The association between regular use of aspirin and the prevalence of prostate cancer: Results from the National Health Interview Survey

Effect of aspirin on incidence, recurrence, and mortality in prostate cancer patients: integrating evidence from randomized controlled trials and real-world studies

PURPOSE

Aspirin has been suggested to reduce the risk of cancer. However, previous studies have been inconsistent regarding the relationship between aspirin use and the risk of occurrence of prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of aspirin on clinical outcomes in patients with PCa in a meta-analysis and to explore the possible dose-response relationship.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in 10 electronic databases and 4 registries. The combined relative risks (RRs) were calculated using a random-effects model with 95% confidence interval (CIs) to assess the effect of aspirin on the risk of PCa. Relevant subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The across studies results show that aspirin use associated with lower incidence of PCa (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.95-0.98), and reduced mortality (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.95). The results of the subgroup analysis indicated that both cohort and population studies in the Americas showed a reduction in PCa incidence and mortality with aspirin use. A linear correlation was observed between dosage/duration of aspirin use and its protective effect. Additionally, post-diagnosis aspirin use was associated with decreased risk of PCa mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed an independent correlation between the use of aspirin and reductions in both the incidence and mortality rates of PCa. However, randomized controlled trials did not find any association between aspirin use and PCa. Furthermore, the impact of aspirin on PCa occurrence was found to be dependent on both dosage and duration.

Association of aspirin and nonaspirin NSAIDs therapy with the incidence risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis on cohort studies

According to the current research evidence, the therapy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) might effectively decrease the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence. Investigations have been conducted on the relationship between NSAIDs (aspirin and nonaspirin NSAIDs) and the risk of HCC incidence. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases for cohort studies published prior to 15 March 2020 and screened eligible studies. There were a total of 12 eligible studies (published between 2012 and 2020). We observed a lower risk of HCC among aspirin users [hazard ratio 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43-0.65]. However, there were no statistically significant associations discovered between nonaspirin NSAID use and the risk of HCC incidence (hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79-1.15). Furthermore, aspirin use has also been found to reduce the risk of HCC in patients with cirrhosis or viral hepatitis compared to that in the general population (hazard ratio 0.15; 95% CI, 0.10-0.23; hazard ratio 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.76, respectively). Moreover, no statistical associations were found between aspirin use and a higher risk of bleeding risk, with a hazard ratio value of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.51-1.13). In summary, the conducted meta-analysis reveals that aspirin, rather than nonaspirin NSAIDs, can significantly decrease the risk of HCC, particularly in patients with cirrhosis or viral hepatitis.

Intake of Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and the Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Epidemiological evidences regarding the association between the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the risk of prostate cancer (PC) is still controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore the controversy that exists.

Methods: Electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, BIOSIS, Scopus, CBM, CNKI, WANFANG, and CQVIP were used to search for and identify eligible studies published until December 31, 2017. Pooled effect estimates for the relative risk (RR) were computed through fixed-effects or random-effects models as appropriate. Publication bias was evaluated by Egger's and Begg's tests and potential sources of heterogeneity were investigated in subgroup analyses.

Results: A total of 43 observational studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. A protective effect was identified for the intake of any NSAIDs on the risk of PC (pooled RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.81–0.98). Moreover, the long-term intake of NSAIDs (≥5 years rather than ≥4 years) was associated with reduced PC incidence (pooled RR = 0.882, 95% CI = 0.785–0.991). Aspirin intake was also associated with a 7.0% risk reduction of PC (pooled RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.89–0.96). The inverse association became stronger for advanced PC and PC with a Gleason score ≥7 compared to the association with total PC. Interestingly, it was the daily dose (≥1 pill/day) rather than, long-term aspirin intake (≥4 or ≥5 years) that was associated with reduced PC incidence (pooled RR = 0.875, 95% CI = 0.792–0.967). The pooled effects for non-aspirin NSAIDs demonstrated no significantly adverse or beneficial effects on total PC, advanced PC, or PC with Gleason score ≥7, though all pooled RRs were >1.

Conclusions: Our findings suggested a protective effect of the intake of any NSAIDs on the risk of PC, especially in those who took the NSAIDs for a long period. Moreover, aspirin intake was also associated with a decreased risk of PC, and there was a dose related association between aspirin intake and the risk of PC, while no significant effects of long-term aspirin intake were found on the PC incidence.

The NSAID allosteric site of human cytosolic sulfotransferases

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly prescribed drugs worldwide-more than 111 million prescriptions were written in the United States in 2014. NSAIDs allosterically inhibit cytosolic sulfotransferases (SULTs) with high specificity and therapeutically relevant affinities. This study focuses on the interactions of SULT1A1 and mefenamic acid (MEF)-a potent, highly specific NSAID inhibitor of 1A1. Here, the first structure of an NSAID allosteric site-the MEF-binding site of SULT1A1-is determined using spin-label triangulation NMR. The structure is confirmed by site-directed mutagenesis and provides a molecular framework for understanding NSAID binding and isoform specificity. The mechanism of NSAID inhibition is explored using molecular dynamics and equilibrium and pre-steady-state ligand-binding studies. MEF inhibits SULT1A1 turnover through an indirect (helix-mediated) stabilization of the closed form of the active-site cap of the enzyme, which traps the nucleotide and slows its release. Using the NSAID-binding site structure of SULT1A1 as a comparative model, it appears that 11 of the 13 human SULT isoforms harbor an NSAID-binding site. We hypothesize that these sites evolved to enable SULT isoforms to respond to metabolites that lie within their metabolic domains. Finally, the NSAID-binding site structure offers a template for developing isozyme-specific allosteric inhibitors that can be used to regulate specific areas of sulfuryl-transfer metabolism.

Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibition for prostate cancer chemoprevention: double-blind randomised study of pre-prostatectomy celecoxib or placebo

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the biological effects of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition on prostate tissue in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with localised prostate cancer were randomised to receive either celecoxib 400 mg twice daily or placebo for 4 weeks before RP. Specimens were analysed for levels of apoptosis, prostaglandins, and androgen receptor (AR). Effects on serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and postoperative opioid use were also measured.

RESULTS

In all, 28 of 44 anticipated patients enrolled and completed treatment. One patient in the celecoxib arm had a myocardial infarction postoperatively. For this reason, and safety concerns in other studies, enrolment was halted. The apoptosis index (AI) in tumour cells was 0.29% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.47%] vs 0.39% (95% CI 0.00-0.84%) in the celecoxib and placebo arms, respectively (P = 0.68). The AI in benign cells was 0.18% (95% CI 0.03-0.32%) vs 0.13% (95% CI 0.00-0.28%) in the celecoxib and placebo arms, respectively (P = 0.67). Prostaglandin E₂ and AR levels were similar in cancerous and benign tissues when comparing the two arms. The median baseline PSA level was 6.0 and 6.2 ng/mL for the celecoxib and placebo groups, respectively, and did not significantly change after celecoxib treatment. There was no difference in postoperative opiate usage between arms.

CONCLUSION

Celecoxib had no effect on apoptosis, prostaglandins or AR levels in cancerous or benign prostate tissues. These findings coupled with drug safety concerns should serve to limit interest in these selective drugs as chemopreventive agents.