Research Article
Metformin and Cancer Risk and Mortality: A SystematicReview and Meta-analysis Taking into Account Biases andConfounders
Sara Gandini1, Matteo Puntoni2, Brandy M. Heckman-Stoddard3, Barbara K. Dunn4, Leslie Ford5,Andrea DeCensi6, and Eva Szabo7
AbstractPrevious meta-analyses have shown that the antidiabetic agent metformin is associated with reduced
cancer incidence and mortality. However, this effect has not been consistently demonstrated in animal
models and recent epidemiologic studies. We performed a meta-analysis with a focus on confounders
and biases, including body mass index (BMI), study type, and time-related biases. We identified 71
articles published between January 1, 1966, and May 31, 2013, through Pubmed, ISI Web of Science
(Science Citation Index Expanded), Embase, and the Cochrane library that were related to metformin
and cancer incidence or mortality. Study characteristics and outcomes were abstracted for each study
that met inclusion criteria. We included estimates from 47 independent studies and 65,540 cancer cases
in patients with diabetes. Overall cancer incidence was reduced by 31% [summary relative risk (SRR),
0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52–0.90], although between-study heterogeneity was considerable
(I2 ¼ 88%). Cancer mortality was reduced by 34% (SRR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54–0.81; I2 ¼ 21%). BMI-
adjusted studies and studies without time-related biases also showed significant reduction in cancer
incidence (SRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70–0.96 with I2 ¼ 76% and SRR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.89–0.91 with I2 ¼56%, respectively), albeit with lesser magnitude (18% and 10% reduction, respectively). However,
studies of cancer mortality and individual organ sites did not consistently show significant reductions
across all types of analyses. Although these associations may not be causal, our results show that
metformin may reduce cancer incidence and mortality in patients with diabetes However, the reduction
seems to be of modest magnitude and not affecting all populations equally. Clinical trials are needed to
determine if these observations apply to nondiabetic populations and to specific organ sites. Cancer Prev
Res; 7(9); 867–85. �2014 AACR.
IntroductionThe recognition that hyper-insulinemic states such as
metabolic syndrome or type II diabetes mellitus are associ-ated with increased cancer risk has led to intensified interestin the potential of various antidiabetic drugs to preventcancer (1). Metformin, an oral, well-tolerated biguanide thatis used for first-line treatment of diabetes, has been shown todecrease the progression from prediabetes to overt diabetes(2–4). Its multiple actions at both cellular and organismallevels that contribute to anticancer effects include decreasedinsulin/insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) signaling, inhi-bition of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR),inhibition of mitochondrial complex I in the electron trans-port chain, activation of AMP-activated kinase (AMPK), andreduction of endogenous production of reactive oxygenspecies (ROS), and associated DNA damage (5).
The evidence for a cancer preventive effect formetformin,however, has not been consistently demonstrated in animalor human studies. Multiple studies examining the effect ofmetformin on tumor formation in rodent carcinogenesis
1Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, European Institute ofOncology, Milan, Italy. 2Clinical Trials Office, Office of the ScientificDirector, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy. 3Breast and GynecologicCancer Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National CancerInstitute, Bethesda, Maryland. 4Chemopreventive Agent DevelopmentResearch Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Insti-tute, Bethesda, Maryland. 5Division of Cancer Prevention, NationalCancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 6Division of Medical Oncology,E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy. 7Lung and Upper AerodigestiveCancer Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National CancerInstitute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Note:Supplementary data for this article are available atCancer PreventionResearch Online (http://cancerprevres.aacrjournals.org/).
S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, andB.M. Heckman-Stoddard share first authorshipof this article.
A. DeCensi and E. Szabo share senior authorship of this article.
Corresponding Author: Eva Szabo, Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Can-cer Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National CancerInstitute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room5E-102, Bethesda, MD 20892. Phone: 240-276-7011; Fax: 240-276-7848;E-mail: [email protected]
doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
�2014 American Association for Cancer Research.
CancerPreventionResearch
www.aacrjournals.org 867
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
models have shown results ranging from no effect to stronginhibition, albeit using doses that are not always achievablein humans (6–10). Epidemiologic studies comparing theincidence of cancer in diabetics usingmetforminwith thoseusing insulin or other antidiabetic agents have shownsomewhat variable results (11–15). Several authors per-formed meta-analyses to determine if a consistent effect onoverall cancer incidence, cancer mortality, or cancer inci-dence at specific target organs was evident (11–15). Ashortcoming of these previousmeta-analyseswas the inabil-ity to identify subgroups that might benefit most (or sufferharm) from metformin. For instance, a recent clinical trialshowed that metformin affected breast cancer proliferationdifferentially according to insulin resistance status andbodymass index (BMI), with a trend toward inhibiting prolifer-ation only in women with insulin resistance or high BMI(16). Furthermore, a number of the published studiessuffered from time-related biases resulting in inappropriatecomparison between metformin users versus nonusers andpotentially exaggerated metformin’s protective effects (17).Time-related bias in observational studies can produceillusory results in favor of metformin. They are most oftena form of differential misclassification bias that can gener-ally be avoidedby appropriate accounting of follow-up timeand exposure status in the design and analysis of suchstudies. There are different types of time-related biases.Immortal time bias refers to a period of cohort follow-uptime during which a cancer event (that determines end offollow-up) cannot occur. Immortal time bias, for example,can arise when the period between cohort entry and date offirst exposure to metformin, during which cancer has notoccurred, is either misclassified or simply excluded and notaccounted for in the analysis. This is frequently found instudies that compare "users" against "nonusers." The use ofa time-dependent approach takes into account this sourceof bias. In cohort studies where a first-line therapy withmetformin is compared with second- or third-line thera-pies, patients are unlikely to be at the same stage of diabetes,which can induce confounding of the association with anoutcome (e.g., cancer incidence) by disease duration. Anoutcome related to the first-line therapy may also be attrib-uted to the second-line therapy if it occurs after a longperiodof exposure. Such a situation requires matching on diseaseduration and consideration of latency time windows in theanalysis (17).
Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with emphasis on studies controlling for BMI,prospective studies, and studieswithout time-related biases.
Materials and MethodsLiterature search
The aim of the study was to evaluate the associationbetweenmetformin use and cancer incidence andmortalityin patients with diabetes. The meta-analysis was conductedin accordance with the guidelines for the Meta-analysis OfObservational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and thePRISMA statement (18, 19). The search was carried out on
observational studies and trials, without language restric-tions. The literature from January 1, 1966, to May 31, 2013,was searched using the following databases: Pubmed, ISIWebof Science (ScienceCitation Index Expanded), Embase,and the Cochrane library. The following main keywords orcorresponding MeSH terms were used: "Metformin,""Biguanides," or "Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy," and"cancer" or "neoplasms." The search string used forPubmed is the following: (Metformin and cancer) or ["Met-formin"(Mesh) and "Neoplasms"(Mesh) and "epidemio-logic studies"(Mesh)] not ["polycystic ovary syndrome" or"Polycystic Ovary Syndrome"(Mesh)]. A manual searchwas performed for references cited in the selected articles,and in selected reviews or books. This literature search wasindependently carried out by 2 academic investigators.Group discussion resolved any disagreement with articleselection.
Methods of data extractionCriteria for article inclusion in the analysis were: (i)
independence from other studies in order to avoid givingdouble weight to estimates derived from the same study;when 2 or more studies were not independent, only thestudy with larger sample size was included; (ii) sufficientinformation to allow adequate estimation of the hazardratio (HR)/relative risk (RR)/odds ratios (OR), and 95%confidence intervals (CI; i.e., crude data or adjusted esti-mates and standard errors, CIs, or P values); (iii) compar-ison of cancer incidence or mortality in patients withdiabetes (comparisons with nondiabetic populations wereexcluded).
We extracted fully adjusted risk estimates for ever use ofmetformin, alone or in combinationwithother antidiabetictreatments, compared with antidiabetic treatments otherthan metformin or no treatment, and we calculated thecorresponding variance using the formula proposed byGreenland (20). Association between metformin and can-cer incidence/mortality across selected studies was comput-ed as a summary relative risk (SRR) with 95% CIs.
Statistical analysisHeterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 parameter,
which represents the percentage of total variation acrossstudies that is attributable to heterogeneity rather than tochance. A threshold below 50% is generally consideredacceptable (21). To account for possible sources of bias,we considered the STROBE checklist proposed for obser-vational epidemiologic studies (22). Several sensitivityanalyses were considered in this work, taking into accountfactors presented in the STROBE checklist that could intro-duce bias. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions were carried out to investigate between-studyheterogeneity and the influence of confounding factors,study design, interaction with other treatments, definitionsof disease and population features on the risk estimates. Akey factor considered was the adjustment for BMI, given itsmodifying effect on metformin activity on diabetes inci-dence (3) and breast cancer proliferation (16).
Gandini et al.
Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 Cancer Prevention Research868
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
We also investigated heterogeneity because of studydesign because retrospective cohort studies could haveimportant sources of bias. Sensitivity analyses were carriedout to verify the effect of single studies and inclusion andexclusion criteria on the stability of the summary estimates,such as the use of insulin as treatment comparator. The SRRwas estimated by pooling the study-specific estimates byrandom effects models fitted using SAS (Proc Mixed) withmaximum likelihood estimates and CIs based on t distri-bution (23), to be conservative.To take into account time-related biases that can occur in
observational studies (17), we carried out subgroup anal-yses including only studies that were designed or analyzedto avoid immortal time bias, time-window bias, and time-lagging issues. The summary estimates were based only onstudies that specifically used time-dependent techniquesneeded to avoid immortal time bias and to treat exposuresto the different antidiabetic agents as time-dependentvariables.To verify whether publication bias might affect the valid-
ity of the estimates, funnel plots were investigated consid-ering regression of Ln(RR) on the sample size, weighted bythe inverse of the pooled variance (24). All analyses wereperformed with SAS software version 8.02 and STATAsoftware version 11.
ResultsMeta-analysisThe flow diagram for study inclusion in themeta-analysis
is shown in Figure 1. A total of 71 articles were retrieved andchecked for relevance in terms of intervention, populationstudied, and reporting of cancer incidence/mortality data.Twenty-four (25–48) articles were excluded (Supplemen-
tary Table S1). Because the UKPDS trials had partiallyoverlapping patient populations, only the risk estimate forthe metformin monotherapy trial was included (49).
Overall we included estimates from 47 studies and65,540 cancer cases: 19 studies (50–67) presented data onoverall cancer incidence, 7 studies (38, 49, 54, 68–72) onoverall cancer mortality, and 32 studies (45, 48, 50, 52–54, 56, 57, 59, 66, 73–96) reported estimates on singlecancer sites. Table 1 shows the characteristics of these 47studies. There were 11 prospective cohort studies, 16 case–control studies, 14 retrospective cohort studies, and 6clinical trials of patients with diabetes randomized to met-formin versus other treatment published between 1998 and2013. Treatment comparators were sulfonylureas, insulin,or other antidiabetic treatments. If more than one estimatewas presented, the estimate for metformin alone was pre-ferred to metformin combined with other treatments and acomparator other than insulin was chosen.
