Drug Use and Cancer Risk: A Drug-Wide Association Study (DWAS) in Norway.
Journal
Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology
ISSN: 1538-7755
Titre abrégé: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9200608
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
received:
03
08
2020
revised:
11
09
2020
accepted:
22
10
2020
pubmed:
5
11
2020
medline:
26
8
2021
entrez:
4
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Population-based pharmaco-epidemiologic studies are used to assess postmarketing drug safety and discover beneficial effects of off-label drug use. We conducted a drug-wide association study (DWAS) to screen for associations between prescription drugs and cancer risk. This registry-based, nested case-control study, 1:10 matched on age, sex, and date of diagnosis of cases, comprises approximately 2 million Norwegian residents, including their drug history from 2004 to 2014. We evaluated the association between prescribed drugs, categorized according to the anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification system, and the risk of the 15 most common cancer types, overall and by histology. We used stratified Cox regression, adjusted for other drug use, comorbidity, county, and parity, and explored dose-response trends. We found 145 associations among 1,230 drug-cancer combinations on the ATC2-level and 77 of 8,130 on the ATC4-level. Results for all drug-cancer combinations are presented in this article and an online tool (https://pharmacoepi.shinyapps.io/drugwas/). Some associations have been previously reported, that is, menopausal hormones and breast cancer risk, or are likely confounded, that is, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and lung cancer risk. Other associations were novel, that is, inverse association between proton pump inhibitors and melanoma risk, and carcinogenic association of propulsives and lung cancer risk. This study confirmed previously reported associations and generated new hypotheses on possible carcinogenic or chemopreventive effects of prescription drugs. Results from this type of explorative approach need to be validated in tailored epidemiologic and preclinical studies. DWAS studies are robust and important tools to define new drug-cancer hypotheses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Population-based pharmaco-epidemiologic studies are used to assess postmarketing drug safety and discover beneficial effects of off-label drug use. We conducted a drug-wide association study (DWAS) to screen for associations between prescription drugs and cancer risk.
METHODS
This registry-based, nested case-control study, 1:10 matched on age, sex, and date of diagnosis of cases, comprises approximately 2 million Norwegian residents, including their drug history from 2004 to 2014. We evaluated the association between prescribed drugs, categorized according to the anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification system, and the risk of the 15 most common cancer types, overall and by histology. We used stratified Cox regression, adjusted for other drug use, comorbidity, county, and parity, and explored dose-response trends.
RESULTS
We found 145 associations among 1,230 drug-cancer combinations on the ATC2-level and 77 of 8,130 on the ATC4-level. Results for all drug-cancer combinations are presented in this article and an online tool (https://pharmacoepi.shinyapps.io/drugwas/). Some associations have been previously reported, that is, menopausal hormones and breast cancer risk, or are likely confounded, that is, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and lung cancer risk. Other associations were novel, that is, inverse association between proton pump inhibitors and melanoma risk, and carcinogenic association of propulsives and lung cancer risk.
CONCLUSIONS
This study confirmed previously reported associations and generated new hypotheses on possible carcinogenic or chemopreventive effects of prescription drugs. Results from this type of explorative approach need to be validated in tailored epidemiologic and preclinical studies.
IMPACT
DWAS studies are robust and important tools to define new drug-cancer hypotheses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33144282
pii: 1055-9965.EPI-20-1028
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1028
doi:
Substances chimiques
Pharmaceutical Preparations
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comment
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
682-689Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentOn
Informations de copyright
©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.
Références
Laporte JR. Fifty years of pharmacovigilance–medicines safety and public health. Pharmacoepidem Drug Saf. 2016;25:725–32.
Pottegård A, Friis S, dePont Christensen R, Habel LA, Gagne JJ, Hallas J. Identification of associations between prescribed medications and cancer: a nationwide screening study. EBioMedicine. 2016;7:73–9.
Selby JV, Friedman GD, Fireman BH. Screening prescription drugs for possible carcinogenicity: eleven to fifteen years of follow-up. Cancer Res. 1989;49:5736–47.
Patel CJ, Ji J, Sundquist J, Ioannidis JP, Sundquist K. Systematic assessment of pharmaceutical prescriptions in association with cancer risk: a method to conduct a population-wide medication-wide longitudinal study. Sci Rep. 2016;6:31308.
Pottegård A, Hallas J, Olesen M, Svendsen MT, Habel LA, Friedman GD, et al. Hydrochlorothiazide use is strongly associated with risk of lip cancer. J Intern Med. 2017;282:322–31.
Pottegård A, Pedersen SA, Schmidt SAJ, Hölmich LR, Friis S, Gaist D. Association of hydrochlorothiazide use and risk of malignant melanoma. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1120–2.
Bertolini F, Sukhatme VP, Bouche G. Drug repurposing in oncology–patient and health systems opportunities. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:732–42.
