Statin use and survival in men receiving androgen-ablative therapies for advanced prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
83 Background: Mounting evidence support a role for statins in improving survival in advanced prostate cancer (PC), particularly among men on androgen-ablative therapies. This study aimed to systemically review and meta-analyze the relationship between statin use and survival among men with PC on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies (ARATs). Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and reported in compliance with the MOOSE guidelines. Medline, Embase, Epub Ahead of Print, Cochrane CT, Cochrane SR, and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 18, 2021, for observational studies reporting associations of postdiagnostic statin use and survival outcomes (hazard ratios [HRs]). Two authors independently abstracted all data. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The primary outcomes included overall mortality (OM) and Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Summary estimates pooled multivariable HRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the generic inverse variance method with random-effects modelling. Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified. A priori subgroup and sensitivity analyses were undertaken, and publication bias was evaluated. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Twenty-five cohorts of 119,878 men (64,717 statin users [54%]) with over 74,416 mortality events were included. Postdiagnostic statin use was associated with a 27% reduction in the risk of OM (19 cohorts, HR 0.73 [95%CI: 0.66 to 0.82], I2= 83%) and a 35% reduction in the risk of PCSM (14 cohorts, HR 0.65 [95%CI: 0.58 to 0.73], I2= 74%), with significant heterogeneity in both estimates. Subgroup analyses identified a PCSM-advantage of statins for men on ARATs compared to ADT (HR 0.40 [95%CI: 0.30 to 0.55] vs HR 0.68 [95%CI: 0.60 to 0.76], p-difference < 0.01). Confidence in the overall evidence was “low” for both outcomes. Conclusions: Postdiagnostic statin use reduced both overall and prostate cancer-specific mortality in men on androgen-ablative therapies for advanced PC. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these findings.
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 | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".