Next Article in Journal
The Role of Disordered Regions in Orchestrating the Properties of Multidomain Proteins: The SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein and Its Interaction with Enoxaparin
Next Article in Special Issue
Radiobiological Aspects of FLASH Radiotherapy
Previous Article in Journal
Oviductal Extracellular Vesicles Enhance Porcine In Vitro Embryo Development by Modulating the Embryonic Transcriptome
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hyperthermia Enhances Efficacy of Chemotherapeutic Agents in Pancreatic Cancer Cell Lines
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomolecules
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/biom12091301
biomolecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Association of Metformin, Other Antidiabetic Medications and Statins on the Prognosis of Rectal Cancer in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study

by
Sami Erkinantti
1,*,
Ari Hautakoski
1,2,
Reijo Sund
3,
Martti Arffman
4,
Elina Urpilainen
1,2,
Ulla Puistola
1,2,
Esa Läärä
5,
Arja Jukkola
6 and
Peeter Karihtala
7
1
Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, P.O. Box 8000, 90014 Oulu, Finland
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, PEDEGO Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu and University Hospital of Oulu, P.O. Box 23, 90029 Oulu, Finland
3
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland
4
Department of Public Health and Welfare Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, 00271 Helsinki, Finland
5
Research Unit of Mathematical Sciences, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 3000, 90014 Oulu, Finland
6
Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Tampere University Hospital, Cancer Center Tampere, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, P.O. Box 2000, 33521 Tampere, Finland
7
Department of Oncology, Helsinki University Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Center and University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 180, 00029 Helsinki, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomolecules 2022, 12(9), 1301; https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12091301
Submission received: 31 May 2022 / Revised: 31 August 2022 / Accepted: 8 September 2022 / Published: 15 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Therapeutic Approaches in Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Step toward the Personalized Medicine)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Metformin and statin use have been associated with an improved prognosis for colorectal cancer in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Data regarding rectal cancer (RC) have been inconclusive; therefore, we investigated the issue with high-quality data and a robust study design. We identified 1271 eligible patients with T2D and incident RC between 1998 and 2011 from the Diabetes in Finland (FinDM) database. Cox models were fitted for cause-specific mortality rates to obtain adjusted estimates of the hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in relation to use of antidiabetic medication (ADM) and statins before the RC diagnosis and for post-diagnostic use in a time-dependent exposure manner. No sufficient evidence was found for either pre- or post-diagnostic metformin use and RC mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67–1.38, and 0.70, 95% CI 0.45–1.10, respectively) when compared to other oral ADMs. Both pre- and post-diagnostic statin use appeared to be inversely associated with mortality from RC (HR 0.77 95% CI 0.63–0.94, and 0.57, 95% CI 0.42–0.78, respectively). Our study was inconclusive as to the association of metformin use with the prognosis of RC, but statin use was found to predict reduced mortality, both from RC and from other causes of death in persons with T2D.

1. Introduction

Rectal cancers (RC) are the eighth most common cancers diagnosed globally, with the tenth highest mortality [1]. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is also a growing global concern, with over 450 million cases occurring in 2017 [2]. T2D has been associated with RC incidence [3] and mortality [4]. Metformin is a first-line T2D medication with observed preclinical anticancer effects [5]. The use of metformin in patients with T2D has been associated with improved colorectal cancer (CRC) survival [6,7,8] in some meta-analyses, although the findings have been variable [9].
Statins are a lipid-lowering medication commonly used by persons with T2D to decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease [10]. Statin use has been associated with a small survival benefit in patients with T2D and CRC [11], increasing with cumulative exposure. There is also preclinical evidence of the antitumor effects of statins in vitro [12,13].
There are fundamental differences in the pathogenesis and biology of RCs and cancers of the colon (CC) [14,15,16]. Therefore, we decided to focus solely on RCs, and to our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to do so.
This study was a retrospective national cohort study that included Finnish persons with T2D. We examined the association of RC prognosis with both pre- and post-diagnostic use of metformin, other antidiabetic medications, and statins in RC patients with T2D by using a robust study design and data from multiple high-quality Finnish registers. The aim was to obtain further evidence concerning the hypothesized association between metformin and statins with the prognosis of RC.

