Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Metformin and the Incidence of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Laurent Azoulay, Sophie Dell'Aniello, Bruno Gagnon, Michael Pollak and Samy Suissa
Laurent Azoulay
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sophie Dell'Aniello
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruno Gagnon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Pollak
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Samy Suissa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0940 Published February 2011
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Several in vitro studies have indicated that metformin may reduce the risk of prostate cancer; however, epidemiologic studies have been inconclusive. The objective of this study was to determine whether metformin decreases the risk of prostate cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods: A nested case–control analysis was conducted within a population-based cohort from the UK General Practice Research Database. The cohort included patients over the age of 40 who were prescribed a first oral hypoglycemic agent (OHA) between 1988 and 2009. Cases of prostate cancer were matched up to ten controls on year of birth, date of cohort entry, and duration of follow-up. Adjusted rate ratios (RR) were estimated using conditional logistic regression.

Results: The cohort included 63,049 incident users of OHAs, in which 739 cases of prostate cancer were matched to 7,359 controls. Metformin use did not decrease the risk of prostate cancer (RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.99–1.52). In secondary analyses, prostate cancer risk was found to increase as a function of the number of metformin prescriptions received (one to seven prescriptions: RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.80–1.37; seven to eighteen prescriptions: RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.99–1.69; eighteen to thirty-six prescriptions: RR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.04–1.81; more than thirty-six prescriptions: RR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.03–1.89).

Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that metformin does not reduce the risk of prostate cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Impact: The secondary analyses need to be interpreted with caution given the inverse association between type 2 diabetes and prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(2); 337–44. ©2010 AACR.

Introduction

Prostate cancer remains the most frequently diagnosed malignant tumor among men in developed countries (1). As a result, much research has focused on identifying pharmacologic agents that may prevent or delay its occurrence (2–4). These include randomized controlled trials on the 5-α reductase inhibitors, finasteride and dutasteride, which have shown promise (3, 4). Recently, the potential antitumor effect of metformin has become the subject of a number of observational studies (5–14).

Metformin is the most widely used oral hypoglycemic agent in type 2 diabetes, because of its favorable toxicity profile and clinical effectiveness (15). The drug lowers glucose levels mainly by decreasing hepatic gluconeogenesis, which leads to a secondary decline in insulin levels, and also promotes glucose uptake in muscle (16, 17). Several in vitro and in vivo studies have suggested that metformin acts to decrease growth of certain tumors indirectly by reducing circulating insulin levels and/or by direct activation of AMP kinase in transformed cells (18–21). However, there is a paucity of experimental data concerning actions of metformin relative to prostate carcinogenesis, as distinct from proliferation of established tumors.

Several observational studies have investigated the effects of metformin on the incidence and mortality of different cancers (5–12), but only three have focused on prostate cancer (10, 13, 14). Two case–control studies conducted in the general population (which included diabetic and nondiabetic individuals), found that metformin decreased the risk of prostate cancer by 20% (13) and 44% (14). However, type 2 diabetes is associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer (22). Thus, these studies were likely subject to confounding by indication and were not designed to differentiate between the effects of the drug from that of the underlying disease. Finally, a recent cohort study from the United Kingdom did not find any association between metformin and prostate cancer (10). Although this study was conducted within a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes, it may have been limited by its short duration of follow-up (mean of 2 years) and few prostate cancer cases identified.

Thus, in view of the methodologic shortcomings of the previous studies (10, 13, 14), large-scale epidemiologic studies are needed to assess the long-term effects of metformin use on the incidence of prostate cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, the objective of this large population-based study was to determine whether metformin decreases the risk of prostate cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Materials and Methods

Data source

This study was conducted using the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), a primary care database from the United Kingdom (23). The GPRD is the world's largest computerized database of longitudinal records from primary care. It contains the complete primary care medical record for more than 9.4 million people (corresponding to around 7.2% of the UK population) enrolled in more than 520 general practices. The geographic distribution of the practices participating in the GPRD has been shown to be representative of the U.K. population, and age and sex distributions of patients in the GPRD are similar to those reported by the National Population Census (24). Participating general practitioners have been trained to record medical information, including demographic data, medical diagnoses, details of hospital stays, and deaths, using a standardized form. Prescriptions written by GPRD physicians are automatically transcribed into the computer record. In addition, the GPRD collects information regarding lifestyle variables such as body mass index (BMI), and quantitative and qualitative data pertaining to smoking and excessive alcohol use. The Read classification is used to enter medical diagnoses and procedures, and a coded drug dictionary based on the U.K. Prescription Pricing Authority Dictionary is used for recording prescriptions. The recorded information on drug exposures and diagnoses has been validated and proven to be of high quality (25–28). The study protocol was approved by the Scientific and Ethical Advisory Group of the GPRD.

