Relationship Between Statin Use and Colon Cancer Recurrence and Survival: Results From CALGB 89803
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although preclinical and epidemiological data suggest that statins may have antineoplastic properties, the impact of statin use on patient survival after a curative resection of stage III colon cancer is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of 842 patients with stage III colon cancer enrolled in a randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial from April 1999 to May 2001 to investigate the relationship between statin use and survival. Disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) were investigated by Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests in the overall study population and in a subset of patients stratified by KRAS mutation status (n = 394), and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the simultaneous impact of confounding variables. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among 842 patients, 134 (15.9%) reported statin use after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. DFS among statin users and nonusers was similar (hazard ratio [HR] of cancer recurrence or death = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73 to 1.49). RFS and OS were also similar between statin users and nonusers (adjusted HR of cancer recurrence = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.69; adjusted HR of death = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.71). Survival outcomes were similar regardless of increasing duration of statin use before cancer diagnosis (P(trend) = .63, .63, and .59 for DFS, RFS, and OS, respectively). The impact of statin use did not differ by tumor KRAS mutation status, with similar DFS, RFS, and OS for statin use among mutant and wild-type subgroups (P(interaction) = .84, .67, and .98 for DFS, RFS, and OS, respectively). CONCLUSION: Statin use during and after adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with improved DFS, RFS, or OS in patients with stage III colon cancer, regardless of KRAS mutation status.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".