2. Materials and Methods

We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for observational studies in writing this article [17]. Patient data were obtained from the Diabetes in Finland (FinDM) database [18], which has been set up for epidemiological monitoring of diabetes in Finland. The database combines data from multiple national registers, including the Care Register for Health and the Hospital Discharge Register from the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, the Special Reimbursement Register and the Prescription Database from the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, and the Cause of Death Register from Statistics Finland. These registers have enabled an accurate assessment of the purchased drugs since 1994. FinDM classifies the diagnosis of diabetes using either hospital records (since 1969 for inpatients, and since 1998 for outpatients) or on entitlement for elevated reimbursement for antidiabetic medication (ADM) since 1964, or on the purchase of reimbursed ADM. Categorization between type 1 diabetes and T2D is based on the classification of the FinDM database. FinDM defines diabetes type by combining multiple data sources, including medication reimbursement and diagnosis data from comprehensive hospital and primary care visit registers [18]. Persons with gestational or unspecifiable diabetes were excluded. There was a significant group of persons classified as type 2 diabetics in the age group 1–40 years, and we decided to exclude them to eliminate the risk of bias from misclassification. FinDM has been confirmed to have good coverage in a study that compared it to a local register in Southern Finland [19]. The linkage of data is based on a unique personal identification code given at birth or when included in the Finnish social security system, rendering individuals easily trackable.
The data regarding cancer cases were obtained from the Finnish Cancer Registry (FCR) and linked with data from the FinDM. The FCR contains data from almost all cancer cases diagnosed in Finland since 1953, including the date of diagnosis, histology, and morphology, with an estimated 96% [20] completeness of the records for solid tumors. The FCR receives follow-up data from registers maintained by Statistics Finland, including dates and causes of deaths. Experts at the FCR compare these data to all available clinical data concerning the patient’s cancer case and judge whether the deaths are cancer related. Our analysis of cause specificity is based on this judgment.
The cohort selection is presented in the flowchart in Figure 1. There were 3448 persons diagnosed with T2D and RC. Persons with T2D diagnosed prior to their 40th birthday were excluded to minimize the inclusion of T1D cases mislabeled as T2D due to T1D being likelier for persons under 40 years, and due to a high proportion of hereditary cancer syndromes in this age group. RC cases diagnosed before 1998 or after 2011 were excluded, as were persons with another previous cancer diagnosis except non-melanoma skin cancers based on the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O-3) codes C44 plus M-8090-8095/3, M-8097-8098/3, M-8102/3 and M-8110/3, persons with T2D diagnosed <180 days before the RC diagnosis, and RC cases diagnosed at autopsy. The cases were followed until the end of 2013. The final cohort contained 1271 individuals. RC was defined as a diagnosis by the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes C19 (malignant neoplasm of rectosigmoid junction) and C20 (malignant neoplasm of rectum), ICD-O-3 codes C19.9 and C20.9, and morphology code M-8140/3. The decision to include both C19 and C20 under the definition of RC was based on the classification of RC by the GLOBOCAN Database [21] and the Finnish Cancer Registry.
Persons in the cohort were divided into five mutually exclusive groups according to their ADM usage during the three years preceding the diagnosis of RC: (1) metformin only, (2) other oral ADM only, (3) metformin and other oral ADM, (4) insulin, and (5) no history of regular ADM use. Statin use was classified independently of the use of ADM into users and non-users. Cumulative medication use was assessed as defined daily doses (DDD) for three years prior to the cancer diagnosis. The criterion for oral ADM and statin usage was the purchase of the medication for at least 180 days or longer during the three years prior to the cancer diagnosis. Purchase periods of ADM or statin less than 180 days prior to the diagnosis placed the person in the group of “no history of regular ADM use” or “statin non-user”, respectively. At least one purchase of insulin was sufficient to categorize a patient as belonging to the insulin user group.
The FCR records the stage of cancer into the following classes: Localized, regionally spread, distantly spread, and unknown. In our study, we have relabeled “localized” and “regionally spread” cancers as “non-metastasized” and those with distant spread as “metastasized” [20]. Non-metastasized cases include tumors that have grown only locally or to adjacent tissues but have not metastasized to regional or distant lymph nodes (Stages 0, IA, IIA, IIB, IIIB, and TNM Tis-4N0M0) [22]. Advanced cases include tumors that have metastasized to regional or distant lymph nodes, with, or without local advancement to nearby tissues, corresponding to stage and TNM T1-4N0-3M0-1 with N and/or M ≥ 1. Unknown cases have no reliable staging information available.

3. Statistical Methods

We analyzed mortality from RC and from other causes of death, respectively, in relation both to the medications used before cancer diagnosis and post-diagnostic medications. In the former analyses, the follow-up started on the date of RC diagnosis and ended on the date of death, emigration, or closing of the follow-up on 31 December 2013. The Aalen–Johansen estimator of the cumulative incidence function for competing risks was used to describe cumulative mortality from RC and from other causes of death in the different pre-diagnostic ADM groups, as well as among users and non-users of statins. The cause-specific mortality rates were analyzed by Cox proportional hazard models to obtain estimated hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusting for the confounding effects of age, year, duration of diabetes, and RC stage. A possible nonlinear dose-dependent effect of the medications was assessed by replacing the medication group indicators in the Cox models with cubic spline terms for the total amount of DDDs per medication group.
The association between post-diagnostic medication use and mortality from RC and other causes of death was analyzed using time-dependent Cox regression models. In these analyses, we only included those patients from the original cohort who were still alive and under follow-up on the date when one year had passed since cancer diagnosis. The follow-up also started on that date. Exposure to medication was recorded monthly, starting from the date of RC diagnosis. Exposure to metformin, other oral ADMs, and statins was each represented as a time-dependent binary indicator variable (use vs. non-use) according to the following criteria for being exposed to a given medication at any month: an exposure period of at least 180 days after RC diagnosis was required, and exposure was defined to end 270 days after the final purchase of medication. Regarding insulin, two purchases were enough for the person to be categorized as an “insulin user” until the end of the follow-up. These time intervals were partly based on the Finnish medical reimbursement system, which encourages three-month medication purchases. The following variables were included in the model: statin, metformin, other oral ADM, insulin use, sex, stage, diabetes duration, current age, and year of diagnosis. As we were specifically interested in the contrast between metformin use and the use of other oral ADMs, we also derived from the pertinent models the point estimates of the HR (with 95% CIs) associated with this contrast.
All statistical analyses were performed with the R environment (version 4.1.2, R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/, accessed on 20 September 2020) [23]. The functions in the “survival” package of R functions were used to compute the Aalen–Johansen estimators of cumulative mortality by cause to fit the Cox models and to diagnose possible deviations from the underlying model’s assumptions [23,24]. Missing data were encountered only concerning the spread of the cancer, and we labeled these cases “unknown” spread.