Study population

We identified all male patients who were prescribed at least one antidiabetic agent between January 1, 1988, and December 31, 2009. Cohort entry was defined as the date of the first prescription for an oral antidiabetic agent. To identify incidents users, the cohort was restricted to those who did not receive any antidiabetic agent for at least 1 year prior to cohort entry. The antidiabetic agents considered at cohort entry consisted of sulfonylureas (glyburide, gliclazide, glipizide, glimepiride, glibornuride, gliquidone, tolbutamide, chlorpropamide, tolazamide, or acetohexamide), biguanides (metformin), thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone, rosiglitazone, and troglitazone), meglitinides (repaglinide or nateglinide), DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin), α-glucosidase inhibitors (acarbose), GLP-1 analogues (exenatide), and guar gum. Patients who initiated their treatment with insulin were not included as these were more likely to be patients with type 1 diabetes or patients with advanced type 2 diabetes. However, patients who eventually required insulin during their follow-up were retained in the cohort. We restricted the cohort to patients aged at least 40 years of age at the time of their first prescription. Patients with less than 1 year of up-to-standard medical history in the GPRD prior to cohort entry were excluded, as well as those previously diagnosed with prostate cancer. The latter criterion was necessary to identify incident cases during follow-up. Patients were followed until a first ever diagnosis of prostate cancer, death from any cause, end of registration with the general practice, or end of the study period (December 31, 2009), whichever came first.

Study design

A nested case–control analysis was conducted within the cohort defined above to investigate the association between metformin and the incidence of prostate cancer. This approach was chosen because of the time-varying nature of exposure, the size of the cohort, and the long duration of follow-up (29). Thus, in comparison to a time-dependent survival analysis, a nested case–control analysis is computationally more efficient (30), whereas producing odds ratios that are unbiased estimators of incidence rate ratios (RR), with little or no loss in precision (29–31).

Case–control selection

From our cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes, we identified all incident cases of prostate cancer using a computerized algorithm that included medical codes for prostate cancer, as well as combinations of medical procedures and treatments related to this outcome. The latter consisted of prostate biopsies, surgeries, radiation therapy, and use of androgen deprivation therapy. Overall, 98% of cases had a diagnosis of prostate cancer. The calendar date of each case's prostate cancer diagnosis was defined as their index date. Up to 10 controls were randomly selected from the case's risk set, after matching on year of birth (±1 year), date of cohort entry (±1 year), to simultaneously control for secular trends in diabetes treatments and detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer during the 22-year study period, and duration of follow-up which was a proxy for diabetes duration (time from first oral antidiabetic prescription to index date). By definition, all controls were alive, not previously diagnosed with prostate cancer, and registered with their general practice when they were matched to a given case. All analyses were restricted to cases and matched controls with at least one year of medical history prior to index date. This was to ensure a minimum exposure history for cases and controls.

Exposure assessment

For all cases and controls, we obtained prescriptions for all antidiabetic agents prescribed between cohort entry and index date. We excluded exposures in the year immediately prior to index date to take into account the long latency period of prostate cancer (32), and minimize detection bias, where initiation of a new treatment may lead to an increased intensity of diagnostic investigations, possibly leading to an increased probability of detecting a cancer.

Exposure to metformin was assessed using 2 different approaches. In the first approach, ever exposure to metformin was assessed by determining whether cases and controls received at least one prescription for metformin between cohort entry and the year prior to index date. This approach was considered the primary exposure definition. In the second approach, patients deemed to be ever exposed to metformin were further categorized according to the number of prescriptions received between cohort entry up to 1 year prior to index date. Prescription categories were based on the quartile distribution of use in the controls. Linear trend was evaluated by entering number of prescriptions as a continuous variable in the model and obtaining the corresponding P value.

