Oncotarget

Research Papers:

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: statins and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma

Yao-Yao Zhou, Gui-Qi Zhu, Yue Wang, Ji-Na Zheng, Lu-Yi Ruan, Zhang Cheng, Bin Hu, Shen-Wen Fu and Ming-Hua Zheng _

PDF  |  HTML  |  How to cite

Oncotarget. 2016; 7:21753-21762. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.7832

Metrics: PDF 2809 views  |   HTML 2887 views  |   ?  


Abstract

Yao-Yao Zhou1,*, Gui-Qi Zhu2,3,*, Yue Wang1, Ji-Na Zheng2,3, Lu-Yi Ruan2,3, Zhang Cheng2,3, Bin Hu2,3, Shen-Wen Fu1, Ming-Hua Zheng2,4

1Department of Cardiology, Jinhua Municipal Hospital, Jinhua 321004, China

2Department of Infection and Liver Diseases, Liver Research Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325000, China

3School of The First Clinical Medical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325000, China

4Institute of Hepatology, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325000, China

*Co-first authors

Correspondence to:

Ming-Hua Zheng, e-mail: [email protected]

Shen-Wen Fu, e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: statins, hepatocellular carcinoma, network meta-analysis, indirect comparison

Received: January 11, 2016     Accepted: February 21, 2016     Published: March 01, 2016

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Usage of statins is suggested to decrease the incidence of HCC. When it comes to different statin subtypes, the chemopreventive action remains controversial. We aim to compare the usage of different statins and reduction of HCC risk.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase.com and Cochrane Library database up to August 10, 2015. Duplicated or overlapping reports were eliminated. We performed a traditional pair-wise meta-analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare different treatments with a random-effects model.

Results: We reviewed five observational studies enrolling a total of 87127 patients who received at least two different treatment strategies including rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, fluvastatin, cerivastatin, and lovastatin or observation alone. Direct comparisons showed that usage of atorvastatin (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.45-0.89) and fluvastatin (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.40-0.85) could significantly cut the risk of liver cancer. The difference of indirect comparisons between the included regimens is not statistically significant. However, usage of all types of statins, such as fluvastatin (RR 0.55, 95%CI 0.26-1.11), atorvastatin (RR 0.59, 95%CI 0.30-1.16), simvastatin (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.38-1.25), cerivastatin (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.19-2.70), pravastatin (RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.37-1.45), lovastatin (RR 0.81, 95%CI 0.34-1.96) and rosuvastatin (RR 0.92, 95%CI 0.44-1.80), appeared to be superior to observation alone. Notably, fluvastatin was hierarchically the best when compared with the six other statins.

Conclusions: Our analyses indicate the superiority of usage of statins in reduction of liver cancer. Available evidence supports that fluvastatin is the most effective strategy for reducing HCC risk compared with other statin interventions.


Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 7832