4. Results

Information regarding the study cohort is presented in Table 1.
The total number of RC cases was 1271, and the median follow-up time was 2.8 years. Most RCs were in the age groups of 70–74 years and 75–79 years, with a median age at RC diagnosis of 74, reflecting the disease burden on the elderly population. There were more male patients in the cohort, and there were more metformin and statin users in the male group than in the female group.
Metformin users were slightly younger, had shorter median diabetes duration, and had metastasized disease more often when compared to the reference group of other oral ADM users. Insulin users had the longest median diabetes duration and the highest proportion of metastasized RC of all five study groups.
Statin users and non-users had a similar median age at RC diagnosis and comparable median diabetes duration. There was a slightly higher proportion of metastasized RCs in the statin users than in the non-users.
The most used pre-diagnostic oral ADMs, other than metformin, were sulphonylureas, comprising 93% of the other oral ADM group (Supplementary Table S1). The most frequently used statins in the cohort were simvastatin (81% of users) and atorvastatin (38% of statin users) (Supplementary Table S2).
Cumulative mortality from RC and other causes of pre-diagnostic use are presented in Figure 2. Metformin users had a less steep mortality curve when compared to the other ADM groups. A clear difference between statin users and non-users can be observed for both causes.
The total number of deaths from different causes and HR estimates with 95% CIs are presented in Table 2.
There was no evidence for an association between pre-diagnostic metformin use and RC mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67–1.38) when compared to use of other oral ADM. For other causes of death, the mortality in metformin users was found to be lower than in users of other oral ADM, but not conclusively so (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.40–1.09). Statin use was found to be associated with reduced mortality from RC and from other causes (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64–0.94, and 0.68, 95% CI 0.53–0.88). No consistent trend was observed in the DDD analysis for an association between the cumulative use of any medication and RC mortality (Figure 3).
Of the original cohort, 867 patients survived the first year after the diagnosis of RC. The analyses of mortality in relation to use of post-diagnostic medications comprised these patients only, their follow-up starting one year after cancer diagnosis. The results concerning post-diagnostic use vs. non-use of the medications of interest with mortality from RC and from other causes of death are reported in Table 3. The contrast between the use of metformin and that of other oral ADMs, although pointing in the same direction as with pre-diagnostic use, had wider error margins and were inconclusive for mortality from both RC (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.45–1.10) and other causes of death (HR 0.88; 0.55–1.41). For post-diagnostic statin use, evidence was found for an association with reduced RC mortality (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.42–0.78) and mortality from other causes (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38–0.71), which is concordant with that for pre-diagnostic use. When analyzing the mortality from the two causes in relation to cumulative use of any of the medications, no evidence for any monotonic trend could be found (data not shown).

