Statin therapy in the treatment of active cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical evidence suggests statins may have anti-tumor properties. Large observational studies are also consistent with improved survival and cancer-specific outcomes among cancer patients on statins. We sought to evaluate the randomized controlled trials of statins in addition to usual anti-cancer therapy. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Papers First and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed from inception through to July 4, 2017 to identify randomized clinical trials that investigated statin therapy in cancer patients. Our primary outcome was overall survival and our secondary outcome was progression-free survival. We calculated summary hazard ratio's (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on random-effects models using aggregate data. PROSPERO (CRD42017065503). RESULTS: Ten studies with 1,881 individuals were included with 1,572 deaths and a median follow-up of 23 months. All trials included patients with advanced (stage 3 or higher) disease. There was minimal between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 1.8%, for OS; I2 = 0%, for PFS). The pooled HR for overall survival in patients randomized to statins plus standard anti-cancer therapy versus standard therapy alone was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04). In the 9 studies that reported progression-free survival (1,798 participants), the pooled HR for statin plus standard therapy versus standard therapy alone was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced cancer and a prognosis <2 years, the addition of statins to standard anti-cancer therapy does not appear to improve overall survival or progression-free survival. Future research should assess if cancer patients with better prognosis benefit from longer-term statin therapy.

Role of Bone-Modifying Agents in Metastatic Breast Cancer: An American Society of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Care Ontario Focused Guideline Update.

Purpose To update, in collaboration with Cancer Care Ontario (CCO), key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on the role of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in metastatic breast cancer. This focused update addressed the new data on intervals between dosing and the role of BMAs in control of bone pain. Methods A joint ASCO-CCO Update Committee conducted targeted systematic literature reviews to identify relevant studies. Results The Update Committee reviewed three phase III noninferiority trials of dosing intervals, one systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of de-escalation of BMAs, and two randomized trials of BMAs in control of pain secondary to bone metastases. Recommendations Patients with breast cancer who have evidence of bone metastases should be treated with BMAs. Options include denosumab, 120 mg subcutaneously, every 4 weeks; pamidronate, 90 mg intravenously, every 3 to 4 weeks; or zoledronic acid, 4 mg intravenously every 12 weeks or every 3 to 4 weeks. The analgesic effects of BMAs are modest, and they should not be used alone for bone pain. The Update Committee recommends that the current standard of care for supportive care and pain management-analgesia, adjunct therapies, radiotherapy, surgery, systemic anticancer therapy, and referral to supportive care and pain management-be applied. Evidence is insufficient to support the use of one BMA over another. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Targeted metabolomics in colorectal cancer: a strategic approach using standardized laboratory tests of the blood and urine.

BACKGROUND: Glycolytic markers have been detected in colorectal cancer (CRC) using advanced analytical methods. METHODS: Using commercially available assays, by-products of anaerobic metabolism were prospectively measured in the blood and urine of 20 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and 20 patients with local disease. Twenty-four-hour urine citrate, plasma lactate, ketones, venous blood gas, anion gap, and osmolar gap were investigated. Results of patients with metastatic and local CRC were compared using two-sample t-tests or equivalent nonparametric tests. In addition, plasma total CO2 concentrations in our local hospital (5,931 inpatients and 1,783 outpatients) were compared retrospectively with those in our dedicated cancer center (1,825 outpatients) over 1 year. RESULTS: The average venous pCO2 was higher in patients with mCRC (50.2 mmHg; standard deviation [SD]=9.36) compared with those with local disease (42.8 mmHg; SD=8.98), p=0.045. Calculated serum osmolarity was higher in mCRC and attributed to concomitant sodium and urea elevations. In our retrospective analysis, plasma total CO2 concentrations (median=27 mmol/L) were higher in cancer patients compared to both hospital inpatients (median=23 mmol/L) and outpatients (median=24 mmol/L), p<0.0001. CONCLUSION: Patients with mCRC had higher venous pCO2 levels than those with local disease. Although causation cannot be established, we hypothesize that pCO2 elevation may stem from a perturbed metabolism in mCRC.

Thyroid hormone receptor α in breast cancer: prognostic and therapeutic implications.

We determined the expression of two transcriptional variants of thyroid hormone receptor alpha (THRα1 and THRα2) in samples from a cohort of breast cancer patients and correlated expression levels with survival. 130 women who were diagnosed with invasive breast carcinoma between 2007 and 2008 were included. Representative sections of their tumours were analyzed in triplicate on a tissue microarray for expression of THRα1 and THRα2 by immunohistochemistry. The prognostic significance of THRα1 and THRα2 expression was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, adjusted for known prognostic factors. Seventy-four percent of tumours had high expression of THRα1 (Allred score ≥6) and 40 % had high expression of THRα2. Expression of THRα2 correlated positively with ER expression (p < 0.001) and with PR expression (p < 0.001), but negatively with HER2 expression (p = 0.018). Patients with low THRα2 expression had inferior 5-year overall survival (75.3 %) compared to those with high expression (91.7 %; p = 0.06). In a multivariate model, high THRα2 expression was a significant and independent prognosticator of improved overall survival (HR = 0.84; 95 % CI 0.71-0.98). Many breast tumours express THRα2 at high levels and these patients experience improved survival. Thyroid hormone signalling may be important in a proportion of breast cancers and THRα2 expression may be a regulator of signalling in this pathway.