We also examined SRRs stratified by BMI adjustment andtime-related bias. For the latter analysis, 18 studies werejudged to have avoided these biases (49, 51, 52, 55, 57,61, 62, 64, 70, 71, 75, 77, 78, 80, 86, 87). However, thesmall number of studies may imply lack of robustness ofthe SRR estimates and where fewer than 3 studies wereadjusted for BMI, the BMI-adjusted SRRs are not reported.Estimates from randomized clinical trials were consideredto be adjusted for BMI.
Overall cancer incidence and mortality—effects of BMIand study type
The SRRs for metformin and overall cancer incidence(50–59) and mortality (45, 50–54, 56–59, 73–84, 86, 87)are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2. A risk reduction of 31%(SRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52–0.90), with high heterogeneity(I2 ¼ 88%), was estimated for overall cancer incidence insubjects taking metformin compared with other antidia-betic compounds. There was a statistically significant, 34%reduction in cancer mortality (0.66, 95% CI, 0.54–0.81),with limited heterogeneity (I2 ¼ 21%).
A significant reduction in overall cancer incidence inmetformin users was also found when the estimates wereadjusted for BMI (SRR, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.70–0.96; I2¼ 76%),but not in BMI-unadjusted studies (SRR, 0.58 with 95%CI,0.31–1.09 and I2¼94%;P¼0.49 for thedifferencebetweenestimates). However, no reduction was found when theanalysis was restricted to prospective studies (SRR, 0.71;95% CI, 0.47–1.07; I2¼ 89%) or randomized clinical trials(SRR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.69–1.30; I2¼5%), although the latterstudies included only 321 events. Meta-regression alsoindicates that publication year is not associated with riskestimates (P ¼ 0.59), nor was there an association with theuse of insulin treatment as comparator (P ¼ 0.89).
The SRR for cancer mortality from BMI-adjusted resultsconfirmed a significant reductionwithmetforminuse (SRRsadjusted for BMI: 0.60; 95%CI, 0.45–0.80; I2¼ 0), whereasthe reduction fromunadjusted estimates was not significant(SRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.23–2.46; I2 ¼ 71%). Analysis ofprospective studies only showed a statistically significant
750 citations identified:•716 Medline, EMBASE, ISI Web of SCIENCE (Science Citation Index Expanded)•34 Reference list
679 citations excluded–reviews; title and/or abstract not relevant for the study endpoint
71 full-text original articles considered for inclusion
24 studies excluded–did not meet inclusion criteria (see Supplementary Table S1)
47 independent studies included
24 independent studies included for all cancer sites (incidence and/or mortality)
23 independent studies included for ONLY single cancer sites
Figure 1. Study flow diagram. Of 750 citations identified, 47 independentstudies were included in the analysis.
Metformin Meta-Analysis
www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 869
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
Tab
le1.
Epidem
iologicstud
iesof
metform
inan
dca
ncer
risk
Firstau
thor(ref.)
(coun
try)
Studydes
ign
End
point
Sam
ple
size
Riskes
timates
(95%
CI)
Treatmen
tco
mparison
Adjustingva
riab
les
(other
than
agean
dse
x)
UKPDStudyGroup
(49)
(UK)
RCT
Mortality
Cas
es:1
39Atris
k:75
3Any
site:0
.71
(0.29–
1.76
)aDietalon
e(n
¼41
1)vs
.intens
iveblood
-gluc
oseco
ntrolp
olicy
with
metform
in(n
¼34
2)
n.a.
Sch
erntha
ner(61,72
)QUARTE
TM
(Europ
e)RCT
Inciden
ceCas
es:9
Atris
k:1,19
4Any
site:0
.51
(0.14–
1.90
)Metform
inmon
othe
rapy
(n¼
597)
vs.
pioglita
zone
(n¼
597)
n.a.
Han
efeld(62,72
)QUARTE
TC
(Europ
ean
dNorth
America)
RCT
Inciden
ceCas
es:9
Atris
k:63
9Any
site:1
.99
(0.43–
12.32)
Metform
inþ
sulfo
nylurea(n
¼32
0)vs.p
ioglita
zone
þsu
lfony
lurea(n
¼31
9)
n.a.
Yan
g(85)
(UK)
Gen
eral
prac
ticene
sted
case
–co
ntrolina
retros
pec
tiveco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:1
25Con
trols:
1,19
5Colon
:1.00
(0.60–
1.70
)3or
moreye
arsof
metform
intherap
yvs
.no
nins
ulin
users
Smok
ing,
historyof
cholec
ystectom
y,diabetes
duration,
BMI,
sulfo
nylureaus
e,as
pirin/NSAID
use
Bow
ker(69)
(Can
ada)
Pop
ulation-bas
edretros
pec
tiveco
hort
Mortality
Cas
es:4
07Atris
k:10
,309
Any
site:0
.77
(0.63–
0.91
)Metform
invs
.su
lfony
lureas
use
Insu
linus
ean
dCDS.
Mon
ami(55
)(Ita
ly)
Hos
pita
l-bas
edretros
pec
tiveca
se–
controls
tudy
Inciden
ceCas
es:1
95Con
trols:
195
Any
site:0
.28
(0.13–
0.57
)Exp
osureto
metform
informorethan
36mon
thsvs
.other
hypog
lyce
mic
drugs
users
Durationof
diabetes
,BMI,HbA1c
,co
morbidity
,smok
ing
andalco
hola
bus
e,co
ncom
itant
hypog
lyce
mic
trea
tmen
tOliveria
(76)
(USA)
Pop
ulation-bas
edretros
pec
tiveco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:8
13Atris
k:19
1,22
3Colon
:0.67(0.52–
0.85
)Bladder:0
.99(0.70–
1.39
)Liver:0
.73(0.34–
1.56
)Pan
crea
s:1.26
(0.80–
1.99
)
Eve
rus
eof
metform
inmon
othe
rapy
vs.
neve
rus
e
HBVan
dHCVinfection,
cirrho
sis,
alco
holism,
polyp
s,ob
esity
,ulce
rativ
eco
litis,
Crohn
'sdisea
se,c
ystic
fibrosis,
chronic
pan
crea
titis,
dermatom
yositis
,polym
yositis
,idiopathicDVT,
partial
gastrectom
y,pelvic
radiatio
n,an
dsc
histos
omiasis.
(Con
tinue
don
thefollo
wingpag
e)
Gandini et al.
Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 Cancer Prevention Research870
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
Tab
le1.
Epidem
iologicstud
iesof
metform
inan
dca
ncer
risk
(Con
t'd)
Firstau
thor(ref.)
(coun
try)
Studydes
ign
End
point
Sam
ple
size
Riskes
timates
(95%
CI)
Treatmen
tco
mparison
Adjustingva
riab
les
(other
than
agean
dse
x)
Currie
(59)
(UK)
Gen
eral
practice
retros
pec
tiveco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:3
73Atris
k:7,89
7Any
site:0
.74(0.65–
0.84
);Breas
t:1.02
(0.71–
1.45
);Colon
:0.56
(0.40–
0.76
);Prostate:
0.93
(0.67–
1.32
);Pan
crea
s:0.20
(0.11–
0.36
)
Metform
inmon
othe
rapy
vs.s
ulfony
lureas
mon
othe
rapy
Smok
ing,
comorbidity
,HbA1c
,diabetes
duration,
weigh
t
Don
adon
(80)
(Italy)
Hos
pita
l-bas
edretros
pec
tiveca
se–
control
Inciden
ceCas
es:4
65Con
trols:
490
Live
r:0.33
(0.10–
0.70
)Metform
inus
ers
vs.n
onus
ers
Noad
justingva
riables
wereco
nsidered
Hom
e(52)
RECORD,
(Europ
e)RCT
Inciden
ceCas
es:1
25Atris
k:2,22
5Any
site:1
.22(0.86–
1.74
)Breas
t:1.0(0.32–
3.10
)bProstate:
2.0
(0.68–
5.82
)bPan
crea
s:5.99
(0.72–
49.6)bLive
r:4.0(0.18–
88.7)b
Metform
in(n¼1,12
2)vs
.rosiglita
zone
(n¼
1,10
3)
n.a.
Li(86)
(USA)
Hos
pita
l-bas
edretros
pec
tiveca
se–
control
Inciden
ceCas
es:2
55Con
trols:
106
Pan
crea
s:0.38
(0.22–
0.69
)Metform
inus
ers
vs.n
onus
ers
Rac
e,sm
oking,
alco
hol,
BMI,family
historyof
canc
er,d
urationof
diabetes
,and
insu
linus
e.Libby(54)
(Sco
tland
,UK)
Pop
ulation-bas
edretros
pec
tiveco
hort
Inciden
cean
dmortality
Cas
es:7
71Atris
k:8,17
0Any
site
inciden
ce:0
.63
(0.53–
0.75
);Breas
t:0.60
(0.32–
1.10
);Colon
:0.60(0.38–
0.94
);Lu
ng:0
.70
(0.43–
1.15
)Any
site
mortality:
0.63
(0.49–
0.81
)
Metform
inus
ers
vs.n
onus
ers
Smok
ing,
BMI,HbA1c
,materiald
epriv
ation,
othe
rdrugus
e(sulfony
lureas
orinsu
lin)
Wrig
ht(79)
(USA)
Pop
ulation-bas
edretros
pec
tiveca
se–
control
Inciden
ceCas
es:9
7Con
trols:
101
Prostate:
0.56
(0.32–
1.00
)Metform
inus
ers
vs.n
onus
ers
BMI,statin
andas
pirin
use,
othe
rdiabetes
trea
tmen
t,PSA
screen
inghistory,
family
historyof
prostateca
ncer
(Con
tinue
don
thefollo
wingpag
e)
Metformin Meta-Analysis
www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 871
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
Tab
le1.
Epidem
iologicstud
iesof
metform
inan
dca
ncer
risk
(Con
t'd)
Firstau
thor(ref.)