Andreassen BK, Støer NC, Martinsen JI, Ursin G, Weiderpass E, Thoresen GH, et al. Identification of potential carcinogenic and chemopreventive effects of prescription drugs: a protocol for a Norwegian registry-based study. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e028504.
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC Structure and principles.
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD Index.
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment 2020. 2019.
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC alterations from 2005–2020.
Cancer in Norway 2008 - cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. 2009.
Nilssen Y, Strand TE, Wiik R, Bakken IJ, Yu XQ, O'Connell DL, et al. Utilizing national patient-register data to control for comorbidity in prognostic studies. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:395–404.
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Statist Soc Series B. 1995;57:289–300.
Flossmann E, Rothwell PM. Effect of aspirin on long-term risk of colorectal cancer: consistent evidence from randomised and observational studies. Lancet. 2007;369:1603–13.
Type and timing of menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence. Lancet. 2019;394:1159–68.
Pottegård A, Friis S, Christensen Rd, Habel LA, Gagne JJ, Hallas J. Time for integrating clinical, lifestyle and molecular data to predict drug responses—authors' reply. EBioMedicine. 2016;7:11.
Postma DS, Bush A, van den Berge M. Risk factors and early origins of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lancet. 2015;385:899–909.
Lee J, Taneja V, Vassallo R. Cigarette smoking and inflammation: cellular and molecular mechanisms. J Dent Res. 2012;91:142–9.
Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, Grosse Y, Bianchini F, Straif K. Body fatness and cancer—viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:794–8.
Coussens LM, Werb Z. Inflammation and cancer. Nature. 2002;420:860–7.
Parsonnet J. Bacterial infection as a cause of cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 1995;103:263–8.
Wu S, Zhu W, Thompson P, Hannun YA. Evaluating intrinsic and non-intrinsic cancer risk factors. Nat Commun. 2018;9:3490.
Raghunathan TE, Lepkowski JM, Van Hoewyk J, Solenberger P. A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Survey Methodology. 2001;27:85–96.
Kasper JS, Giovannucci E. A meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus and the risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:2056–62.
Akhtar S, Al-Shammari A, Al-Abkal J. Chronic urinary tract infection and bladder carcinoma risk: a meta-analysis of case–control and cohort studies. World J Urol. 2018;36:839–48.
Vermeulen SH, Hanum N, Grotenhuis AJ, Castano-Vinyals G, Van Der Heijden AG, Aben KK, et al. Recurrent urinary tract infection and risk of bladder cancer in the Nijmegen bladder cancer study. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:594–600.
Pottegård A, Kristensen KB, Friis S, Hallas J, Jensen JB, Nørgaard M. Urinary tract infections and risk of squamous cell carcinoma bladder cancer: a Danish nationwide case–control study. Int J Cancer. 2020;146:1930–6.
Faustino-Rocha AI, Ferreira R, Gama A, Oliveira PA, Ginja M. Antihistamines as promising drugs in cancer therapy. Life Sci. 2017;172:27–41.
Reynolds JL, Akhter J, Morris DL. In vitro effect of histamine and histamine H1 and H2 receptor antagonists on cellular proliferation of human malignant melanoma cell lines. Melanoma Res. 1996;6:95–9.
Massari NA, Nicoud MB, Medina VA. Histamine receptors and cancer pharmacology: an update. Br J Pharmacol. 2020;177:516–38.
De Milito A, Canese R, Marino ML, Borghi M, Iero M, Villa A, et al. pH-dependent antitumor activity of proton pump inhibitors against human melanoma is mediated by inhibition of tumor acidity. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:207–19.
Wu XY, Zhang CX, Deng LC, Xiao J, Yuan X, Zhang B, et al. Overexpressed D2 dopamine receptor inhibits non–small cell lung cancer progression through inhibiting NF-κB signaling pathway. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2018;48:2258–72.
Hoepper LH, Wang Y, Sharma A, Javeed N, Van Keulen VP, Wang E, et al. Dopamine D2 receptor agonists inhibit lung cancer progression by reducing angiogenesis and tumor infiltrating myeloid derived suppressor cells. Mol Oncol. 2015;9:270–81.
Ioannidis JP. What have we (Not) learnt from millions of scientific papers with P values?. Am Stat. 2019;73:20–5.
Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world beyond “P < 0.05.”. 2019.
Pottegård A, Hallas J, Wang SV, Gagne JJ. Identifying signals of interest when screening for drug-outcome associations in health care data. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84:1865–7.
Pottegård A, Hallas J. New use of prescription drugs prior to a cancer diagnosis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26:223–7.
Patrignani P, Dovizio M. Time for integrating clinical, lifestyle and molecular data to predict drug responses. EBioMedicine. 2016;7:9–10.