Statistical analysis

Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate RRs, along with 95% CI. In addition to year of birth, year of cohort entry, and duration of follow-up on which the logistic regression was conditioned, exposure to metformin was adjusted for the following potential confounders measured prior to index date (defined by clinical diagnoses and/or prescriptions): Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c; last measurement prior to index date), excessive alcohol use, obesity (BMI ≥ 30), smoking (ever vs. never), lower urinary tract symptoms (defined as either a diagnosis for benign prostatic hyperplasia or prostatitis and/or prescription for finasteride or dutasteride), previous cancer (other than nonmelanoma skin cancer), and previous use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), antihypertensive drugs, and statins. The models were further adjusted for ever use of other antidiabetic agents (sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, insulins, and other agents). All analyses were conducted with SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute).

Sensitivity analyses

Four sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. In the first sensitivity analysis, the analyses were repeated by excluding the first 2 years prior to index date. The second sensitivity analysis addressed issues related to undiagnosed prostate cancer among selected controls. The impact of this possible misclassification was assessed by excluding controls diagnosed with prostate cancer within one year after being included in a risk set. The third sensitivity assessed the effects of adherence to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on the results. Thus for this analysis, the models were additionally adjusted for PSA screening intensity (defined as the number of tests between cohort entry and one year prior to index date). Finally, the fourth sensitivity analysis was restricted to cases (and matched controls) with at least 5 years of medical follow-up prior to index date.

Results

Of the 113,041 male patients prescribed antidiabetic agents during the study period, 63,049 met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). The mean (SD) age at cohort entry was 62.7 (11.4) years, where the median duration of follow-up was 3.7 years. At cohort entry, the median HbA1c was 8.3% and the median PSA was 1.2 ng/mL. Furthermore, the majority of patients received metformin monotherapy (67%), followed by sulfonylurea monotherapy (30%), whereas less than 3% used other agents or combinations at cohort entry. None of the patients received insulin at cohort entry, as per the exclusion criteria.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Study flow chart.

A total of 975 patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer during 283,720 person-years of follow-up, yielding a mean prostate cancer rate of 343 per 100,000 persons per year (95% CI: 322–365). The analyses were restricted to the 739 cases and 7,359 controls with at least 1 year of available medical history prior to index date. The characteristics of these cases and controls are presented in Table 1. Overall, PSA screening was low, where only 12.4% of controls had at least 1 test between cohort entry and the year prior to index date, reflecting the fact that the United Kingdom has no organized screening program for prostate cancer. As expected, cases had higher median PSA levels than controls at index date (median PSA level 16 vs. 1.7, respectively). However, they were less likely to have used alcohol excessively and being obese, whereas being more likely to have had lower urinary tract symptoms, diagnosed with previous cancer (other than nonmelanoma skin cancer), and have used NSAIDs compared with controls.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of cases and controls

The results of the primary analysis are presented in Table 2. Ever use of metformin was not associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer. When ever users were further categorized according to the number of metformin prescriptions received, a dose–response relationship was observed, with the risk of prostate cancer increasing as a function of the number of prescriptions received (P value for trend: 0.04). Specifically, close to a 40% increased risk was observed in patients prescribed at least 18 prescriptions of metformin (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Ever use of metformin and the risk of prostate cancer

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Risk of prostate cancer according to the number of metformin prescriptions

Sensitivity analyses

The first sensitivity analysis consisted of repeating the primary analysis by excluding exposures in the 2 years immediately prior to index date. This analysis revealed that ever use of metformin was associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (adjusted RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.17–1.88). In the second sensitivity analysis, excluding controls that became cases within 1 year after being included in a risk set did not materially change the point estimate (adjusted RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.00–1.53). In the third sensitivity analysis, additionally adjusting for PSA screening intensity had no effect on the point estimate (RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.99–1.53). A similar conclusion was reached in the fourth sensitivity analysis which was restricted to cases with at least 5 years of medical follow-up prior to index date (adjusted RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.94–1.92).

Discussion

Contrary to our hypothesis, in this large population-based study, metformin use was not associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes. Secondary analyses suggest that its use might be associated with a higher incidence of prostate cancer in a dose-dependent fashion. Several sensitivity analyses were performed, which produced consistent results. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution given the known inverse association between type 2 diabetes and prostate cancer, and the role metformin may have in this association.

These unexpected results contrast with many of the in vitro and in vivo studies conducted to date (18, 19, 21), which suggested an antitumor effect for metformin. However, our results need to be interpreted with caution and do not necessarily indicate that men taking metformin are at an increased risk of prostate cancer compared with the general population. Type 2 diabetes has been shown to be associated with a decreased risk prostate cancer, with longer duration of diabetes associated with greater decrease in prostate cancer risk (22, 33–36). This can be due to the fact that diabetic men have lower PSA levels compared with nondiabetic men, which may affect the detection of this cancer in this population (37–39). Alternatively, this inverse association may indicate that type 2 diabetes, through its metabolic and hormonal changes, alters the baseline risk of prostate cancer. It is therefore possible that by improving the metabolic derangements associated with diabetes (and with decreased prostate cancer risk), metformin may in fact appear to increase prostate cancer risk among diabetics.

A possible explanation for the trend to increased prostate cancer risk associated with increasing use of metformin may relate to effects of the drug on the hormonal profile of patients with type 2 diabetes. There has been speculation that reduced androgen levels represent the specific hormonal alteration associated with diabetes that accounts for reduced prostate cancer risk with this disease (40). In line with this hypothesis, studies have shown that as blood glucose levels increase, androgen levels decrease in diabetic men (41, 42). However, it is unknown whether the relative androgen deficiency associated with diabetes is corrected with metformin use, and whether this also occurs with other antidiabetic treatments. Our results motivate studies of this issue, and of other mechanisms by which metformin exposure might influence prostate cancer risk. Our data do not detract from the rationale for evaluating the possible therapeutic benefit of metformin in men with established prostate cancer, where it may have beneficial effects related to reduction in insulin level (43, 44) and/or to activation of AMP kinase in neoplastic tissue (17), particularly for patients who have already undergone androgen deprivation therapy for advanced disease.

This population-based study has a number of strengths. First, we were able to assemble one of the largest population-based cohorts of male patients with type 2 diabetes, followed for up to 22 years. Second, our exposure definition and covariate information were time dependent as a result of the sampling scheme used to select controls. Third, although residual confounding may be present, all efforts were directed at controlling for diabetes severity, to adequately isolate the effects of metformin from that of the underlying disease. This was achieved by selecting individuals newly treated for diabetes, thereby assembling a homogeneous cohort and minimizing a number of biases related to prevalent user designs (45). In addition, cases and controls were matched on duration of follow-up (time from first prescription for an oral hypoglycemic agent to index date), which has been shown to be a good proxy for disease severity (46). Furthermore, we adjusted for HbA1c, a measure recorded in the GPRD. Fourth, we conducted a number of sensitivity analyses, all of which produced consistent results. Fifth, because exposure is prospectively entered in the GPRD, the possibility of recall bias is eliminated. Finally, the GPRD database contains information on a number of important confounders such as BMI, excessive alcohol use, and smoking. Therefore, we were able to adjust for a number of confounders often absent in administrative databases.

However, this study does have limitations. First, drug information in the GPRD represents prescriptions written by general practitioners. As such, it is unknown whether prescriptions were actually filled at the pharmacy and whether patients fully complied with the treatment regimen. Second, the GPRD lacks information on certain prostate cancer risk factors. These include diet (47), physical activity (48), and race/ethnicity (49). With respect to the latter, the vast majority of individuals living in the United Kingdom are white (92%), whereas only a small percentage are black (2%) or other races/ethnic groups (6%; ref. 50). Furthermore, not all are these risk factors are strongly associated with the outcome, and it is reasonable to assume that they are nondifferentially distributed between metformin and nonmetformin users in this type 2 diabetes cohort. Thus, it is unlikely patients with these risk factors were preferentially prescribed metformin versus other antidiabetic treatments. In addition, inclusion of these variables in previous pharmacoepidemiologic studies on prostate cancer risk had little effect on the point estimate (51). Therefore, we believe that this lack of information did not affect the validity of the results. Third, it would have been of interest to stratify cases according to prostate cancer stage and grade to determine whether metformin differentially increases the risk among different subgroups. However, this information is not available in the GPRD, and thus this needs to be investigated in future studies. Finally, confounding by indication always needs to be considered in nonexperimental designs. However, this bias is generally not a problem if a study focuses on unexpected drug effects such as prostate cancer (52). In addition, unlike 2 of the previous studies that have investigated this question (13, 14), cases and controls both had diabetes, and had the same duration of follow-up, thus minimizing the potential effect of this disease on the observed associations.

To our knowledge, this is largest population-based study to have investigated the effects of metformin on prostate cancer risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. Although our primary analysis suggests no association between metformin and prostate cancer incidence, secondary analyses suggest that metformin might increase the risk in a dose-dependent fashion. These results need to be interpreted with caution and need to be confirmed in other carefully designed studies. A recent study using a similar analytic approach and same database (12), provided evidence for a reduction of breast cancer risk associated with metformin use. Other studies have also suggested a protective effect of metformin on other cancer sites (5, 7–11). It is plausible that prostate cancer risk, which is atypical in being negatively rather than positively associated with type 2 diabetes, may also be atypical with respect to its relationship to metformin use. Further studies to examine these issues are in progress.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Grant Support

This study was supported by a grant from the Prostate Cancer Research Foundation of Canada.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Acknowledgments

L. Azoulay and B. Gagnon are recipients of “Chercheur-Boursier” awards, from the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (FRSQ). M. Pollak is the recipient of a “Chercheur Nationale” award from FRSQ and holds the Alexander Goldfarb Cancer Research Chair at McGill University. S. Suissa is the recipient of a Distinguished Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

  • Received September 1, 2010.
  • Revision received November 22, 2010.
  • Accepted December 6, 2010.
  • ©2010 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jemal A,
    2. Siegel R,
    3. Xu J,
    4. Ward E
    . Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:277–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Fitzpatrick JM,
    2. Schulman C,
    3. Zlotta AR,
    4. Schroder FH
    . Prostate cancer: a serious disease suitable for prevention. BJU Int 2009;103:864–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Thompson IM,
    2. Goodman PJ,
    3. Tangen CM,
    4. Lucia MS,
    5. Miller GJ,
    6. Ford LG,
    7. et al.
    The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;349:215–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Andriole GL,
    2. Bostwick DG,
    3. Brawley OW,
    4. Gomella LG,
    5. Marberger M,
    6. Montorsi F,
    7. et al.
    Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362: 1192–202.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Evans JM,
    2. Donnelly LA,
    3. Emslie-Smith AM,
    4. Alessi DR,
    5. Morris AD
    . Metformin and reduced risk of cancer in diabetic patients. BMJ 2005;330:1304–5.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Bowker SL,
    2. Majumdar SR,
    3. Veugelers P,
    4. Johnson JA
    . Increased cancer-related mortality for patients with type 2 diabetes who use sulfonylureas or insulin. Diabetes Care 2006;29:254–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Libby G,
    2. Donnelly LA,
    3. Donnan PT,
    4. Alessi DR,
    5. Morris AD,
    6. Evans JM,
    7. et al.
    New users of metformin are at low risk of incident cancer: a cohort study among people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1620–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Landman GW,
    2. Kleefstra N,
    3. van Hateren KJ,
    4. Groenier KH,
    5. Gans RO,
    6. Bilo HJ,
    7. et al.
    Metformin associated with lower cancer mortality in type 2 diabetes: ZODIAC-16. Diabetes Care 2010;33:322–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Bowker SL,
    2. Yasui Y,
    3. Veugelers P,
    4. Johnson JA
    . Glucose-lowering agents and cancer mortality rates in type 2 diabetes: assessing effects of time-varying exposure. Diabetologia 2010;53:1631–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Currie CJ,
    2. Poole CD,
    3. Gale EA
    . The influence of glucose-lowering therapies on cancer risk in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2009;52:1766–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Li D,
    2. Yeung SC,
    3. Hassan MM,
    4. Konopleva M,
    5. Abbruzzese JL
    . Antidiabetic therapies affect risk of pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 2009;137:482–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Bodmer M,
    2. Meier C,
    3. Krahenbuhl S,
    4. Jick SS,
    5. Meier CR,
    6. et al.
    Long-term metformin use is associated with decreased risk of breast cancer. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1304–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Murtola TJ,
    2. Tammela TL,
    3. Lahtela J,
    4. Auvinen A
    . Antidiabetic medication and prostate cancer risk: a population-based case-control study. Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:925–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Wright JL,
    2. Stanford JL
    . Metformin use and prostate cancer in Caucasian men: results from a population-based case-control study. Cancer Causes Control 2009;20:1617–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Alexander GC,
    2. Sehgal NL,
    3. Moloney RM,
    4. Stafford RS
    . National trends in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, 1994-2007. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:2088–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Shaw RJ,
    2. Lamia KA,
    3. Vasquez D,
    4. Koo SH,
    5. Bardeesy N,
    6. Depinho RA,
    7. et al.
    The kinase LKB1 mediates glucose homeostasis in liver and therapeutic effects of metformin. Science 2005;310:1642–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Pollak M
    . Insulin and insulin-like growth factor signalling in neoplasia. Nat Rev Cancer 2008;8:915–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Zakikhani M,
    2. Dowling RJ,
    3. Sonenberg N,
    4. Pollak MN
    . The effects of adiponectin and metformin on prostate and colon neoplasia involve activation of AMP-activated protein kinase. Cancer Prev Res 2008;1:369–75.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Ben SI,
    2. Laurent K,
    3. Loubat A,
    4. Giorgetti-Peraldi S,
    5. Colosetti P,
    6. Auberger P,
    7. et al.
    The antidiabetic drug metformin exerts an antitumoral effect in vitro and in vivo through a decrease of cyclin D1 level. Oncogene 2008;27:3576–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Huang X,
    2. Wullschleger S,
    3. Shpiro N,
    4. McGuire VA,
    5. Sakamoto K,
    6. Woods YL,
    7. et al.
    Important role of the LKB1-AMPK pathway in suppressing tumorigenesis in PTEN-deficient mice. Biochem J 2008;412:211–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Wang W,
    2. Guan KL
    . AMP-activated protein kinase and cancer. Acta Physiol 2009;196:55–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kasper JS,
    2. Liu Y,
    3. Giovannucci E
    . Diabetes mellitus and risk of prostate cancer in the health professionals follow-up study. Int J Cancer 2009;124:1398–403.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Walley T,
    2. Mantgani A
    . The UK General Practice Research Database. Lancet 1997;350:1097–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Garcia Rodriguez LA,
    2. Perez GS
    . Use of the UK General Practice Research Database for pharmacoepidemiology. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998;45:419–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Jick H,
    2. Jick SS,
    3. Derby LE
    . Validation of information recorded on general practitioner based computerised data resource in the United Kingdom. BMJ 1991;302:766–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Lawrenson R,
    2. Williams T,
    3. Farmer R
    . Clinical information for research; the use of general practice databases. J Public Health Med 1999;21:299–304.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Lawrenson R,
    2. Todd JC,
    3. Leydon GM,
    4. Williams TJ,
    5. Farmer RD
    . Validation of the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in general practice database studies. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000;49:591–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Jick SS,
    2. Kaye JA,
    3. Vasilakis-Scaramozza C,
    4. Garcia Rodriguez LA,
    5. Ruigomez A,
    6. Meier CR,
    7. et al.
    Validity of the general practice research database. Pharmacotherapy 2003;23:686–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Strom B
    1. Suissa S
    . Novel approaches to pharmacoepidemiology study design and statistical analysis. In: Strom B, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons; 2005. p. 811–29.
  30. 30.↵
    1. Essebag V,
    2. Platt RW,
    3. Abrahamowicz M,
    4. Pilote L
    . Comparison of nested case-control and survival analysis methodologies for analysis of time-dependent exposure. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Essebag V,
    2. Genest J Jr,
    3. Suissa S,
    4. Pilote L
    . The nested case-control study in cardiology. Am Heart J 2003;146:581–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Bostwick DG,
    2. Burke HB,
    3. Djakiew D,
    4. Euling S,
    5. Ho SM,
    6. Landolph J,
    7. et al.
    Human prostate cancer risk factors. Cancer 2004;101:2371–490.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Giovannucci E,
    2. Rimm EB,
    3. Stampfer MJ,
    4. Colditz GA,
    5. Willett WC
    . Diabetes mellitus and risk of prostate cancer (United States). Cancer Causes Control 1998;9:3–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Zhu K,
    2. Lee IM,
    3. Sesso HD,
    4. Buring JE,
    5. Levine RS,
    6. Gaziano JM,
    7. et al.
    History of diabetes mellitus and risk of prostate cancer in physicians. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:978–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Rodriguez C,
    2. Patel AV,
    3. Mondul AM,
    4. Jacobs EJ,
    5. Thun MJ,
    6. Calle EE,
    7. et al.
    Diabetes and risk of prostate cancer in a prospective cohort of US men. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:147–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Calton BA,
    2. Chang SC,
    3. Wright ME,
    4. Kipnis V,
    5. Lawson K,
    6. Thompson FE,
    7. et al.
    History of diabetes mellitus and subsequent prostate cancer risk in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Cancer Causes Control 2007;18:493–503.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Werny DM,
    2. Saraiya M,
    3. Gregg EW
    . Prostate-specific antigen values in diabetic and nondiabetic US men, 2001-2002. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:978–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Muller H,
    2. Raum E,
    3. Rothenbacher D,
    4. Stegmaier C,
    5. Brenner H
    . Association of diabetes and body mass index with levels of prostate-specific antigen: implications for correction of prostate-specific antigen cutoff values? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:1350–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Waters KM,
    2. Henderson BE,
    3. Stram DO,
    4. Wan P,
    5. Kolonel LN,
    6. Haiman CA,
    7. et al.
    Association of diabetes with prostate cancer risk in the multiethnic cohort. Am J Epidemiol 2009;169:937–45.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Atchison EA,
    2. Gridley G,
    3. Carreon JD,
    4. Leitzmann MF,
    5. McGlynn KA
    . Risk of cancer in a large cohort of U.S. veterans with diabetes. Int J Cancer 2011;128:635–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Barrett-Connor E,
    2. Khaw KT,
    3. Yen SS
    . Endogenous sex hormone levels in older adult men with diabetes mellitus. Am J Epidemiol 1990;132:895–901.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Barrett-Connor E
    . Lower endogenous androgen levels and dyslipidemia in men with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:807–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Cox ME,
    2. Gleave ME,
    3. Zakikhani M,
    4. Bell RH,
    5. Piura E,
    6. Vickers E,
    7. et al.
    Insulin receptor expression by human prostate cancers. Prostate 2009;69:33–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Ma J,
    2. Li H,
    3. Giovannucci E,
    4. Mucci L,
    5. Qiu W,
    6. Nguyen PL,
    7. et al.
    Prediagnostic body-mass index, plasma C-peptide concentration, and prostate cancer-specific mortality in men with prostate cancer: a long-term survival analysis. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:1039–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Ray WA
    . Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:915–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Benoit SR,
    2. Fleming R,
    3. Philis-Tsimikas A,
    4. Ji M
    . Predictors of glycemic control among patients with Type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal study. BMC Public Health 2005;5:36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Kristal AR,
    2. Arnold KB,
    3. Neuhouser ML,
    4. Goodman P,
    5. Platz EA,
    6. Albanes D,
    7. et al.
    Diet, supplement use, and prostate cancer risk: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. Am J Epidemiol 2010;172:566–77.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Friedenreich CM,
    2. McGregor SE,
    3. Courneya KS,
    4. Angyalfi SJ,
    5. Elliott FG
    . Case-control study of lifetime total physical activity and prostate cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:740–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Jones BA,
    2. Liu WL,
    3. Araujo AB,
    4. Kasl SV,
    5. Silvera SN,
    6. Soler-Vila H,
    7. et al.
    Explaining the race difference in prostate cancer stage at diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:2825–34.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. United Kingdom Census 2001
    . United Kingdom population by ethnic group. Office for National Statistics, Newport, UK; 2001.
  51. 51.↵
    1. Felmeden DC,
    2. Lip GY
    . Antihypertensive therapy and cancer risk. Drug Saf 2001;24:727–39.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Strom BL
    1. Strom BL,
    2. Melmon K
    . The use of pharmacoepidemiology to study beneficial drug effects. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd ed. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons; 1994. p. 611–28.
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 20 (2)
February 2011
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Metformin and the Incidence of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Metformin and the Incidence of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
Laurent Azoulay, Sophie Dell'Aniello, Bruno Gagnon, Michael Pollak and Samy Suissa
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev February 1 2011 (20) (2) 337-344; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0940

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Metformin and the Incidence of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
Laurent Azoulay, Sophie Dell'Aniello, Bruno Gagnon, Michael Pollak and Samy Suissa
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev February 1 2011 (20) (2) 337-344; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0940
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Grant Support
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Urinary Melatonin in Relation to Breast Cancer Risk
  • Endometrial Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Cross-Cancer GWAS
  • Risk Factors of Subsequent CNS Tumor after Pediatric Cancer
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement