Calcium channel blockers and breast cancer incidence: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence. (October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wright, Cameron M.; Moorin, Rachael E.; Chowdhury, Enayet K.; Stricker, Bruno H.; Reid, Christopher M.; Saunders, Christobel M.; Hughes, Jeffery D.
• Is Part Of: Cancer epidemiology. Volume 50: Part A(2017:Oct.)
• Page Start: 113
• Page End: 124
• Publication Date: 2017-10
• Subjects: AHT antihypertensive drug -- CCB calcium channel blocker -- CI confidence interval -- HR hazard ratio -- NRS non-randomised study -- OR odds ratio -- PICOS population, intervention, comparator, outcome, setting -- RCT randomised controlled trial -- SIR standardised incidence ratio; Calcium channel blockers -- Breast neoplasms -- Dihydropyridines -- Amlodipine -- Nifedipine -- Verapamil; Cancer -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Carcinogenesis -- Periodicals; 616.994005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2017.08.012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1877-7821

Abstract

Highlights: In 2013 a large case-control study linked long-term calcium channel blocker (CCB) use with breast cancer. Since then, research groups have conducted studies to confirm/refute this association. Our systematic review and meta-analysis critically reviewed relevant studies to 2016. While an association seems unlikely, there remains uncertainty for use beyond 10 years. We recommend further investigation of long-term use to provide further reassurance. Abstract: Controversy exists regarding the potential association between taking calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and the development of breast cancer. As a positive association would have important public health implications due to the widespread use of CCBs, this study aimed to incorporate new evidence to determine whether an association is likely to exist. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to 28 June 2016 for relevant literature. References and citing articles were checked and authors contacted as necessary. Two authors independently selected articles and extracted data. Twenty-nine studies were reviewed; 26 were non-randomised studies (NRS). Meta-analysis of study data where adjustment for 'confounding by indication' was judged to be present suggests that an association, if any, is likely to be modest in magnitude (pooled odds/risk ratio 1.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–1.15, I 2 = 0%, 8 sub-studies; pooled hazard ratio 0.99 (95% CI 0.94–1.03, I 2 = 35%, 9 sub-studies)). There are credible study data showing an increased relative risk with long-term use of CCBs, but the results of our meta-analysis and of meta-regression of log relative risk against minimum follow-up time are mixed. The current summative evidence does not support a clear association between taking CCBs and developing breast cancer. However, uncertainty remains, especially for long-term use and any association might not be uniform between different populations and/or breast cancer sub-types. We thus recommend further NRS in settings where CCB use is highly prevalent and population-based cancer, prescription and health-registries exist, to resolve this continuing uncertainty. PROSPERO, CRD42015026712.