2012
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-012-2154-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Statin use and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
103
0
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 136 publications
(109 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
4
103
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the cumulative meta-analysis showed a change in trend of reporting risk of breast cancer from positive to negative in statin users between 1993 and 2011. These findingd do not support the hypothesis that statins exert a protective effect against breast cancer (49).…”
Section: Lovastatinmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…However, the cumulative meta-analysis showed a change in trend of reporting risk of breast cancer from positive to negative in statin users between 1993 and 2011. These findingd do not support the hypothesis that statins exert a protective effect against breast cancer (49).…”
Section: Lovastatinmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…Thereby, the usefulness of statins as chemopreventive agents for kidney cancer is doubted given their selective hepatic uptake and low systemic availability [39,40]. Previous meta-analyses have suggested that there was no association between statin use and breast and pancreatic cancer risk [32,33]. However, statins had a protective effect against liver cancer [34], which supports the opinion above.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 61%
“…A metaanalysis conducted by Undela et al did not support the hypothesis that statins have a protective effect against breast cancer [32]. Consistently, Cui et al 's meta-analysis suggested that there was no association between statin use and pancreatic cancer risk [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…A meta-analysis including 24 observational studies with more than 2.4 million participants did not support the hypothesis of a preventive effect (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.94-1.04) [49]. Similar results were reported for a second meta-analysis including 7 randomized trials and 9 observational studies (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.93-1.14) [50].…”
Section: Potential Non-endocrine Active Agents For Medical Preventionmentioning
confidence: 68%