5. Discussion

In this study, which focused on survival from RC among patients with preexisting T2D, statin use was observed to have an inverse association with mortality from RC and other causes. There was no sufficient evidence of an association between the studied ADMs and RC mortality.
Several epidemiological meta-analyses [7,8,25,26] and one additional study not included in the previously mentioned meta-analyses [27] have associated metformin use in patients with T2D and CRC with improved overall and disease-specific mortality. There has been an association in T2D patients who use metformin and who have undergone radical RC resection and subsequent chemoradiotherapy with either improved pathologic complete response and cancer-specific mortality [28,29] or no difference in the outcomes [30,31], when compared to metformin non-user patients with T2D. Our epidemiological study was one of the first to focus solely on RC in the general diabetic population, and we did not find convincing evidence about the association between metformin use, either pre-diagnostic or post-diagnostic, and reduced mortality from RC. A similar result was observed in a previous study analyzing post-diagnostic use and RC mortality [32]. Additionally, a trend toward lower association, especially in women, has been reported [33], and higher metformin adherence has been previously associated with lower RC mortality when compared to low adherence [34]. A single study using a similar methodology to ours found no association between post-diagnostic metformin use and RC mortality [35].
The mechanism of action for metformin is not completely understood, but it involves AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) activation and the inhibition of mitochondrial respiration [36]. Inhibition of mitochondrial respiration might occur only with suprapharmacological doses used in vitro [37,38]. Metformin has both direct and indirect anticancer effects in preclinical studies [39]. Direct effects include AMPK-dependent cell-cycle arrest, stabilization of p53, and inhibition of the mammalian target of the rapamycin (mTOR) pathway. Indirect effects include reduced blood glucose levels, improved insulin status, and a decrease in proinflammatory cytokines.
Hyperinsulinemia is present in T2D due to insulin resistance, and supraphysiological levels are hypothesized to amplify insulin’s mitogenic effect, both through direct receptor activation and an increase in IGF-1 signaling [40], promoting the proliferation of malignant cells. There are two forms of the insulin receptor (INSR), A and B, of which INSR-A handles the mitogenic effects of insulin, while INSR-B handles glucose uptake [41]. INSR-A also binds IGFs and proinsulin, and it is overexpressed in various malignant cells. Its activation enhances malignant transformation by promoting mitogenic signaling, a possible mechanism for the link between various cancers and hyperinsulinemia. Elevated blood glucose levels have been associated with an increased risk for both incident and fatal cancer dose-dependently, although the ultimate etiological factor (dyslipidemia, insulin resistance and/or increased proinflammatory cytokines) is still unclear [41]. Exogenous insulin therapy with synthetic insulin analogs may lead to circulating insulin levels of up to 10–50 times higher [40] than physiologic levels. Previous studies have found mixed results between the association of disease-specific mortality and insulin use in patients with T2D and CRC [42,43]. Our results are in line with the former, even though persons in the insulin users group had the longest median duration of diabetes and the highest proportion of metastasized RCs.
The other most used oral ADM group in our study was sulphonylureas, which induces glucose-independent insulin release from pancreatic B-cells [44], thus possibly leading to hyperinsulinemia. There has been no association between either ever-use [44] or post-diagnostic use [35] of sulphonylureas and disease-specific mortality from RC in patients with T2D. We used other oral ADM users as a reference group to eliminate bias that would be introduced by comparing medication users to people who do not use any medications, when calculating pre-diagnostic medication use. There were a large number of other oral ADM medication groups, each with a relatively small number of patients. Therefore, we considered it not useful to employ such a detailed categorization in our statistical analysis.
Statin use was observed to be associated with an improved prognosis of RC and reduced mortality from other causes, both for pre- and post-diagnostic use. These findings are similar to those of three previous epidemiological studies conducted in patients with CRC and T2D [11,26,45]. Studies concerning RC and statin use in nondiabetics have linked statin use with reduced postoperative mortality [46], improved response to neoadjuvant therapy [47,48] and improved overall and disease-specific survival [49]. A recent meta-analysis associated pre-diagnostic statin use with reduced CRC mortality and reduced overall recurrence, but not with overall progression-free survival, regardless of subsite [50]. Multiple ongoing clinical trials have investigated statin use as an adjunct to neoadjuvant therapy [51,52]. We compared statin users to non-users because no comparable treatment group of persons taking other lipid-lowering medications was available. This is a possible source of healthy user bias.
In vitro studies of statins have found that they inhibit the cell cycle, induce cancer cell apoptosis through intrinsic and extrinsic pathways, and inhibit cholesterol synthesis [12]. Cancer cells have a high requirement for cholesterol and isoprenoids; therefore, this could be the mechanism behind the beneficial effect of statins, as seen in clinical and epidemiological studies. Hydrophilic statins accumulate mainly in the liver, whereas hydrophobic statins also penetrate extrahepatic tissues and may therefore have a greater anticancer effect. Most persons in our cohort used hydrophobic statins.
Limitations of our study include a lack of information regarding body mass index and glycated hemoglobin, which indicate the severity of T2D and can influence prognosis. We based our study on register data that had limited information about socioeconomic status, lifestyle factors, and other simultaneous diseases, leaving the possibility of confounding due to unmeasured factors. The register data had no information about the medication use of patients in long-term institutionalized or hospital care, although this forms only a small portion of persons with T2D. Because the classification of cancer stage based on data from the Finnish Cancer Registry was relatively crude, residual confounding by stage might be present if persons using only metformin on average had an earlier stage disease compared to those using other oral ADM and/or insulin. The database also contains no reliable data about the treatment modalities for the cancer cases and no data on clinical complications. All these shortcomings may contribute to confounding by indication of an unknown amount to the results concerning the effects of post-diagnostic medications, especially since it is possible that the use of ADMs and/or statins is associated with those variables that are prognostically important but for which data are missing. Our median follow-up time was relatively short due to the high proportion of metastasized RCs in our cohort. However, the proportion of metastasized cases and the follow-up time were similar in another Finnish study concerning diabetes and CRC [27].
The strengths of this study are its large cohort from high-quality registers and a robust study design, including post-diagnostic medication use. The data from Finnish registers are comprehensive, high quality, and reliable [20,53,54], thus providing accurate information regarding medication use, cause of death, and individual identification. We had a relevant number of metformin and statin users for the statistical analysis, and we had DDD data to examine the association between the amount of medication used and HR.

6. Conclusions

We found evidence for the beneficial prognostic association of pre- and post-diagnostic statin use in RC patients with T2D, but no evidence for an association between any of our studied ADM and RC survival was found.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biom12091301/s1, Table S1: Other oral ADM subgroups; Table S2: Statin subgroups.

Author Contributions

All authors were responsible for the conceptualization, review, and editing of the manuscript. Methodology, E.L., A.H. and R.S.; formal analysis, A.H.; data curation/resources, M.A.; writing original draft preparation, S.E.; visualization, A.H.; project administration and funding acquisition, P.K., U.P., E.L., A.H., A.J. and E.U. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Society of Jane and Aatos Erkko [T59127], Finnish Government Research Funds allocated to the University Hospital of Oulu [K77729], and personal funding from the University of Oulu Scholarship Foundation, The Finnish Oncology Society, and the Orion Research Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to no separate ethic approval or informed consent being needed according to Finnish legislation because we utilised only administrative registers. FinDM -database has obtained an Ethical approval from the research ethics committee of the National Institute of Health and Welfare (30th of January 2014, meeting 1/2014, § 609). Permission to use data was obtained from the maintainers of the original registers (National Institute of Health and Welfare, Social Insurance Institution and Statistics Finland). Data received by the research group were anonymized such that the PICs were converted into unified codes. The data of each individual were handled according to Finnish data-protection legislation.