(coun
try)
Studydes
ign
End
point
Sam
ple
size
Riskes
timates
(95%
CI)
Treatmen
tco
mparison
Adjustingva
riab
les
(other
than
agean
dse
x)
Bod
mer
(73)
(UK)
Gen
eral
practice
retros
pec
tivene
sted
case
–co
ntrol
Inciden
ceCas
es:1
7Con
trols:
120
Breas
t:0.44
(0.24–
0.82
)Use
rsof
40þ
pres
criptio
ns(>5
years)of
metform
invs.
nonu
sers
c
Gen
eral
practicean
dca
lend
artim
eby
match
ing,
othe
rus
eof
prand
ialg
luco
seregu
lators,a
carbos
e,es
trog
ens,
smok
ing,
BMI,diabetes
duration,
andHbA
1cHas
san(81)
(USA)
Hos
pita
l-bas
edretros
pec
tiveca
se–
control
Inciden
ceCas
es:1
22Con
trols:
86Live
r:0.30
(0.20–
0.60
)Bigua
nideus
ersvs
.no
nuse
rsRac
e,ed
ucationa
llev
el,
ciga
rettesm
oking,
alco
hold
rinking
,HCV,
HBV,fam
ilyhistoryof
canc
erKah
n(63)
ADOPT(USA)RCT
Inciden
ceCas
es:1
60Atris
k:4,35
1Any
site:A
DOPT-G:
0.78
(0.53–
1.14
)ADOPT-R:0
.92(0.63–
1.35
)Breas
t:2.0(0.60–
6.62
)bColon
:1.75
(0.51–
5.96
)bProstate:
1.0(0.41–
2.40
)b
Pan
crea
s:0.1(0.005
–
1.84
)b
Metform
in(n¼1,45
4)vs
.gliben
camide(n
¼1,44
1)vs
.rosiglita
zone
(n¼
1,45
6)
n.a.
Land
man
(70)
(Nethe
rland
s)Gen
eral
practice
prosp
ectiv
eco
hort
Mortality
Cas
es:1
22Atris
k:1,35
3Any
site:0
.43
(0.23–
0.80
)Metform
inus
ers
vs.n
onus
ers
Smok
ing,
diabetes
duration,HbA1c
,serum
crea
tinine,
BMI,blood
press
ure,
total
choles
terol/H
DL,
album
inuria,ins
ulin
use,
sulfo
nylureaus
ean
dmac
rova
scular
complications
Williams-Herman
(64)
(18co
untries
worldwide)
RCT
Inciden
ceCas
es:1
8Atris
k:54
3Any
site:0
.61
(0.22–
1.79
)Metform
in(n
¼36
4)vs
.Sita
gliptin
(n¼17
9)n.a.
Yan
g(58)
(China
)Hos
pita
l-bas
edprosp
ectiv
eco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:2
71Atris
k:6,10
3Any
site:0
.99
(0.70,
1.41
)Sulfony
lureaus
eþ
ever
useof
metform
invs
.nev
erus
eof
metform
in
BMI,sm
okingstatus
,alco
hol,HbA1c
,SBP,
LDL-C–relatedris
k,HDLan
dtriglyce
ride,
statins,
RASinhibitor
usag
e,insu
linus
age
(Con
tinue
don
thefollo
wingpag
e)
Gandini et al.
Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 Cancer Prevention Research872
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
Tab
le1.
Epidem
iologicstud
iesof
metform
inan
dca
ncer
risk
(Con
t'd)
Firstau
thor(ref.)
(coun
try)
Studydes
ign
End
point
Sam
ple
size
Riskes
timates
(95%
CI)
Treatmen
tco
mparison
Adjustingva
riab
les
(other
than
agean
dse
x)
Azo
ulay
(77)
(Can
ada)
Pop
ulation-bas
edretros
pec
tivene
sted
case
–co
ntrol
Inciden
ceCas
es:7
39Con
trols:
7,35
9Prostate:
1.23
(0.99–
1.52
)Eve
rvs
.nev
erus
ers
ofmetform
inc
HbA
1c,a
lcoh
olus
e,ob
esity
,smok
ing,
lower
urinarytrac
tsym
ptoms,
previou
sca
ncer,
previou
sus
eof
NSAID,
antih
ypertens
ivedrug
s,an
dstatins,us
eof
othe
ran
tidiabetic
agen
tsBau
r(65)
(German
y)Hos
pita
l-bas
edprosp
ectiv
eco
hort
Inciden
cean
dmortality
Cas
es:6
6Atris
k:1,30
8Any
site
inciden
ce:0
.66
(0.26–
1.64
)Any
site
mortality:
0.71
(0.2–
2.59
)
Metform
inus
ersvs.
nonu
sers
Smok
ing,
BMI,HbA1c
Bos
co(74)
(Den
mark)
Pop
ulation-bas
edretros
pec
tivene
sted
case
–co
ntrol
Inciden
ceCas
es:3
93Con
trols:
3,93
0Breas
t:0.81
(0.63–
0.96
)Metform
inforat
leas
t1
year
vs.w
omen
not
pres
cribed
antid
iabetic
med
ication,
orus
edmetform
infora
tlea
st1
year
Diabetes
complications
,clinical
obes
ityye
arof
birth,
parity
,pos
tmen
opau
sal
horm
oneus
e.
Ferrara(75)
(USA)
Pop
ulation-bas
edprosp
ectiv
eco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:9
,082
Atris
k:25
2,46
7Breas
t:0.90
(0.80–
1.00
);Colon
:1.00(0.90–
1.20
);Prostate:
1.00
(0.90–
1.10
);Pan
crea
s:1.20
(1.00–
1.50
);Lu
ng:
1.00
(0.80–
1.10
);NHL:
1.00
(0.80–
1.20
);Corpus
Uteri:
0.90
(0.80–
1.20
);Kidne
y/rena
lpelvis:
1.30
(1.0–
1.6);R
ectum:0
.90
(0.70–
1.20
);Melan
oma:
0.80
(0.60–
1.10
)
Eve
rus
eof
piog
litaz
one
andmetform
invs.
neve
ruse
ofmetform
in
Yea
rof
coho
rten
try,
race
/ethnicity,inc
ome,
smok
ing,
glyc
emic
control,diabetes
duration,
crea
tinine
leve
ls,c
onge
stivehe
art
failure,u
seof
othe
rdiabetes
med
ications
Hen
se(51)
(German
y)Pop
ulation-bas
edprosp
ectiv
eco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:1
,364
Atris
k:26
,742
Any
site:0
.95
(0.90–
1.01
)Metform
in(only)
users
vs.n
onus
ers
Diabetes
duratio
n,BMI,
insu
lintherap
yLa
i(84
)(Ta
iwan
)Pop
ulation-bas
edretros
pec
tiveco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:1
29Atris
k:19
,624
Lung
:0.55(0.37–
0.82
)Metform
inus
ersvs.
nonu
sers
Pulmon
ary
tubercu
losis,
chronic
obstructivepulmon
ary
disea
se,a
ndpropen
sity
score
(quintile).
(Con
tinue
don
thefollo
wingpag
e)
Metformin Meta-Analysis
www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 873
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
Tab
le1.
Epidem
iologicstud
iesof
metform
inan
dca
ncer
risk
(Con
t'd)
Firstau
thor(ref.)
(coun
try)
Studydes
ign
End
point
Sam
ple
size
Riskes
timates
(95%
CI)
Treatmen
tco
mparison
Adjustingva
riab
les
(other
than
agean
dse
x)
Lee(53)
(Sou
thKorea
)Pop
ulation-bas
edprosp
ectiv
eco
hort
Incide
nce
Cas
es:3
39Atris
k:15
,717
Any
site:0
.12(0.08–
0.19
);Colon
:0.36
(0.13–
0.98
);Live
r:0.06
(0.02–
0.16
);Eso
pha
gus:
0.44
(0.07–
2.61
);Stomac
h:1.41
(0.42–
4.73
)
Atleas
t2presc
riptio
nof
metform
invs.a
nyothe
roral
antih
yperglyc
emic
med
ication
Other
oral
antih
yperglyc
emic
med
ication,
Cha
rlson
comorbidity
index
score,
metform
indo
sage
andduration
Mellbin
(71)
(Swed
en)
Prosp
ectiv
eco
hort
follo
w-upan
alysis
from
RCT
Mortality
N¼
1,07
3N
even
ts¼
37Any
site:0
.25(0.08–
0.83
)Patientsus
ingmetform
invs
.not
usingat
disch
arge
Smok
ingha
bits,
prev
ious
myo
cardial
infarctio
nor
previou
sco
nges
tivehe
art
failure,c
reatinineat
rand
omization,
percutan
eous
tran
slum
inal
corona
ryan
giop
lastyor
corona
ryartery
byp
assgraftin
gdu
ringthe
hosp
italization,
and
mea
nup
dated
blood
gluc
ose
Morden
(56)
(USA)
Gen
eral
prac
tice
retros
pec
tiveco
hort
Incide
nce
Cas
es:5
,466
Atris
k:81
,681
Any
site:1
.01(0.94–
1.08
);Breas
t:1.28
(1.05–
1.57
);Colon
:0.94
(0.72–
1.22
);Prostate:
0.97
(0.76–
1.24
);Pan
crea
s:1.25
(0.89–
1.75
)
Metform
invs
.not
ininsu
lin-treated
patients
Rac
e,low-inc
ome
subsidystatus
,co
morbidities
,tob
acco
expo
sure,C
harls
on,
comorbidities
exclud
ingmaligna
ncy,
diab
etes
,ins
ulin
dos
equ
artiles
Bo(68)
(Italy)
Hos
pita
l-bas
edretros
pec
tiveco
hort
Mortality
Cas
es:1
22Atris
k:3,70
3Any
site:0
.56
(0.34–
0.94
)Metform
inus
evs
.diet
controlo
nly
Diabetes
duration,
HbA1c
,smok
ing,
BMI,
pres
ence
ofretin
opathy
,ne
phropathy
,coron
ary
orperiphe
rala
rtery
dise
ase,
othe
rco
-morbidities
andtheus
eof
antih
ypertens
ive
drug
san
dac
etylsa
licylic
acid
(Con
tinue
don
thefollo
wingpag
e)
Gandini et al.
Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 Cancer Prevention Research874
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
Tab
le1.
Epidem
iologicstud
iesof
metform
inan
dca
ncer
risk
(Con
t'd)
Firstau
thor(ref.)
