed no significant difference with or without thromboprophylaxis. There was no reduction in all-cause mortality with thromboprophylaxis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78-1.18, I² = 22.0%, P = 0.277).

CONCLUSION

Thromoboprophylaxis is effective and safe in cancer patients that are at high risk for developing VTE with chemotherapy.