Informed Consent Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to no separate ethic approval or informed consent being needed according to Finnish legislation because we utilised only administrative registers.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available for ethical reasons.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors claim no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. James, S.L.; Abate, D.; Abate, K.H.; Abay, S.M.; Abbafati, C.; Abbasi, N.; Abbastabar, H.; Abd-Allah, F.; Abdela, J.; Abdelalim, A. Global, Regional, and National Incidence, Prevalence, and Years Lived with Disability for 354 Diseases and Injuries for 195 Countries and Territories, 1990–2017: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018, 392, 1789–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Deng, L.; Gui, Z.; Zhao, L.; Wang, J.; Shen, L. Diabetes Mellitus and the Incidence of Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2012, 57, 1576–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mills, K.; Bellows, C.; Hoffman, A.; Kelly, T.; Gagliardi, G. Diabetes Mellitus and Colorectal Cancer Prognosis: A Meta-Analysis. Dis. Colon Rectum 2013, 56, 1304–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Schulten, H. Pleiotropic Effects of Metformin on Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. He, X.; Su, T.; Si, J.; Sun, L. Metformin Is Associated with Slightly Reduced Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Moderate Survival Benefits in Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis. Medicine 2016, 95, e2749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tian, S.; Lei, H.; Liu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Dong, W. The Association between Metformin Use and Colorectal Cancer Survival among Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Chronic Dis. Transl. Med. 2017, 3, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Meng., F.; Song, L.; Wang, W. Metformin Improves Overall Survival of Colorectal Cancer Patients with Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis. J. Diabetes Res. 2017, 5063239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gandini, S.; Puntoni, M.; Heckman-Stoddard, B.M.; Dunn, B.K.; Ford, L.; De Censi, A.; Szabo, E. Metformin and Cancer Risk and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Taking into Account Biases and Confounders. Cancer Prev. Res. 2014, 7, 867–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vehko, T.; Sund, R.; Arffman, M.; Manderbacka, K.; Ilanne-Parikka, P.; Keskimäki, I. Monitoring the Use of Lipid-Lowering Medication Among Persons with Newly Diagnosed Diabetes: A Nationwide Register-Based Study. BMJ Open 2013, 3, e003414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Zanders, M.M.J.; van Herk-Sukel, M.P.P.; Vissers, P.A.J.; Herings, R.M.C.; Haak, H.R.; van de Poll-Franse, L.V. Are Metformin, Statin and Aspirin Use Still Associated with Overall Mortality Among Colorectal Cancer Patients with Diabetes If Adjusted for One Another? Br. J. Cancer 2015, 113, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Matusewicz, L.; Meissner, J.; Toporkiewicz, M.; Sikorski, A. The Effect of Statins on Cancer Cells—Review. Tumor Biol. 2015, 36, 4889–4904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Sopková, J.; Vidomanová, E.; Strnádel, J.; Škovierová, H.; Halašová, E. The Role of Statins as Therapeutic Agents in Cancer. Gen. Physiol. Biophys. 2017, 36, 501–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Tamas, K.; Walenkamp, A.M.E.; de Vries, E.G.E.; van Vugt, M.A.T.M.; Beets-Tan, R.G.; van Etten, B.; de Groot, D.J.A.; Hospers, G.A.P. Rectal and Colon Cancer: Not Just a Different Anatomic Site. Cancer Treat. Rev 2015, 41, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Van der Sijp, M.; Bastiaannet, E.; Mesker, W.; van der Geest, L.G.M.; Breugom, A.J.; Steup, W.H.; Marinelli, A.W.K.S.; Tseng, L.N.L.; Tollenaar, R.A.E.M.; van de Velde, C.J.H.; et al. Differences Between Colon and Rectal Cancer in Complications, Short-Term Survival and Recurrences. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2016, 31, 1683–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Paschke, S.; Jafarov, S.; Staib, L.; Kreuser, E.-D.; Maulbecker-Armstrong, C.; Roitman, M.; Holm, T.; Harris, C.C.; Link, K.-H.; Kornmann, M. Are Colon and Rectal Cancer Two Different Tumor Entities? A Proposal to Abandon the Term Colorectal Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vandenbroucke, J.P.; von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Pocock, S.J.; Poole, C.; Schlesselman, J.J.; Egger, M. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 12, 1500–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sund, R.; Koski, S. FinDM II: On the Register-Based Measurement of the Prevalence and Incidence of Diabetes and Its Long-Term Complications: A Technical Report; Finnish Diabetes Association: Helsinki, Finland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sund, R.; Harno, K.; Ranta, S.; Tolppanen, E. Evaluation of Case Inclusion in Two Population-Based Diabetes Registers. Finn. J. eHealth eWelfare 2010, 2, 136–146. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pukkala, E.; Engholm, G.; Schmidt, L.; Storm, H.; Khan, S.; Lambe, M.; Pettersson, D.; Ólafsdóttir, E.; Tryggvadóttir, L.; Hakanen, T.; et al. Nordic Cancer Registries–An overview of their procedures and data comparability. Acta Oncol. 2018, 57, 440–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brierley, J.; Gospodarowicz, M.; Wittekind, C. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 8th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 73–77. [Google Scholar]