(coun
try)
Studydes
ign
End
point
Sam
ple
size
Riskes
timates
(95%
CI)
Treatmen
tco
mparison
Adjustingva
riab
les
(other
than
agean
dse
x)
Bod
mer
(83)
(UK)
Gen
eral
practice
retros
pec
tivene
sted
case
–co
ntrol
Incide
nce
Cas
es:9
20Con
trols:
5,51
9Colon
:1.43(1.08–
1.90
)Metform
inus
ers(50þ
presc
riptio
ns)v
s.no
nuse
rs
Diabetes
duration,
BMI,
smok
ing,
prio
rus
eof
aspirin,
NSAID,s
tatin
s,es
trog
enus
e(w
omen
),su
lfony
lureas
and
insu
linus
eBod
mer
(82)
(UK)
Gen
eral
practice
retros
pec
tiveca
se–
control
Incide
nce
Cas
es:3
07Con
trols:
1,34
7Pan
crea
s:0.83
(0.57–
1.21
)Metform
inus
ersvs
.no
nuse
rsBMI,sm
oking,
alco
hol
cons
umption,
diab
etes
duratio
n,othe
ran
tidiabeticsdrugs
Bod
mer
(88)
(UK)
Gen
eral
practice
retros
pec
tiveca
se–
control
Incide
nce
Cas
es:1
.029
Con
trols:
6,17
4Lu
ng:1
.09(0.85–
1.38
)Metform
inus
ers(40þ
presc
riptio
ns)v
s.no
nuse
rs
BMIa
ndsm
oking
Chleb
owsk
i(48
,95)
(USA)
Prosp
ectiv
eCoh
ort
(WHIp
rogram
)Incide
nce
Cas
es:2
33Atris
k:68
,019
Breas
t:0.65
(0.46–
0.91
)Metform
invs
.other
antid
iabe
ticdrugs
Family
history,
prio
rbrea
stbiops
y,ag
eat
men
arch
e,men
opau
se,p
arity
,age
atfirstlivebirth,
brea
stfeed
ing,
educ
ation,
smok
ing,
alco
holu
se,B
MI,
phys
ical
activ
ity,
duratio
nof
prio
res
trog
enalon
e,es
trog
enþ
prog
esterone
use,
bilateral
oopho
rectom
y,weigh
tloss
Hsieh
(89)
(Taiwan
)Pop
ulation-bas
edprosp
ectiv
eco
hort
Incide
nce
Cas
es:6
.554
Atris
k:61
,777
Any
site:0
.56(0.44–
0.71
)Breas
t:0.57
(0.33–
0.97
)Colon
:0.54
(0.39–
0.76
)Prostate:
0.97
(0.60–
1.55
)Lun
g:0.64
(0.45–
0.90
)Liver:0
.66(0.49–
0.91
)Pan
crea
s:0.63
(0.28–
1.42
)Stomac
h:0.63
(0.39–
1.08
)
Metform
invs
.su
lfony
lurea
Onlyag
ean
dse
x
(Con
tinue
don
thefollo
wingpag
e)
Metformin Meta-Analysis
www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 875
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
Tab
le1.
Epidem
iologicstud
iesof
metform
inan
dca
ncer
risk
(Con
t'd)
Firstau
thor(ref.)
(coun
try)
Studydes
ign
End
point
Sam
ple
size
Riskes
timates
(95%
CI)
Treatmen
tco
mparison
Adjustingva
riab
les
(other
than
agean
dse
x)
Lehm
an(78)
(USA)
Pop
ulation-bas
edretros
pec
tiveco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:3
60Atris
k:5,04
2Prostate:
2.15
(1.83–
2.52
)Metform
inve
rsus
sulfo
nylureaon
ly(re
stric
tedto
nons
tatin
users)c
HbA1c
,diabetes
duration,
race
/ethn
icity
,Cha
rlson
comorbidity
score
Liao
(91)
(Taiwan
)Pop
ulation-bas
edprosp
ectiv
eco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:5
6Atris
k:49
,803
Pan
crea
s:0.85
(0.39–
1.89
)Metform
inus
ers
vs.n
onus
ers
Noad
justingva
riables
wereco
nsidered
Mag
liano
(66)
(Aus
tralia)Com
mun
ity-bas
edlong
itudinal
coho
rtInciden
ceCas
es:3
09Atris
k:1,29
4Any
site:0
.88
(0.67–
1.17
);Prostate:
2.16
(1.19–
3.9)
Metform
inus
ers
vs.n
onus
ers
Noad
justingva
riables
wereco
nsidered
Maz
zone
(94)
(USA)
Hos
pita
l-bas
edretros
pec
tiveca
se–
control
Inciden
ceCas
es:5
07Con
trols:
507
Lung
:0.48(0.28–
0.81
)Metform
inus
ers
vs.n
onus
ers
Med
icationus
e,BMI,
HbA1C
,smok
ing
Ngw
ana(50)
(Belgium
)Gen
eral
practice
retros
pec
tiveco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:2
21Atris
k:4,01
2Any
site:0
.20
(0.03–
1.64
);Breas
t:0.46
(0.07–
3.10
);Colon
:0.11(0.01–
1.07
);Prostate:
0.61
(0.31–
1.19
)
Metform
invs.o
ther
antid
iabetic
trea
tmen
tsan
ddiet
only
Weigh
tan
dinitial
HbA1c
Red
aniel(90
)(UK)
Gen
eral
practice
retros
pec
tiveco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:8
73Atris
k:52
,657
Breas
t:1.02
(0.79–
1.3)
Metform
invs.
sulfo
nylurea
Period,reg
ion,
BMI,
year
ofdiagn
osis
Ruiter(57
)(Nethe
rland
s)Hos
pita
l-bas
edprosp
ectiv
eco
hort
Inciden
ceCas
es:3
,552
Atris
k:85
,289
Any
site:0
.90(0.88–
0.91
);Breas
t:0.95
(0.91–
0.98
);Colon
:0.91
(0.88–
0.94
);Prostate:
0.92
(0.88–
0.94
);Pan
crea
s:0.73
(0.66–
0.80
);Live
r:0.67
(0.53–
0.86
);Lu
ng:0
.87
(0.84–
0.91
);Eso
pha
gus:
0.90
(0.82–
0.97
);Stomac
h:0.83
(0.76–
0.90
)
Metform
invs.
sulfo
nylurea
derivatives
c
Age
atfirstoral
gluc
ose-
loweringdrug
presc
riptio
n,nu
mber
ofothe
rdrugs
used
inthe
year
before
thestartof
OGLD
,num
ber
ofho
spita
lizations
inthe
year
before
thestartof
OGLD
,calen
dar
time
Bec
ker(96)
(UK)
Gen
eral
practice
retros
pec
tiveca
se–
control
Inciden
ceCas
es:2
91Con
trols:
1,74
6End
ometria
l:0.88
(0.58–
1.32
)Metform
inus
ers
(25þ
presc
riptio
ns)vs.
nopriorus
e
BMI,sm
oking,
diabetes
duration
Cha
iteerak
ijet
al.(93
)(USA)
Hos
pita
l-bas
edretros
pec
tiveca
se–
control
Inciden
ceCas
es:1
05Con
trols:
34Live
r:0.4(0.2–0.9)
Metform
inus
ersvs.
nonu
sers
Ethnicity,a
ndresiden
tial
area
,propen
sity
scores
forstatin-use
(Con
tinue
don
thefollo
wingpag
e)
Gandini et al.
Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 Cancer Prevention Research876
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
Tab
le1.
Epidem
iologicstud
iesof
metform
inan
dca
ncer
risk
(Con
t'd)
Firstau
thor(ref.)
(coun
try)
Studydes
ign
End
point
Sam
ple
size
Riskes
timates
(95%
CI)
Treatmen
tco
mparison
Adjustingva
riab
les
(other
than
agean
dse
x)
Che
n(92)
(Taiwan
)Pop
ulation-bas
edretros
pec
tiveca
se–
control
Incide
nce
Cas
es:2
2,04
7Con
trols:
25,773
Live
r:0.79
(0.75–
0.83
)Metform
inus
ers
vs.n
onus
ers
Cirrho
sis,
HCV,D
Mduration,
comorbidities
,other
med
ications
Chu
ng(67)
(Sou
thKorea
)Pop
ulation-bas
edretros
pec
tiveco
hort
Incide
nce
Cas
es:7
3Atris
k:1,21
7Any
site:0
.57(0.39–
0.85
)Metform
inus
ersvs
.no
nuse
rsNot
spec
ified
Currie
(60)
(UK)
Gen
eral
practice
retros
pec
tiveco
hort
Incide
nce
Cas
es:4
,029
Atris
k:84
,622
Any
site:0
.91(0.83–
1.00
)Metform
invs
.su
lfony
lurea
Systolic
blood
press
ure,
HbA
1c,total
choles
terol,se
rum
crea
tinine,
BMI,
smok
ingstatus
,an
tihyp
ertens
ivelip
id-
lowering,
antip
latelet
therap
y,durationof
diabe
tes,
prio
rhistory
ofca
ncer,L
VD,
microva
scular
disea
se,
number
ofco
ntac
tswith
thege
neral
practition
erin
theye
arbeforetheindex
date,
Cha
rlson
comorbidity
index
Smiech
owsk
i(87
)(Can
ada)
Pop
ulation-bas
edprosp
ectiv
ene
sted
case
–co
ntrol
Incide
nce
Cas
es:8
08Con
trols:7,76
4Lu
ng:0
.94(0.76–
1.17
)Metform
inus
ersvs
.no
nuse
rsDiabetes
duration,
HbA
1c,o
bes
ity,
smok
ing,
exce
ssive
alco
holu
se,p
reviou
sca
ncer,c
hron
icob
structivepulmon
ary
disea
se,a
sthm
a,no
nsteroidal
anti-
inflam
matorydrug
s,as
pirin,
statins,
and
othe
rantidiabe
ticdrugs
Abbreviations
:ADOPT,
adiabetes
outcom
eprogres
sion
trial;%CI,pe
rcen
tCI;CDS,c
hron
icdisea
sesc
ore;
DVT,
dee
pve
inthrombos
is;H
bA1c
,hem
oglobin
A1c
;HBV,h
epatitisB
virus;HCV,h
epatitisCvirus;HDL,
high
-den
sity
lipop
rotein;L
DL-C,low
-den
sity
lipop
rotein
choles
terol;N,n
umber;N
SAID,n
onsteroidalan
ti-inflam
matorydrug;
OGLD
,oralg
luco
seloweringdrug
s;PSA,prostate-sp
ecifican
tigen
;RAS,renin–
angioten
sinsy
stem
;RCT,
rand
omized
controlledtrial;RECORD,rosiglita
zone
evalua
tedforca
rdiacou
tcom
esan
dregu
latio
nof
glyc
aemia
indiabetes
;SBP,s
ystolic
blood
pressure;
UKPDS,U
nitedKingd
omProsp
ectiv
eDiabetes
Study.
aRiskes
timateforus
ersof
metform
inalon
e.bADOPT-Gan
dADOPT-R,g
liben
clam
idean
drosiglita
zone
armsof
ADOPTstud
y.Riskes
timates
represe
ntmultip
leco
mparison
sfrom
asing
letrial,an
dthean
alysistake
sac
coun
tof
correlationbetwee
nthes
eco
mparison
s;ris
kes
timates
forsing
leca
ncer
siteswereca
lculated
from
crud
edata.
cExc
luded
patientson
mon
othe
rapy
with
insu
lin.
Metformin Meta-Analysis
www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 877
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
reduction with metformin, in contrast to the effect seen oncancer incidence (SRR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.23–0.97; I2 ¼ 0).
Organ specific analyses—effects of BMI and study typeon cancer incidence
The SRR estimates for breasts, prostate, colon, pancreas,liver, and lungs are illustrated in Fig. 3 and Table 2. The riskreduction with metformin use in unadjusted analysesreached statistical significance only for liver (9 studies, SRR,0.47; 95% CI, 0.28–0.78; I2 ¼ 82%) and lung cancer (8studies, SRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67–0.99; I2 ¼ 66%; Table 2).Analysis of prospective studies confirmed this associationfor liver but not lung cancer. Too few liver or lung cancerstudies were available to address the effect of BMI. Mostnotably, the summary estimate for lung cancer adjusted forsmoking showedno significant association (SRR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.82–1.11; I2 ¼ 58%).
The meta-analysis of the 13 studies on breast cancer riskshowed a nonsignificant trend (SRR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75–1.03; I2 ¼ 60%). However, BMI adjustment showed bor-derline significance in 5 studies (SRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67–1.00; I2 ¼ 48%). Analysis of 7 prospective studies showedstatistical significance (SRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90–0.99; I2 ¼44). Metformin treatment and prostate cancer risk did notshow any association in 12 studies (SRR, 1.06; 95% CI,0.80–1.41; I2 ¼ 91%), even upon BMI adjustment. How-ever, in the subgroup of 6 prospective studies, the reductionbecame significant (SRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89–0.97; I2 ¼59%), albeit with lowmagnitude. For colon cancer, the SRRsuggested borderline significant risk reduction (12 studies,SRR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.64–1.00; I2 ¼ 76%). The SRRs fromsubgroups of studies adjusted for BMI and with prospectivedesigns did not suggest a significant reduction in cancer risk.No risk reduction was found for metformin use in
Table 2. Summary risk estimates (SRRs) and 95% CIs for all endpoints
Endpoints Groups SRR (95% CI) I2 Number of studiesa
Cancer incidence All studies 0.69 (0.52–0.90) 88 19Adjusted for BMI 0.82 (0.70–0.96) 76 11Adjusted for time-related bias 0.90 (0.89–0.91) 56 8Prospective studies 0.71 (0.47–1.07) 89 12Randomized clinical trials 0.95 (0.69–1.30) 5 5
Cancer mortality All studies 0.66 (0.54–0.81) 21 7Adjusted for BMI 0.60 (0.45–0.80) 0 5Adjusted for time-related bias 0.45 (0.16–1.26) 0 3Prospective studies 0.48 (0.23–0.97) 0 4
Single cancer sitesBreast All studies 0.88 (0.75–1.03) 60 13
Adjusted for BMI 0.82 (0.67–1.00) 48 7Adjusted for time-related bias 0.94 (0.90–0.99) 32 6Prospective studies 0.94 (0.90–0.99) 44 7
Colon All studies 0.80 (0.64–1.00) 76 12Adjusted for BMI 0.84 (0.50–1.40) 81 6Adjusted for time-related bias 0.92 (0.85–0.98) 24 3Prospective studies 0.82 (0.57–1.17) 74 5
Prostate All studies 1.06 (0.80–1.41) 91 12Adjusted for BMI 0.98 (0.68–1.40) 55 6Adjusted for time-related bias 1.25 (0.87–1.80) 96 6Prospective studies 0.93 (0.89–0.97) 59 6
Pancreas All studies 0.75 (0.49–1.15) 84 11Adjusted for time-related bias 0.48 (0.16–1.43) 83 5Time-related unbiased 0.77 (0.38–1.55) 40 5Prospective studies 0.89 (0.61–1.29) 80 6
Liver All studies 0.47 (0.28–0.79) 82 9Adjusted for time-related bias 0.65 (0.39–1.08) 38 3Prospective studies 0.78 (0.72–0.85) 52 5
Lung All studies 0.82 (0.67–0.99) 57 5Adjusted for smoking 0.95 (0.82–1.11) 57 5Adjusted for time-related bias 0.88 (0.81–0.95) 36 3Prospective studies 0.97 (0.69–1.35) 26 3
aEstimates may not correspond to number of studies.
Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 Cancer Prevention Research878
Gandini et al.
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
pancreatic cancer (SRR, 0.75; 95%CI, 0.49–1.15; I2¼ 84%)even after BMI adjustment or when the analysis was limitedto 6 prospective studies (SRR, 0.89; 95%CI, 0.61–1.29; I2¼80%).We also evaluated the effect of the BMI adjustment within
studies (not only between studies) when the data wereavailable. For 12 observational studies, we were able toextract risk estimates adjusted for BMI (or a proxy such asobesity) and crude estimates in order to measure the size ofthis confounding (Supplementary Table S2). Overall, thedata show similar RR estimates between fully adjusted andcrude RR estimates, suggesting limited confounding effect.
Summary risk estimates for individual organswere obtainedonly for breast cancer, for which we had at least 4 studies.SRRs were very similar: 0.79 (0.54, 1.16) and 0.72 (0.48,1.07) for adjusted and unadjusted estimates, respectively.
These analyses focused on patients with diabetes. Insome studies, the diagnosis of diabetes was not verifiedand the comparator was "antidiabetic drug users"(57, 69, 73, 82, 83). A sensitivity analysis excluding thosestudies did not modify the results except for colorectalcancer, which became statistically significant (SRR, 0.73;95% CI, 0.58–0.92) after excluding the paper by Ruiter andcolleagues (83). When the potential bias because of insulin
A Cancer incidence
B Cancer mortality
UKPDS, 1998
Bowker, 2006
Landman, 2009Libby, 2009Bo, 2011
Melbin, 2011
Baur, 2011
0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 3.0
Summary RR: 0.66 (0.54–0.81) I 2 = 21
SRR adjusted for BMI: 0.60 (0.45–0.80)
SRR unadjusted: 0.75 (0.22–2.46)
Schernthaner, 2004 (QUARTET-M)Hanefeld, 2004 (QUARTET-C)Kahn, 2006 (ADOPT-G)Kahn, 2006 (ADOPT-R)
Ngwana, 2012
Monami, 2009Currie, 2009Libby, 2009Home, 2010 (RECORD)Williams-Herman, 2010
Hense, 2011Yang, 2010
Currie, 2013
Lee, 2011Morden, 2011
Baur, 2011
Chung, 2013Ruiter, 2012
Hsieh, 2012Magliano, 2012
0.05 0.10 0.20 0.60 1.00 3.00 8.00
SRR adjusted for BMI: 0.82 (0.70–0.96)
SRR unadjusted: 0.58 (0.31–1.09)
Summary RR: 0.69 (0.52–0.90) I 2 = 88
P for BMI = 0.48
P for BMI = 0.002
Figure 2. Forest plot of theassociation between metforminand cancer incidence or cancermortality. Forest plots of riskestimates from observationalstudies and randomizedcontrolled trials of metformin useand cancer incidence (A) or cancermortality (B). Black boxes indicateHRs, and horizontal linesrepresent 95% CIs. Blackdiamonds, SRR estimates. Thevertical dotted line represents arisk estimate of 1.00.
www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 879
Metformin Meta-Analysis
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
treatment as comparator was taken into account, the con-clusions did not change. No indication for publication biaswas found for any of the summary estimates.
Analysis of studies without time-related biasesThe SRRs for overall cancer incidence, organ-specific
cancer incidence, and overall cancer mortality obtainedfrom analysis of studies that avoided time-related biasesare shown in Table 2. The SRR for overall cancer incidence
was statistically significant in 8 studies (SRR, 0.90; 95%CI, 0.89–0.91; I2 ¼ 56%). The SRR for breast and colo-rectal cancer also became statistically significant: SRR,0.94 (95% CI, 0.90–0.99; I2 ¼ 32%) and SRR, 0.92(95% CI, 0.85–0.98; I2 ¼ 24%), respectively. On theother hand, the risk reduction for overall cancer mortalityand liver cancer incidence lost statistical significance(SRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16–1.26 and SRR, 0.65; 95% CI,0.39–1.08, respectively). For lung cancer, the SRR
A Breast B Prostate
C Colon D Pancreas
E Liver F Lung
Currie, 2009Libby, 2009Bodmer, 2010Home (RECORD), 2010Home (ADOPT), 2010Bosco, 2011
Ferrara, 2011Morden, 2011
Chlebowski, 2013
Hsieh, 2012
Ngwana, 2012
Ruiter, 2012
Redaniel, 2012
Summary RR: 0.88 (0.75–1.03)
0.2 0.6 1.0 1.7 2.5I 2 = 60
SRR adjusted for BMI: 0.82 (0.67–1.00)
SRR unadjusted: 0.97 (0.76–1.23)
Yang, 2004
Oliveira, 2008
Currie, 2009Libby, 2009Home, 2010 (ADOPT)Bodmer, 2012Ngwana, 2012
Ferrara, 2011Lee, 2011Morden, 2011Hsieh, 2012Ruiter, 2012
0.2 0.6 1.0 2.5
Summary RR: 0.80 (0.64–1.00) I 2 = 76
SRR adjusted for BMI: 0.84 (0.50–1.40)
SRR unadjusted: 0.74 (0.55–1.00)
Currie, 2009Wright, 2009Home, 2010 (ADOPT)Home, 2010 (RECORD)
Ferrara, 2011Morden, 2011
Azoulay, 2011Ngwana, 2012
Lehman, 2012
Ruiter, 2012Magliano, 2012
Hsieh, 2012
0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.5
Summary RR: 1.06 (0.80–1.41) I2 = 91
SRR unadjusted: 1.23 (0.83–1.83)
SRR adjusted for BMI: 0.98 (0.68–1.40)
Oliveira, 2008Donadon, 2009 (Italy)Hassan, 2010Home, 2010 (RECORD)Lee, 2011Chen, 2013Hsieh, 2012Ruiter, 2012Chaiteerakij, 2013
0.01 0.05 0.20 0.60 1.70 10.00
Summary RR: 0.47 (0.28–0.79) I 2 = 82
Libby, 2009Ferrara, 2011Lai, 2011Bodmer, 2012Hsieh, 2012Mazzone, 2012Ruiter, 2012Smiechowski, 2012
0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3
Summary RR: 0.82 (0.67–0.99) I 2 = 66
Oliveira, 2008
Currie, 2009Li, 2009Home, 2010 (ADOPT)Home, 2010 (RECORD)Bodmer, 2012
Ferrara, 2011Lee, 2011Morden, 2011Hsieh, 2012Liao, 2012Ruiter, 2012
0.01 0.05 0.20 0.60 1.70 4.50 10.00
Summary RR:0.75 (0.49–1.15) I 2 = 84
SRR adjusted for BMI: 0.48 (0.16–1.43)
SRR unadjusted: 0.99 (0.73–1.34)
P for BMI = 0.87
P for BMI = 0.73
P for BMI = 0.48
P for BMI = 0.55
Figure 3. Forest plots of the association betweenmetformin use and individual site cancer incidence. Forest plots of risk estimates from observational studiesand randomized controlled trials of metformin use and breast cancer (A), prostate cancer (B), colon cancer (C), pancreas cancer (D), liver cancer (E), and lungcancer (F). Black boxes indicate HRs, and horizontal lines represent 95% CIs. Black diamonds, SRR estimates. The vertical dotted line represents a riskestimate of 1.00. P for BMI is the P value for the interaction between BMI-adjusted analysis and unadjusted analysis.
Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 Cancer Prevention Research880
Gandini et al.
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
suggested significant risk reduction, but adjustment forsmoking eliminated the effect.When only studies without time-related biases and
adjusted for BMI were analyzed, the SRR for overall cancerincidence and breast cancer lost significance: SRR, 0.94(95% CI, 0.88–1.01) and SRR ¼ 0.89 (95% CI, 0.56–1.41), respectively. These numbers, however, were small.
DiscussionResearch onmetformin use and cancer risk andmortality
has expanded considerably over recent years, with conflict-ing data arising from different epidemiologic, human, andanimal carcinogenesis studies. Several previous meta-anal-yses have concluded that patients with diabetes who usemetformin have significantly lower risk of overall cancerincidence (30%–40%), mortality, and site-specific cancerincidence than those who use other antidiabetic medica-tions (11–14). However, the studies included in thesemeta-analyses are susceptible to several confounders and biases.Here we focused for the first time on 2 critical issues withpotential to skew the literature, the effect of BMI, and time-related biases in observational studies. The main resultsfrom our study show that metformin use is associated withdecreased overall cancer incidence even after adjustment forBMI or time-related biases, but the magnitude of this effectis considerably smaller than observed without such adjust-ments (10%–18% vs. 31%). Simultaneous adjustment forboth BMI and time-related biases results in loss of statisticalsignificance, albeit based on few studies. This is reminiscentof results from Thakkar and colleagues, who showed adiminution in metformin’s effect when considering cohortstudies (30%) versus case–control studies (10%) versusrandomized controlled trials (no effect; ref. 14). Examina-tion of individual organ sites, which is limited by feweravailable studies for analysis, shows nonsignificant associa-tions or similarly smaller effects after adjustment. Takentogether, these data underscore the importance of under-standing the limitation in the current literature and suggestthat if metformin use is associated with a reduced risk ofcancer, the effect may be smaller than previously shown.Obesity and its surrogate, high BMI, are intimately linked
to increased risk of several cancer types (97, 98). Potentialmechanisms include both direct and indirect effects ofobesity on insulin, IGF-1, sex hormones, adipokines, andinflammation, many of which are directly impacted bymetformin. In our analysis, BMI-adjusted studies showedstatistically significant reduction in cancer incidence andmortality whereas unadjusted studies showed no effect. In12 prospective studies where it was possible to compareBMI-adjusted versus crude estimates within each study,similar RR estimates were noted, suggesting limited con-founding effect of BMI. Likewise, summary risk estimateswithin 4 breast cancer studies were similar. BMI adjustmentdid not significantly affect the cancer risk estimates forindividual organ sites, although the risk estimates for breastcancer became borderline significant. A direct correlationbetween BMI and inflammation, adipocyte size, and
aromatase expression has been shown in breast tissue fromwomen undergoing breast cancer surgery, pointing toinflammation as a potential biologic basis for the cancer–obesity connection (99). However, BMI and insulin resis-tance had a modifying effect on themetforminmodulationof breast cancer cell proliferation in a presurgical trial (16).Furthermore, metformin is the drug of choice in obesepatients with diabetes because it reduces weight (3, 100),so its use is associated with obesity. Thus, modification ofthe cancer–obesity relationship bymetformin is likely com-plex and requires extensive study.
A recent review by Suissa and Azoulay underscored theprevalence of time-related biases in observational studies,potentially leading to inflated estimates of the protectiveeffect of metformin (17). These biases include immortaltime bias (unexposed time is misclassified as drug-exposedtime), time-windowbias (differential exposure opportunitytime windows between exposed and unexposed subjects),and time-lag bias (comparison of treatment given duringdifferent stages of the disease). Of note, exclusion of time-biased studies from our analysis resulted in statisticallysignificant 10% risk reduction in overall cancer incidence,although the magnitude is substantially smaller than thepreviously reported 30% to 40%. In organ-specific analyses,reduction in colorectal cancer incidence became significant(8%), whereas liver cancer risk reduction became nonsig-nificant. Exclusion of time-biased studies in the analysis ofcancer mortality resulted in loss of statistical significance.
The effect of metformin use on cancer mortality mayresult from different mechanisms than the effect on inci-dence. Retrospective analyses suggest that diabetics treatedwith metformin during chemotherapy have better survivalthan those treated with other antidiabetic agents (28, 101).Interestingly, mouse xenograft models show that metfor-min targets breast cancer stem cells and synergizes withdoxorubicin to prevent relapse (102). If metforminincreases the effectiveness of chemotherapy, then its inclu-sion in chemotherapeutic regimens may exert a favorableimpact on survival.
This study has several limitations. These include hetero-geneity of study designs and treatment comparators. Morethan two thirds of the studies had a retrospective design,which is prone to important sources of bias. However, ouranalyses of prospective studies generally found similarSRRs, although for breast, liver, and prostate cancer, theseresults became statistically significant. A second limitationis the nature of the comparator group, which mainlyincluded treatmentwith insulin and insulin secreatagogues.These classes of agents increase insulin levels and have beenassociated with increased cancer risk (14, 55, 69, 103).Thus, the potential protective effect of metformin in anuntreated or noninsulin using population cannot be pre-cisely estimated. A third factor to consider is allocation bias,with metformin users being at different stage of diabetesthan comparators, as discussed previously with regard totime-lag bias. Generally, treatment withmetformin starts ata younger age, likely because of treatment guidelines (104)and in subjects with higher BMI, possibly because of its
www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 881
Metformin Meta-Analysis
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
weight lowering effects (105). Although the majority ofstudies adjusted for confounders such as age, we herepresented the analyses adjusting for BMI and excludingtime-biased studies. However, BMI is dynamic, and weightgain is an important risk factor for mortality of severalcancers (106). Therefore, adjustment for a single BMI valuemight be inadequate to account for confounding by BMIdynamics over time. Finally, the effect of other confounders,both known (but not adjusted for) or heretofore unrecog-nized, should not be underestimated. This is best illustratedby lung cancer, where overall and time-unbiased analysespoint to a protective effect, whereas adjustment for smok-ing, which is by far themost important cause of lung cancer,leads to loss of significance.
A critical question emerging from this meta-analysis ofstudies in diabetic patients is the generalizability to non-diabetic populations. Our data demonstrate a cancer pre-ventive signal, albeit of lesser magnitude once the appro-priate adjustments are made than previously reported. Thissignal now needs to be studied in controlled clinical trialsfocusing on carefully defined populations, such as theprediabetic population in the Diabetes Prevention ProgramTrial (3, 4), for which long-term follow-up to ascertain theeffects of metformin on cancer incidence is currently ongo-ing. However, it needs to be emphasized that existing dataaboutmetforminuse innondiabetic populations are severe-ly limited.
Clinical trials are needed to determine if the observationsseen in diabetic populations can be expanded to prediabeticor nondiabetic populations and to whom they should beexpanded for the best benefit/risk ratio. Although some of
these early phase trials are ongoing, additional informationis needed before making general recommendations orlaunching large-scale clinical efforts.
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of InterestNo potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
Authors' ContributionsConception and design: S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, B.M. Heckman-Stoddard,B.K. Dunn, L. Ford, A. DeCensi, E. SzaboDevelopment of methodology: S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, B.M. Heckman-Stoddard, A. DeCensiAcquisitionofdata (provided animals, acquired andmanagedpatients,provided facilities, etc.): S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, B.M. Heckman-StoddardAnalysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biosta-tistics, computational analysis): S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, B.M. Heckman-Stoddard, L. FordWriting, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: S. Gandini,M. Puntoni, B.M. Heckman-Stoddard, B.K. Dunn, A. DeCensi, E. SzaboAdministrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or orga-nizing data, constructing databases): S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, B.M. Heck-man-Stoddard, L. FordStudy supervision: M. Puntoni, A. DeCensi, E. Szabo
Grant SupportThe studywas supported by grants from the Italian Association for Cancer
Research AIRC (IG 12072), the Italian Ministry of Health (RF-2009-1532226), and the Italian League Against Cancer (14/08) to A. DeCensi.A.DeCensi’s workwas partially performedduring a sabbatical at theDivisionof Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, NIH.
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by thepayment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby markedadvertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicatethis fact.
ReceivedDecember 5, 2013; revisedMay13, 2014; accepted June26, 2014;published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014.
References1. Giovannucci E, Harlan DM, Archer MC, Bergenstal RM, Gapstur SM,
Habel LA, et al. Diabetes and cancer: a consensus report. DiabetesCare 2010;33:1674–85.
2. Selvin E, Bolen S, Yeh HC, Wiley C, Wilson LM, Marinopoulos SS,et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in trials of oral diabetes medications:a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:2070–80.
3. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM,Walker EA, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes withlifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393–403.
4. Knowler WC, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Christophi CA, Hoffman HJ,Brenneman AT, et al. 10-year follow-up of diabetes incidence andweight loss in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.Lancet 2009;374:1677–86.
5. Algire C, Moiseeva O, Deschenes-Simard X, Amrein L, Petruccelli L,Birman E, et al. Metformin reduces endogenous reactive oxygenspecies and associated DNA damage. Cancer Prev Res 2012;5:536–43.
6. BojkovaB,OrendasP,GarajovaM,KassayovaM,KutnaV,AhlersovaE, et al.Metformin in chemically-inducedmammary carcinogenesis inrats. Neoplasma 2009;56:269–74.
7. Anisimov VN, Berstein LM, Popovich IG, Zabezhinski MA, EgorminPA, Piskunova TS, et al. If started early in life, metformin treatmentincreases life span and postpones tumors in female SHRmice. Aging(Albany NY) 2011;3:148–57.
8. HosonoK, EndoH, Takahashi H, SugiyamaM,UchiyamaT, Suzuki K,et al. Metformin suppresses azoxymethane-induced colorectal aber-rant crypt foci by activating AMP-activated protein kinase. MolCarcinog 2010;49:662–71.
9. Bhalla K, HwangBJ, Dewi RE, TwaddelW,GoloubevaOG,WongKK,et al. Metformin prevents liver tumorigenesis by inhibiting pathwaysdriving hepatic lipogenesis. Cancer Prev Res 2012;5:544–52.
10. Vitale-Cross L, Molinolo AA, Martin D, Younis RH,Maruyama T, PatelV, et al. Metformin prevents the development of oral squamous cellcarcinomas from carcinogen-induced premalignant lesions. CancerPrev Res 2012;5:562–73.
11. Decensi A, Puntoni M, Goodwin P, Cazzaniga M, Gennari A,Bonanni B, et al. Metformin and cancer risk in diabetic patients:a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Prev Res 2010;3:1451–61.
12. Noto H,Goto A, Tsujimoto T, NodaM. Cancer risk in diabetic patientstreatedwithmetformin: a systematic review andmeta-analysis. PLoSONE 2012;7:e33411.
13. SorannaD,Scotti L, ZambonA,Bosetti C,GrassiG,CatapanoA, et al.Cancer risk associatedwith use ofmetformin and sulfonylurea in type2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Oncologist 2012;17:813–22.
14. Thakkar B, Aronis KN, Vamvini MT, Shields K, Mantzoros CS. Met-formin and sulfonylureas in relation to cancer risk in type II diabetespatients: a meta-analysis using primary data of published studies.Metabolism 2013;62:922–34.
15. Franciosi M, Lucisano G, Lapice E, Strippoli GF, Pellegrini F, Nico-lucci A. Metformin therapy and risk of cancer in patients with type 2diabetes: systematic review. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e71583.
16. Bonanni B, Puntoni M, Cazzaniga M, Pruneri G, Serrano D, Guerrieri-Gonzaga A, et al. Dual effect of metformin on breast cancer prolif-eration in a randomized presurgical trial. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2593–600.
Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 Cancer Prevention Research882
Gandini et al.
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
17. Suissa S, Azoulay L. Metformin and the risk of cancer: time-relatedbiases in observational studies. Diabetes Care 2012;35:2665–73.
18. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D,et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: aproposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283:2008–12.
19. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting itemsfor systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006–12.
20. Greenland S. Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologicliterature. Epidemiol Rev 1987;9:1–30.
21. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58.
22. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vanden-broucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Stud-ies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reportingobservational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:344–9.
23. van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods inmeta-analysis: multivariate approach andmeta-regression. StatMed2002;21:589–624.
24. Macaskill P, Walter SD, Irwig L. A comparison of methods to detectpublication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2001;20:641–54.
25. Berstein LM, Boyarkina MP, Teslenko SY. Familial diabetes is asso-ciated with reduced risk of cancer in diabetic patients: a possible rolefor metformin. Med Oncol 2012;29:1308–13.
26. Buchs AE, Silverman BG. Incidence of malignancies in patients withdiabetes mellitus and correlation with treatment modalities in a largeIsraeli health maintenance organization: a historical cohort study.Metabolism 2011;60:1379–85.
27. Chung YW, Han DS, Park KH, Eun CS, Yoo KS, Park CK. Insulintherapy and colorectal adenoma risk among patients with Type 2diabetes mellitus: a case-control study in Korea. Dis Colon Rectum2008;51:593–7.
28. He X, Esteva FJ, Ensor J, Hortobagyi GN, Lee MH, Yeung SC.Metformin and thiazolidinediones are associated with improvedbreast cancer-specific survival of diabetic womenwith HER2þ breastcancer. Ann Oncol 2012;23:1771–80.
29. Lee JH, KimTI, JeonSM,HongSP,Cheon JH, KimWH. The effects ofmetformin on the survival of colorectal cancer patients with diabetesmellitus. Int J Cancer 2012;131:752–9.
30. Monami M, Colombi C, Balzi D, Dicembrini I, Giannini S, Melani C,et al. Metformin and cancer occurrence in insulin-treated type 2diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2011;34:129–31.
31. Murtola TJ, Tammela TL, Lahtela J, Auvinen A. Antidiabetic medica-tion andprostate cancer risk: a population-based case-control study.Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:925–31.
32. Niraula S, Pond G, De Wit R, Eisenberger M, Tannock IF, Joshua AM.Influence of concurrentmedications onoutcomesofmenwithprostatecancer included in the TAX 327 study. Can Urol Assoc J 2011;7:1–8.
33. Nkontchou G, Cosson E, Aout M, Mahmoudi A, Bourcier V, Charif I,et al. Impact of metformin on the prognosis of cirrhosis induced byviral hepatitis C in diabetic patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab2011;96:2601–8.
34. Stefansdottir G, Zoungas S, Chalmers J, Kengne AP, Knol MJ,Leufkens HG, et al. Intensive glucose control and risk of cancer inpatients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2011;54:1608–14.
35. Tseng CH. Diabetes and risk of bladder cancer: a study using theNational Health Insurance database in Taiwan. Diabetologia 2011;54:2009–15.
36. van Staa TP, Patel D, Gallagher AM, de Bruin ML. Glucose-loweringagents and the patterns of risk for cancer: a study with the GeneralPractice Research Database and secondary care data. Diabetologia2012;55:654–65.
37. Yang X, So WY, Ma RC, Kong AP, Lee HM, Yu LW, et al. Low HDLcholesterol, metformin use, and cancer risk in type 2 diabetes: theHong Kong Diabetes Registry. Diabetes Care 2011;34:375–80.
38. Currie CJ, Poole CD, Jenkins-Jones S, Gale EA, Johnson JA,MorganCL. Mortality after incident cancer in people with and without type 2diabetes: impact of metformin on survival. Diabetes Care 2012;35:299–304.
39. Hitron A, Adams V, Talbert J, Steinke D. The influence of antidiabeticmedications on the development and progression of prostate cancer.Cancer Epidemiol 2012;36:e243–50.
40. MorganCL, Poole CD, EvansM, Barnett AH, Jenkins-Jones S, CurrieCJ. What next after metformin? A retrospective evaluation of theoutcome of second-line, glucose-lowering therapies in people withtype 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012;97:4605–12.
41. Qiu H, Rhoads GG, Berlin JA, Marcella SW, Demissie K. Initialmetformin or sulfonylurea exposure and cancer occurrence amongpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Obes Metab 2013;15:349–57.
42. Tseng CH. Diabetes, metformin use, and colon cancer: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan. Eur J Endocrinol 2012;167:409–16.
43. Lee JH, Jeon SM, Hong SP, Cheon JH, Kim TI, Kim WH. Metforminuse is associatedwith a decreased incidence of colorectal adenomasin diabetic patients with previous colorectal cancer. Dig Liver Dis2012;44:1042–7.
44. Spratt DE, Zhang C, Zumsteg ZS, Pei X, Zhang Z, Zelefsky MJ.Metformin and prostate cancer: reduced development of castration-resistant disease and prostate cancer mortality. Eur Urol 2013;63:709–16.
45. Lai SW, Chen PC, Liao KF, Muo CH, Lin CC, Sung FC. Risk ofhepatocellular carcinoma in diabetic patients and risk reductionassociated with anti-diabetic therapy: a population-based cohortstudy. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:46–52.
46. Kawaguchi T, Taniguchi E, Morita Y, Shirachi M, Tateishi I, Nagata E,et al. Association of exogenous insulin or sulfonylurea treatmentwith an increased incidence of hepatoma in patients with hepatitisC virus infection. Liver Int 2010;30:479–86.
47. Vu K, Busaidy N, CabanillasME, KonoplevaM, Faderl S, ThomasDA,et al. A randomized controlled trial of an intensive insulin regimen inpatients with hyperglycemic acute lymphoblastic leukemia. ClinLymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2012;12:355–62.
48. Chlebowski RT, McTiernan A, Wactawski-Wende J, Manson JE,Aragaki AK, Rohan T, et al. Diabetes, metformin, and breast cancerin postmenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2844–52.
49. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on compli-cations in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UKProspective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998;352:854–65.
50. NgwanaG,AertsM, TruyersC,MathieuC,BartholomeeusenS,WamiW, et al. Relation between diabetes, metformin treatment and theoccurrence of malignancies in a Belgian primary care setting. Dia-betes Res Clin Pract 2012;97:331–6.
51. Hense HW, Kajuter H, Wellmann J, Batzler WU. Cancer incidence intype 2 diabetes patients—first results from a feasibility study of theD2C cohort. Diabetol Metab Syndr 2011;3:15.
52. HomePD,KahnSE, JonesNP,NoronhaD, Beck-NielsenH, Viberti G.Experience of malignancies with oral glucose-lowering drugs in therandomised controlled ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcome ProgressionTrial) and RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Out-comes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes) clinical trials. Dia-betologia 2010;53:1838–45.
53. LeeMS,HsuCC,WahlqvistML, Tsai HN,ChangYH,HuangYC. Type2 diabetes increases and metformin reduces total, colorectal, liverand pancreatic cancer incidences in Taiwanese: a representativepopulation prospective cohort study of 800,000 individuals. BMCCancer 2011;11:20.
54. Libby G, Donnelly LA, Donnan PT, Alessi DR, Morris AD, Evans JM.New users of metformin are at low risk of incident cancer: a cohortstudy among people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1620–5.
55. Monami M, Lamanna C, Balzi D, Marchionni N, Mannucci E. Sulpho-nylureas and cancer: a case–control study. Acta Diabetol 2009;46:279–84.
56. Morden NE, Liu SK, Smith J, Mackenzie TA, Skinner J, Korc M.Further exploration of the relationship between insulin glargine andincident cancer: a retrospective cohort study of older Medicarepatients. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1965–71.
www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 883
Metformin Meta-Analysis
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
57. Ruiter R, Visser LE, van Herk-Sukel MP, Coebergh JW, Haak HR,Geelhoed-Duijvestijn PH, et al. Lower risk of cancer in patients onmetformin in comparison with those on sulfonylurea derivatives:results froma large population-based follow-up study. Diabetes Care2012;35:119–24.
58. Yang X, So WY, Ma RC, Yu LW, Ko GT, Kong AP, et al. Use ofsulfonylureaandcancer in type2diabetes—TheHongKongDiabetesRegistry. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010;90:343–51.
59. Currie CJ, Poole CD, Gale EA. The influence of glucose-loweringtherapies on cancer risk in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2009;52:1766–77.
60. Currie CJ, Poole CD, Evans M, Peters JR, Morgan CL. Mortality andother important diabetes-related outcomes with insulin vs otherantihyperglycemic therapies in type 2 diabetes. J Clin EndocrinolMetab 2013;98:668–77.
61. Schernthaner G, Matthews DR, Charbonnel B, Hanefeld M, BrunettiP. Efficacy and safety of pioglitazone versus metformin in patientswith type 2 diabetes mellitus: a double-blind, randomized trial. J ClinEndocrinol Metab 2004;89:6068–76.
62. HanefeldM, Brunetti P, Schernthaner GH,MatthewsDR, CharbonnelBH. One-year glycemic control with a sulfonylurea plus pioglitazoneversus a sulfonylurea plusmetformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.Diabetes Care 2004;27:141–7.
63. KahnSE,Haffner SM,HeiseMA,HermanWH,HolmanRR, JonesNP,et al. Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburidemonotherapy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2427–43.
64. Williams-Herman D, Johnson J, Teng R, Golm G, Kaufman KD,Goldstein BJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and metforminas initial combination therapy and as monotherapy over 2 years inpatientswith type 2 diabetes. DiabetesObesMetab 2010;12:442–51.
65. Baur DM, Klotsche J, Hamnvik OP, Sievers C, Pieper L,WittchenHU,et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and medications for type 2 diabetesmellitus are associated with risk for and mortality from cancer in aGerman primary care cohort. Metabolism 2011;60:1363–71.
66. Magliano DJ, Davis WA, Shaw JE, Bruce DG, Davis TM. Incidenceand predictors of all-cause and site-specific cancer in type 2 diabe-tes: the Fremantle Diabetes Study. Eur J Endocrinol 2012;167:589–99.
67. Chung HH, Moon JS, Yoon JS, Lee HW, Won KC. The relationshipbetween metformin and cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes.Diabetes Metab J 2013;37:125–31.
68. Bo S, Ciccone G, Rosato R, Villois P, Appendino G, Ghigo E, et al.Cancer mortality reduction and metformin: a retrospective cohortstudy in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Obes Metab 2012;14:23–9.
69. Bowker SL, Majumdar SR, Veugelers P, Johnson JA. Increasedcancer-related mortality for patients with type 2 diabetes who usesulfonylureas or insulin: response to Farooki andSchneider. DiabetesCare 2006;29:1990–1.
70. Landman GW, Kleefstra N, van Hateren KJ, Groenier KH, Gans RO,Bilo HJ. Metformin associated with lower cancer mortality in type 2diabetes: ZODIAC-16. Diabetes Care 2010;33:322–6.
71. Mellbin LG, Malmberg K, Norhammar A, Wedel H, Ryden L. Prog-nostic implications of glucose-lowering treatment in patients withacute myocardial infarction and diabetes: experiences from anextended follow-up of the Diabetes Mellitus Insulin-Glucose Infusionin Acute Myocardial Infarction (DIGAMI) 2 Study. Diabetologia2011;54:1308–17.
72. Stevens RJ, Ali R, Bankhead CR, Bethel MA, Cairns BJ, CamisascaRP, et al. Cancer outcomes and all-causemortality in adults allocatedto metformin: systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis ofrandomised clinical trials. Diabetologia 2012;55:2593–603.
73. Bodmer M, Meier C, Krahenbuhl S, Jick SS, Meier CR. Long-termmetformin use is associated with decreased risk of breast cancer.Diabetes Care 2010;33:1304–8.
74. Bosco JL,AntonsenS,SorensenHT, PedersenL, Lash TL.Metforminand incident breast cancer among diabetic women: a population-based case-control study in Denmark. Cancer Epidemiol BiomarkersPrev 2011;20:101–11.
75. Ferrara A, Lewis JD, Quesenberry CP Jr., Peng T, Strom BL, Van DenEeden SK, et al. Cohort study of pioglitazone and cancer incidence inpatients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011;34:923–9.
76. Oliveria SA, Koro CE, Ulcickas Yood M, Sowell M. Cancer incidenceamong patients treatedwith antidiabetic pharmacotherapy. DiabetesMetab Syndrome: Clin Res Rev 2008;2:47–57.
77. Azoulay L, Dell'Aniello S, Gagnon B, Pollak M, Suissa S. Metforminand the incidence of prostate cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:337–44.
78. Lehman DM, Lorenzo C, Hernandez J, Wang CP. Statin use as amoderator of metformin effect on risk for prostate cancer among type2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2012;35:1002–7.
79. Wright JL, Stanford JL. Metformin use and prostate cancer in Cau-casian men: results from a population-based case-control study.Cancer Causes Control 2009;20:1617–22.
80. Donadon V, Balbi M, Ghersetti M, Grazioli S, Perciaccante A, DellaValentina G, et al. Antidiabetic therapy and increased risk of hepa-tocellular carcinoma in chronic liver disease. World J Gastroenterol2009;15:2506–11.
81. Hassan MM, Curley SA, Li D, Kaseb A, Davila M, Abdalla EK, et al.Association of diabetes duration and diabetes treatment with the riskof hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 2010;116:1938–46.
82. BodmerM, Becker C, Meier C, Jick SS,Meier CR. Use of antidiabeticagents and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a case-control analysis. AmJ Gastroenterol 2012;107:620–6.
83. Bodmer M, Becker C, Meier C, Jick SS, Meier CR. Use of met-formin is not associated with a decreased risk of colorectal cancer:a case-control analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2012;21:280–6.
84. Lai SW, Liao KF, Chen PC, Tsai PY, Hsieh DP, Chen CC. Anti-diabetes drugs correlate with decreased risk of lung cancer: apopulation-based observation in Taiwan. Clin Lung Cancer2012;13:143–8.
85. Yang YX, Hennessy S, Lewis JD. Insulin therapy and colorectalcancer risk among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Gastroenterol-ogy 2004;127:1044–50.
86. Li D, Yeung SC, Hassan MM, Konopleva M, Abbruzzese JL. Antidi-abetic therapies affect risk of pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology2009;137:482–8.
87. Smiechowski BB, Azoulay L, Yin H, Pollak MN, Suissa S. The use ofmetformin and the incidence of lung cancer in patients with type 2diabetes. Diabetes Care 2012;36:124–9.
88. BodmerM, Becker C, Jick SS,Meier CR.Metformin does not alter therisk of lung cancer: a case-control analysis. Lung Cancer2012;78:133–7.
89. Hsieh MC, Lee TC, Cheng SM, Tu ST, Yen MH, Tseng CH. Theinfluence of type 2 diabetes and glucose-lowering therapies oncancer risk in the Taiwanese. Exp Diabetes Res 2012;2012:413782.
90. Redaniel MT, Jeffreys M, May MT, Ben-Shlomo Y, Martin RM.Associations of type 2 diabetes and diabetes treatment with breastcancer risk and mortality: a population-based cohort study amongBritish women. Cancer Causes Control 2012;23:1785–95.
91. Liao KF, Lai SW, Li CI, Chen WC. Diabetes mellitus correlates withincreased risk of pancreatic cancer: a population-based cohort studyin Taiwan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:709–13.
92. Chen HP, Shieh JJ, Chang CC, Chen TT, Lin JT, Wu MS, et al.Metformin decreases hepatocellular carcinoma risk in a dose-depen-dent manner: population-based and in vitro studies. Gut 2013;62:606–15.
93. Chaiteerakij R, Yang JD, Harmsen WS, Slettedahl SW, Mettler TA,Fredericksen ZS, et al. Risk factors for intrahepatic cholangiocarci-noma: association between metformin use and reduced cancer risk.Hepatology 2013;57:648–55.
94. Mazzone PJ, Rai H, Beukemann M, Xu M, Jain A, Sasidhar M. Theeffect of metformin and thiazolidinedione use on lung cancer indiabetics. BMC Cancer 2012;12:410.
95. Chlebowski RT, Aragaki AK, McTiernan A. Reply to S. Gandini et al.J Clin Oncol 2013;31:974–5.
Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 Cancer Prevention Research884
Gandini et al.
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
96. Becker C, Jick SS, Meier CR, Bodmer M. Metformin and the risk ofendometrial cancer: a case-control analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2013;129:565–9.
97. Goodwin PJ, Pritchard KI, Ennis M, Clemons M, Graham M, FantusIG. Insulin-lowering effects of metformin in women with early breastcancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2008;8:501–5.
98. Handelsman Y, Leroith D, Bloomgarden ZT, Dagogo-Jack S, EinhornD, Garber AJ, et al. Diabetes and cancer-an AACE/ACE consensusstatement. Endocr Pract 2013;19:675–93.
99. Morris PG, Hudis CA, Giri D, Morrow M, Falcone DJ, Zhou XK, et al.Inflammation and increased aromatase expression occur in thebreast tissue of obese women with breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res2011;4:1021–9.
100. Saenz A, Fernandez-Esteban I, Mataix A, Ausejo M, RoqueM, MoherD. Metformin monotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus. CochraneDatabase Syst Rev 2005;3:CD002966.
101. Tan BX, Yao WX, Ge J, Peng XC, Du XB, Zhang R, et al. Prognosticinfluence of metformin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced
nonsmall cell lung cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes. Cancer2011;117:5103–11.
102. Hirsch HA, Iliopoulos D, Tsichlis PN, Struhl K. Metformin selectivelytargets cancer stem cells, and acts together with chemotherapy toblock tumor growth and prolong remission. Cancer Res 2009;69:7507–11.
103. Goodwin PJ, Thompson AM, Stambolic V. Diabetes, metformin, andbreast cancer: lilac time? J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2812–4.
104. International Diabetes Federation. Global Guideline for Type 2 Dia-betes 2005 [cited 2012]. Available from: http://www.idf.org/global-guideline-type-2-diabetes-2005.
105. Park MH, Kinra S, Ward KJ, White B, Viner RM. Metformin for obesityin children and adolescents: a systematic review. Diabetes Care2009;32:1743–5.
106. Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Walker-Thurmond K, Thun MJ. Over-weight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospect-ively studied cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1625–38.
www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Prev Res; 7(9) September 2014 885
Metformin Meta-Analysis
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424
2014;7:867-885. Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014.Cancer Prev Res Sara Gandini, Matteo Puntoni, Brandy M. Heckman-Stoddard, et al. Meta-analysis Taking into Account Biases and ConfoundersMetformin and Cancer Risk and Mortality: A Systematic Review and
Updated version
10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424doi:
Access the most recent version of this article at:
Material
Supplementary
1
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/suppl/2014/07/14/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424.DCAccess the most recent supplemental material at:
Cited articles
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/7/9/867.full#ref-list-1
This article cites 105 articles, 32 of which you can access for free at:
Citing articles
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/7/9/867.full#related-urls
This article has been cited by 14 HighWire-hosted articles. Access the articles at:
E-mail alerts related to this article or journal.Sign up to receive free email-alerts
Subscriptions
Reprints and
To order reprints of this article or to subscribe to the journal, contact the AACR Publications Department at
Permissions
Rightslink site. Click on "Request Permissions" which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center's (CCC)
.http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/7/9/867To request permission to re-use all or part of this article, use this link
Research. on May 2, 2018. © 2014 American Association for Cancercancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Published OnlineFirst July 1, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0424