  23. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 20 September 2020).
  24. Therneau, T. A Package for Survival Analysis in S, version 2.38; Mayo Foundation: Rochester, MN, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  25. Cheng, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zhou, C.; Shen, L.; Tu, F.; Xu, J.; Liu, C. For Colorectal Cancer Patients with Type II Diabetes, Could Metformin Improve the Survival Rate? A Meta-Analysis. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 2020, 44, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ng, C.A.W.; Jiang, A.A.; Toh, E.M.S.; Ng, C.H.; Ong, Z.H.; Peng, S.; Tham, H.Y.; Sundar, R.; Chong, C.S.; Khoo, C.M. Metformin and colorectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2020, 35, 1501–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Haukka, J.; Niskanen, L.; Auvinen, A. Risk of Cause-Specific Death in Individuals with Cancer—Modifying Role Diabetes, Statins and Metformin. Int. J. Cancer 2017, 141, 2437–2449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Skinner, H.D.; Crane, C.H.; Garrett, C.R.; Eng, C.; Chang, G.J.; Skibber, J.M.; Rodriguez-Bigas, M.A.; Kelly, P.; Sandulache, V.C.; Delclos, M.E.; et al. Metformin Use and Improved Response to Therapy in Rectal Cancer. Cancer Med. 2013, 2, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, J.M.; Park, J.W.; Lee, J.H.; Park, Y.H.; Park, S.J.; Cheon, J.H.; Kim, W.H.; Kim, T.I. Survival Benefit for Metformin Through Better Tumor Response by Neoadjuvant Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Rectal Cancer. Dis. Colon Rectum 2020, 63, 758–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fransgaard, T.; Hallas, J.; Thygesen, L.C.; Gögenur, I. Association between Diabetes and Oncological Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemo-Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 28, 62–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Oh, B.Y.; Park, Y.A.; Huh, J.W.; Cho, Y.B.; Yun, S.H.; Lee, W.Y.; Park, H.C.; Choi, D.H.; Park, Y.S.; Kim, H.C. Metformin Enhances the Response to Radiotherapy in Diabetic Patients with Rectal Cancer. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 142, 1377–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Huang, W.K.; Chang, S.H.; Hsu, H.C.; Chou, W.C.; Yang, T.S.; Chen, J.S.; Chang, J.W.C.; Lin, Y.C.; Kuo, C.F.; See, L.C. Postdiagnostic metformin use and survival of patients with colorectal cancer: A Nationwide cohort study. Int. J. Cancer 2020, 147, 1904–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Feng, J.L.; Qin, X. Metformin and cancer-specific survival among breast, colorectal, or endometrial cancer patients: A nationwide data linkage study. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2021, 175, 108755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Choe, S.; Lee, J.; Park, J.W.; Jeong, S.Y.; Cho, Y.M.; Park, B.J.; Shin, A. Prognosis of Patients with Colorectal Cancer with Diabetes According to Medication Adherence: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2020, 29, 1120–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mc Menamin, Ú.C.; Murray, L.J.; Hughes, C.M.; Cardwell, C.R. Metformin Use and Survival after Colorectal Cancer: A Population–Based Cohort Study. Int. J. Cancer 2016, 138, 369–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Rena, G.; Hardie, D.G.; Pearson, E.R. The mechanisms of Action of Metformin. Diabetologia 2017, 60, 1577–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. He, L.; Wondisford, F. Metformin Action: Concentrations matter. Cell Metab. 2015, 21, 159–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kajbaf, F.; De Broe, M.; Lalau, J. Therapeutic Concentrations of Metformin: A Systematic Review. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2016, 55, 439–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, M.; Li, X.; Zhang, H.; Lu, Y. Molecular Mechanisms of Metformin for Diabetes and Cancer Treatment. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vigneri, R.; Sciacca, L.; Vigneri, P. Rethinking the Relationship between Insulin and Cancer. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2020, 31, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Chiefari, E.; Mirabelli, M.; la Vignera, S.; Tanyolaç, S.; Foti, D.P.; Aversa, A.; Brunetti, A. Insulin Resistance and Cancer: In Search for a Causal Link. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 11137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Baglia, M.L.; Cui, Y.; Zheng, T.; Yang, G.; Li, H.; You, M.; Xu, L.; Murff, H.; Gao, Y.T.; Zheng, W.; et al. Diabetes Medication Use in Association with Survival Among Patients of Breast, Colorectal, Lung, or Gastric Cancer. Cancer Res. Treat. 2019, 51, 538–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ioacara, S.; Guja, C.; Ionescu-Tirgoviste, C.; Fica, S.; Roden, M. Cancer Specific Mortality in Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Patients. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lutz, S.Z.; Staiger, H.; Fritsche, A.; Häring, H. Antihyperglycaemic Therapies and Cancer Risk. Diabetes Vasc. Dis. Res. 2014, 11, 371–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shao, Y.Y.; Hsu, C.H.; Yeh, K.H.; Chen, H.M.; Yeh, Y.C.; Lai, C.L.; Lin, Z.Z.; Cheng, A.L.; Lai, M.S. Statin Use Is Associated with Improved Prognosis of Colorectal Cancer in Taiwan. Clin. Colorectal Cancer. 2015, 14, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Pourlotfi, A.; Bass, G.A.; Ahl Hulme, R.; Forssten, M.P.; Sjolin, G.; Cao, Y.; Matthiessen, P.; Mohseni, S. Statin Use and Long-Term Mortality after Rectal Cancer Surgery. Cancers 2021, 13, 4288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Armstrong, D.; Raissouni, S.; Price Hiller, J.; Mercer, J.; Powell, E.; MacLean, A.; Jiang, M.; Doll, C.; Goodwin, R.; Batuyong, E.; et al. Predictors of Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study. Clin. Colorectal Cancer 2015, 14, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gash, K.J.; Chambers, A.C.; Cotton, D.E.; Williams, A.C.; Thomas, M.G. Potentiating the Effects of Radiotherapy in Rectal Cancer: The Role of Aspirin, Statins and Metformin as Adjuncts to Therapy. Br. J. Cancer 2017, 117, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kotti, A.; Holmqvist, A.; Albertsson, M.; Sun, X. Survival Benefit of Statins in Older Patients with Rectal Cancer: A Swedish Population-Based Cohort Study. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2019, 10, 690–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yang, J.; Li, C.; Shen, Y.; Zhou, H.; Shao, Y.; Zhu, W.; Chen, Y. Impact of statin use on cancer-specific mortality and recurrence: A meta-analysis of 60 observational studies. Medicine 2020, 99, e19596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jameson, M.B.; Gormly, K.; Espinoza, D.; Hague, W.; Asghari, G.; Jeffery, G.M.; Price, T.J.; Karapetis, C.S.; Arendse, M.; Armstrong, J.; et al. sPAR—A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Trial of Simvastatin in Addition to Standard Chemotherapy and Radiation in Preoperative Treatment for Rectal Cancer: An AGITG Clinical Trial. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Statins and Rectal Cancer. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Rectal+Cancer&term=statins&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search (accessed on 24 March 2021).
  53. Sund, R. Quality of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register: A Systematic Review. Scand. J. Public Health 2012, 40, 505–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mikkelsen, L.; Phillips, D.E.; AbouZahr, C.; Setel, P.W.; De Savigny, D.; Lozano, R.; Lopez, A.D. A Global Assessment of Civil Registration and Vital Statistics Systems: Monitoring Data Quality and Progress. Lancet 2015, 386, 1395–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biomolecules 12 01301 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of the cohort selection process.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the cohort selection process.
Biomolecules 12 01301 g001
Biomolecules 12 01301 g002 550
Figure 2. Cumulative mortality from rectal cancer and from other causes in the different pre-diagnostic medication groups. Antidiabetic medication (ADM): Red = metformin, blue = other oral ADM, brown = insulin, gray = metformin and other oral ADM, and black = no history of regular ADM use. Statin: Blue = non-users; red = users.
Figure 2. Cumulative mortality from rectal cancer and from other causes in the different pre-diagnostic medication groups. Antidiabetic medication (ADM): Red = metformin, blue = other oral ADM, brown = insulin, gray = metformin and other oral ADM, and black = no history of regular ADM use. Statin: Blue = non-users; red = users.
Biomolecules 12 01301 g002
Biomolecules 12 01301 g003 550
Figure 3. Estimated hazard ratios (with pointwise 95% confidence limits) of rectal cancer (RC) mortality by cumulative defined daily dose amount of antidiabetic medications and statins during the three years preceding RC diagnosis in selected medication groups. (A) = insulin, (B) = metformin, (C) = other oral ADM and (D) = statin. Solid line represents hazard ratio, with dashed lines indicating 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 3. Estimated hazard ratios (with pointwise 95% confidence limits) of rectal cancer (RC) mortality by cumulative defined daily dose amount of antidiabetic medications and statins during the three years preceding RC diagnosis in selected medication groups. (A) = insulin, (B) = metformin, (C) = other oral ADM and (D) = statin. Solid line represents hazard ratio, with dashed lines indicating 95% confidence intervals.
Biomolecules 12 01301 g003
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the study cohort in different pre-diagnostic antidiabetic medication (ADM) groups and by statin use.
Table 1. Characteristics of the study cohort in different pre-diagnostic antidiabetic medication (ADM) groups and by statin use.
Antidiabetic Medication (ADM)Statins
Metformin
(%)		Other Oral ADM (%)Metformin and Other oral ADM (%)Insulin (%)No History of Regular ADM Use (%)Yes (%)No (%)Total (%)
Number of patients203 (100)174 (100)326 (100)296 (100)272 (100)541 (100)730 (100)1271 (100)
Sex
Male (%)127 (63)96 (55)186 (57)187 (63)166 (61)342 (63)420 (58)762 (60)
Female (%)76 (37)78 (45)140 (43)109 (37)106 (39)199 (37)310 (42)509 (40)
Age groups (years)
41–5918 (9)8 (5)24 (7)29 (10)22 (8)41 (8)60 (8)101 (8)
60–6423 (11)8 (5)50 (15)30 (10)28 (10)68 (13)71 (10)139 (11)
65–6936 (18)23 (13)44 (13)53 (18)63 (23)106 (20)113 (15)219 (17)
70–7447 (23)34 (20)65 (20)60 (20)60 (22)130 (24)136 (19)266 (21)
75–7935 (17)35 (20)81 (25)66 (22)39 (14)108 (20)148 (20)256 (20)
80–8428 (14)30 (17)39 (12)39 (13)32 (12)56 (10)112 (15)168 (13)
85–9616 (8)36 (21)23 (7)19 (6)28 (10)32 (6)90 (12)122 (10)
Median age at RC diagnosis 7377747372727474
Interquartile range 66–7971–8366–7967–7967–7966–7868–8167–79
Duration of diabetes (years)
0.50–<386 (42)46 (26)22 (7)8 (3)99 (36)99 (18)162 (22)261 (21)
3–<666 (33)64 (37)74 (23)21 (7)45 (17)110 (20)160 (22)270 (21)
6–<1239 (19)50 (29)157 (48)113 (38)69 (25)183 (34)245 (34)428 (34)
≥1212 (6)14 (8)73 (22)154 (52)59 (22)149 (28)163 (22)312 (25)
Median 3.44.78.012.25.47.77.07.3
Interquartile range 2.1–6.02.8–7.55.5–11.38.8–16.11.4–11.13.9–12.43.3–11.23.6–11.9
Cancer stage
Non-metastasized68 (33)64 (37)114 (35)99 (33)96 (35)187 (35)254 (35)441 (35)
Metastasized100 (49)69 (40)158 (48)152 (51)124 (46)281 (52)322 (44)603 (47)
Unknown35 (17)41 (24)54 (17)45 (15)52 (19)73 (13)154 (21)227 (18)
Outcome at the end of the follow-up
RC death65 (32)75 (43)125 (38)117 (40)110 (40)181 (33)311 (43)492 (39)
Death from other causes25 (12)62 (36)86 (26)84 (28)58 (21)94 (17)221 (30)315 (25)
Alive113 (56)37 (21)115 (35)95 (32)104 (38)266 (49)198 (27)464 (37)
Table
Table 2. Numbers of deaths (n) by cause and estimated hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) related to mortality from rectal cancer (RC) and from other causes by sex, year of diagnosis, age, stage, antidiabetic medication (ADM), and the use of statins during the three years before the diagnosis of RC. The estimation results are based on Cox regression models, including all variables.
Table 2. Numbers of deaths (n) by cause and estimated hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) related to mortality from rectal cancer (RC) and from other causes by sex, year of diagnosis, age, stage, antidiabetic medication (ADM), and the use of statins during the three years before the diagnosis of RC. The estimation results are based on Cox regression models, including all variables.
Death from Rectal CancerDeath from Other Causes
nHazard Ratio c95% Confidence IntervalnHazard Ratio c95% Confidence Interval
Sex
Male2901.07(0.88–1.29)1861.76(1.38–2.25)
Female2021.00Reference1291.00Reference
Year of diagnosis
1998–20021651.00Reference1351.00Reference
2003–20071800.86(0.69–1.07)1281.25(0.96–1.63)
2008–20111470.68(0.52–0.87)520.85(0.58–1.25)
Age group (years)
41–59330.73(0.49–1.09)80.21(0.10–0.45)
60–64470.67(0.48–0.95)150.33(0.19–0.58)
65–69740.89(0.66–1.21)510.89(0.61–1.30)
70–741041.00Reference601.00Reference
75–791021.19(0.90–1.56)731.71(1.21–2.42)
80–84711.51(1.11–2.05)632.86(1.98–4.12)
85–97612.15(1.55–2.99)454.37(2.87–6.65)
Duration of diabetes (years)
0.5–<31031.00Reference551.00Reference
3–<61021.00(0.75–1.33)580.97(0.66–1.43)
6–<121610.99(0.75–1.29)1191.40(0.98–1.98)
≥121260.94(0.70–1.26)831.16(0.78–1.73)
Cancer stage
Non-metastasized701.00Reference1531.00Reference
Metastasized3305.57(4.28–7.25)870.86(0.66–1.14)
Unknown923.01(2.20–4.12)751.22(0.92–1.61)
ADM a
Other oral ADM751.00Reference621.00Reference
Metformin650.96(0.67–1.38)250.66(0.40–1.09)
Metformin and other oral ADM1251.03(0.76–1.40)861.01(0.71–1.44)
Insulin1171.15(0.83–1.58)841.53(1.04–2.25)
No regular history of ADMuse b1101.05(0.77–1.43)580.75(0.52–1.09)
Statin use a
No3111.00Reference2211.00Reference
Yes1810.77(0.63–0.94)940.68(0.53–0.88)
a Medication duration >180 days except for insulin, which is classified as user or non-user. b No history of regular ADM use. c Adjusted for the effects of age, year, duration of diabetes, and stage.
Table
Table 3. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (in parentheses) for post-diagnostic cancer-specific mortality and mortality from other causes in relation to medication. ADM = antidiabetic medication, RC = rectal cancer, HR = hazard ratio, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval.
Table 3. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (in parentheses) for post-diagnostic cancer-specific mortality and mortality from other causes in relation to medication. ADM = antidiabetic medication, RC = rectal cancer, HR = hazard ratio, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval.
Death from RC Death from Other Cause
n *
HR		95% CIn *
HR		95% CI
Metformin67
0.56		(0.42–0.76)66
0.67		(0.49–0.92)
Other oral ADM75
0.80		(0.60–1.07)71
0.76		(0.56–1.03)
Insulin64
0.82		(0.60–1.13)79
1.59		(1.17–2.16)
Statin65
0.57		(0.42–0.78)67
0.52		(0.38–0.71)
* Number of deaths when being exposed to the pertinent medication.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Erkinantti, S.; Hautakoski, A.; Sund, R.; Arffman, M.; Urpilainen, E.; Puistola, U.; Läärä, E.; Jukkola, A.; Karihtala, P. The Association of Metformin, Other Antidiabetic Medications and Statins on the Prognosis of Rectal Cancer in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Biomolecules 2022, 12, 1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12091301

AMA Style

Erkinantti S, Hautakoski A, Sund R, Arffman M, Urpilainen E, Puistola U, Läärä E, Jukkola A, Karihtala P. The Association of Metformin, Other Antidiabetic Medications and Statins on the Prognosis of Rectal Cancer in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Biomolecules. 2022; 12(9):1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12091301

Chicago/Turabian Style

Erkinantti, Sami, Ari Hautakoski, Reijo Sund, Martti Arffman, Elina Urpilainen, Ulla Puistola, Esa Läärä, Arja Jukkola, and Peeter Karihtala. 2022. "The Association of Metformin, Other Antidiabetic Medications and Statins on the Prognosis of Rectal Cancer in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study" Biomolecules 12, no. 9: 1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12091301

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop