Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cancer Medicine logoLink to Cancer Medicine
. 2024 Mar 16;13(5):e7049. doi: 10.1002/cam4.7049

Cardiovascular/anti‐inflammatory drugs repurposed for treating or preventing cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials

David J Benjamin 1,✉, Alyson Haslam 2, Vinay Prasad 2
PMCID: PMC10943275  PMID: 38491813

Abstract

Background

Due to encouraging pre‐clinical data and supportive observational studies, there has been growing interest in applying cardiovascular drugs (including aspirin, angiotensin‐converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, statins, and metformin) approved to treat diseases such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus to the field of oncology. Moreover, given growing costs with cancer care, these medications have offered a potentially more affordable avenue to treat or prevent recurrence of cancer.

We sought to investigate the anti‐cancer effects of drugs repurposed from cardiology or anti‐inflammatories to treat cancer. We specifically evaluated the following drug classes: HMG‐CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors, aspirin, metformin, and both angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors. We also included non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) because they exert a similar mechanism to aspirin by blocking prostaglandins and reducing inflammation that is thought to promote the development of cancer.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed and Web of Science with search terms including “aspirin,” “NSAID,” “statin” (including specific statin drug names), “metformin,” “ACE inhibitors,” and “ARBs” (including specific anti‐hypertensive drug names) in combination with “cancer.” Searches were limited to human studies published between 2000 and 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The number and percentage of studies reported positive results and pooled estimates of overall survival, progression‐free survival, response, and disease‐free survival.

Results

We reviewed 3094 titles and included 67 randomized clinical trials. The most common drugs that were tested were metformin (n = 21; 30.9%), celecoxib (n = 20; 29.4%), and simvastatin (n = 8; 11.8%). There was only one study that tested cardiac glycosides and none that studied ACE inhibitors. The most common tumor types were non‐small‐cell lung cancer (n = 19; 27.9%); breast (n = 8; 20.6%), colorectal (n = 7; 10.3%), and hepatocellular (n = 6; 8.8%). Most studies were conducted in a phase II trial (n = 38; 55.9%). Most studies were tested in metastatic cancers (n = 49; 72.1%) and in the first‐line setting (n = 36; 521.9%). Four studies (5.9%) were stopped early because of difficulty with accrual. The majority of studies did not demonstrate an improvement in either progression‐free survival (86.1% of studies testing progression‐free survival) or in overall survival (94.3% of studies testing overall survival). Progression‐free survival was improved in five studies (7.4%), and overall survival was improved in three studies (4.4%). Overall survival was significantly worse in two studies (3.8% of studies testing overall survival), and progression‐free survival was worse in one study (2.8% of studies testing progression‐free survival).

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite promising pre‐clinical and population‐based data, cardiovascular drugs and anti‐inflammatory medications have overall not demonstrated benefit in the treatment or preventing recurrence of cancer. These findings may help guide future potential clinical trials involving these medications when applied in oncology.

Keywords: cardiovascular drugs, drug repurposing, oncology trials, randomized trials

1. INTRODUCTION

Cancer remains the leading cause of morbidity in many countries with an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases and nearly 10.0 million deaths globally in 2020 alone. 1 Despite the development and approval of therapeutics such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and drugs targeting specific oncogenic driver mutations, many individuals with cancer remain ineligible for these therapies and many cancers remain incurable. 2 , 3 , 4 As such, cancer continues to inflict devastating financial and societal consequences worldwide. 5 Given the significant time and financial costs associated with developing new cancer drugs, there has historically been interest in repurposing drugs approved in other settings to the treatment or prevention of several types of cancer. 6 Repurposed drugs carry the potential to fill a void in drug development.

Repurposed drugs offer several potential benefits. Generally, much is known about the safety profile of each repurposed drug owing to each drug's wide‐scale use. Second, many of these drugs are widely available and affordable. If repurposed drugs were effective in improving cancer outcomes, they would be a boon to the global oncology community. There are several research groups, such as the Repurposing Drugs in Oncology (ReDO) Project, who are avidly investigating the use of cardiovascular drugs in treating or preventing cancer. 7

Due to encouraging pre‐clinical data and supportive observational studies, there has been growing interest in applying cardiovascular drugs (including aspirin, angiotensin‐converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, statins, and metformin), approved to treat diseases such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus, to the field of oncology. 8 For example, data suggest that statins such as lovastatin may lead to tumor‐specific apoptosis in the setting of acute myeloid leukemia. 9 In addition, data suggest that metformin can activate the adenosine monophosphate‐activated kinase pathway through interactions with p53, and thereby prevent cancer cell proliferation. 10 Moreover, pre‐clinical studies have demonstrated that aspirin can reduce colon cancer cell growth in a xenograft model and lead to downregulation of specificity protein transcription factors that play a role in promoting oncogenes associated with tumor progression and metastasis. 11 Several other pre‐clinical studies have demonstrated similar results with commonly used cardiovascular drugs in the setting of several cancer types and have consequently generated enthusiasm for these drugs.

Observational data also support these aforementioned claims. Metformin, statins, aspirin, ACE inhibitors, and beta blockers have all demonstrated improved survival among individuals with cancer compared to those who do not receive these medications. 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 Favorable evidence for repurposed drugs from observational research is present both in adjuvant and metastatic settings. 11 , 16

At the same time, repurposed drugs rarely demonstrate RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) 1.1 tumor responses (30%) in studies, an important heuristic for effective cancer drugs. 17 , 18 While multiple observational and population‐based studies have suggested survival benefit or reduction in cancer recurrence with these cardiovascular drugs, several recently published randomized controlled trials have not confirmed these advantages. 19

As the costs of cancer drugs continue to rise, repurposing of inexpensive cardiovascular drugs in oncology offers a promising and potentially cost‐effective avenue to cancer prevention and treatment. We sought to take further evaluate this approach. We undertook a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of repurposing cardiovascular drugs in oncology as studied in randomized controlled trials.

2. METHODS

We sought to investigate the anti‐cancer effects of drugs repurposed from cardiology or anti‐inflammatories to treat cancer. We specifically evaluated the following drug classes: HMG‐CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors, aspirin, metformin, and both angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors. We also included non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) because they exert a similar mechanism to aspirin by blocking prostaglandins and reducing inflammation that is thought to promote the development of cancer. 20

2.1. Search strategy

We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed and Web of Science with search terms including “aspirin,” “NSAID,” “statin” (including specific statin drug names), “metformin,” “ACE inhibitors,” and “ARBs” (including specific anti‐hypertensive drug names) in combination with “cancer.” For a full list of searches, please see supplemental methods. Searches were made on November 30, 2023.

2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We followed PRISMA guidelines throughout the study. Searches were limited to human studies published between 2000 and 2023. The review included all tumor types. Relevant studies were identified by two authors (D.J.B. and A.H.). We included studies if the study population comprised patients with cancer, if the study was a randomized trial, and if the study endpoint was survival, disease progression, response, or reduction in cancer recurrence. Studies could include any setting—metastatic, adjuvant, or neoadjuvant, as long as it was being used for anti‐tumor purposes. Studies needed to report on markers of overall survival and/or markers of response (e.g., response rate, disease‐free survival, and progression‐free survival). Studies were excluded for the following reasons: The study design was a meta‐analysis, review article, case–control study, or observational; the study endpoint was a biomarker change; reported on an outcome other than survival/cancer recurrence; included non‐cancerous conditions such as hyperplasia, adenomas, or in situ; was a secondary analysis (given the possibility for duplicate reporting of a study); tested a drug to prevent chemotherapy‐induced side‐effects (e.g., cardiotoxicity or hearing loss); tested the intervention as a chemoprevention strategy; or it was a trial protocol.

From each study, we abstracted the following information: the drug used in the intervention arm, the control arm, primary endpoint, tumor type, stage, line of therapy, the number of patients total, in the intervention arm, and in the control arm, the outcome, year of publication, phase, whether the trial was stopped early, and whether the trial demonstrated significant benefit or harm.

If more than two arms were tested, we used the comparisons between systemic therapy alone vs systemic therapy plus the cardiovascular drug. If intention‐to‐treat and per protocol results were both presented, we opted to use the intention‐to‐treat results.

2.3. Statistical analysis

Data for meta‐analysis were collected and analyzed using Excel, version 16.2 (Microsoft Corporation) and R statistical Software, version 4.2.1. We calculated study‐level descriptive statistics. For each main outcome (overall survival, progression‐free survival, recurrence, response rate, and disease‐free‐survival), we used the meta package of R to calculate pooled effect sizes, stratified by drug type (metformin, statins, aspirin, and other NSAIDs). We used a random effects model using the restricted maximum‐likelihood estimator with Knapp‐Hartung adjustments. We were initially unsure whether there would be notable heterogeneity in study findings, so we used a random effects model for calculating pooled estimates. Also, because there were multiple interventions assessed, we calculated pooled effects overall and by therapy subtype. Differences in subgroups were assessed using a Q‐test.

Because our study involved publicly available data and did not involve individual patient data, this study was not submitted for institutional review board, in accordance with 45 CFR §46.102(f). This report followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines.

3. RESULTS

We reviewed 3094 titles and included 67 randomized clinical trials. 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 The Supplemental Figure shows the process of selecting studies.

3.1. Study characteristics

The median number of study participants was 120 (IQR: 70, 241; Table 1). The most common drugs that were tested were metformin (n = 21; 30.9%), celecoxib (n = 20; 29.4%), and simvastatin (n = 8; 11.8%). There was only one study that tested cardiac glycosides and none that studied ACE inhibitors. The most common tumor types were non‐small‐cell lung cancer (n = 19; 27.9%); breast (n = 14; 20.6%), colorectal (n = 7; 10.3%), and hepatocellular (n = 6; 8.8%). Most studies were conducted in a phase II trial (n = 38; 55.9%). Most studies were tested in metastatic cancers (n = 49; 72.1%) and in the first‐line setting (n = 36; 52.9%). Four studies (5.9%) were stopped early because of difficulty with accrual. Study characteristics are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

TABLE 1.

Characteristics of randomized clinical trials investigating cardiovascular drugs as anti‐tumor therapies (N = 67).

Characteristic Number of studies (%), unless otherwise indicated
Number of participants, median (IQR) 120 (70, 241)
Drug class
Metformin 21 (30.9)
NSAID 28 (41.2)
Apricoxib 2 (2.9)
Aspirin 1 (1.5)
Celecoxib 20 (29.4)
Rofecoxib 3 (4.4)
Celecoxib + aspirin 1 (1.5)
Mefenamic acid 1 (1.5)
Statin 18 (26.5)
Atorvastatin 1 (1.5)
Pravastatin 7 (10.3)
Simvastatin 8 (11.8)
Lovastatin 2 (2.9)
Beta blocker + NSAID 1 (1.5)
Propranolol + etodolac 1 (1.5)
Tumor
Bladder 2 (2.9)
Brain metastasis 1 (1.5)
Breast 14 (20.6)
Colorectal 7 (10.3)
Gastric 3 (4.4)
Glioblastoma 1 (1.5)
Hepatocellular 6 (8.8)
Melanoma 1 (1.5)
Myeloma 1 (1.5)
Nasopharyngeal 1 (1.5)
Non‐small‐cell lung cancer 19 (27.9)
Ovarian 2 (2.9)
Pancreatic 3 (4.4)
Prostate 5 (7.4)
Small‐cell lung cancer 2 (2.9)
Phase
II 38 (55.9)
II–III 1 (1.5)
III 22 (32.4)
Not indicated 4 (5.9)
Pilot 3 (4.4)
Stopped early, yes 4 (5.9)
Demonstrated benefit, yes
Disease‐free survival (n = 12) 0
Event‐free survival (n = 1) 0
Failure‐free survival (n = 1) 0
Overall survival (n = 53) 3 (4.4)
Progression‐free survival (n = 36) 5 (7.4)
Response (n = 32) 4 (5.9)
Time to progression (n = 4) 0
Setting
Adjuvant 11 (16.2)
Any 7 (10.3)
First‐line 36 (52.9)
First/second 1 (1.5)
Neoadjuvant 3 (4.4)
Subsequent line 10 (14.7)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: NSAID, non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Studies (%) by drug class.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Studies (%) by tumor.

3.2. Study results

The majority of studies did not demonstrate an improvement in either progression‐free survival (86.1% of studies testing progression‐free survival) or in overall survival (94.3% of studies testing overall survival). Progression‐free survival was improved in five studies (7.4% of all studies), and overall survival was improved in three studies (4.4% of all studies). Overall survival was significantly worse in two studies (3.8% of studies testing overall survival), and progression‐free survival was worse in one study (2.8% of studies testing progression‐free survival).

In studies reporting an overall survival hazard ratio (n = 32; Figure 3), the pooled hazard ratio for the effect of repurposed drugs in addition to standard of care on overall survival was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.93 to 1.06; p = 0.85; I 2 : 12.2%). There were no significant differences between drug types (χ 2: 1.15; p = 0.56).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the effect of cardiovascular drug therapy in addition to standard of care on overall survival.

In studies reporting a progression‐free survival hazard ratio (n = 27; Figure 4), the pooled hazard ratio for the effect of repurposed drugs in addition to standard of care on progression‐free survival was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.93 to 1.11; p = 0.72; I 2 : 30.9%). There were no differences between drug types (χ 2: 0.04; p = 0.98).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the effect of cardiovascular drug therapy in addition to standard of care on progression‐free survival.

In studies reporting a disease‐free survival hazard ratio (n = 10; Figure 5), the pooled hazard ratio for the effect of repurposed drugs in addition to standard of care on disease‐free survival was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.86 to 1.02; p = 0.13; I 2 : 13.2%). There were no significant differences between drug types (χ 2: 3.70; p = 0.16).

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the effect of cardiovascular drug therapy in addition to standard of care on disease‐free survival.

In studies reporting overall response rates (n = 32; Figure 6), the pooled hazard ratio for the effect of cardiovascular drugs in addition to standard of care on overall response rates was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.02 to 1.18; p = 0.01; I 2 : 18.7%). There were no differences between drug types (χ 2: 2.81; p = 0.24).

FIGURE 6 6.

FIGURE 6 6

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the effect of cardiovascular drug therapy in addition to standard of care on overall response rates.

4. DISCUSSION

In this systematic review, between 2000 and 2023, most of the 67 randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of cardiovascular and anti‐inflammatory drugs in treating or preventing recurrence of cancer did not demonstrate clinical benefit. In fact, three studies demonstrated worse progression‐free survival or overall survival. Only two small studies demonstrated an improvement in overall survival for advanced/metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The patient population from the two small positive trials composed a small portion (0.7%, 210/28,266) of the total patient population among all randomized controlled trials.

There was a relatively equal distribution of the type of cardiovascular drug used (NSAID versus statin versus metformin) used in these clinical trials. None of the prospective randomized clinical trials that have been published in the literature have involved anti‐hypertensive medications such as ACE inhibitors and only one tested an ARB. Therefore, it is unclear if anti‐hypertensive medications may play a role in improving survival or reducing the risk of recurrence in individuals with cancer. Nearly one‐third of clinical trials involved non‐small‐cell lung cancer (19/68 = 27.9%) followed next by breast cancer (20.6%) which is consistent with the high global incidence of these malignancies.

The majority (52.9%) of studies were in the first‐line setting. As the first‐line setting is generally considered the most efficacious treatment with the greatest potential to reduce tumor burden and attempt to achieve cure, our findings suggest that these cardiovascular drugs should be avoided in studies in the first‐line setting given there was overwhelmingly no survival benefit found and potentially worsening of progression‐free survival or overall survival. Moreover, 16% (n = 11) of studies were conducted in the adjuvant setting where patients may already achieve cure with standard‐of‐care adjuvant therapies. It is unclear whether further trials involving these cardiovascular drugs in the adjuvant setting is worthwhile given no studies demonstrating an improvement in disease‐free survival or decrease in recurrence as per our analysis.

Despite promising pre‐clinical and observational data involving cardiovascular drugs and anti‐inflammatory drugs in treating cancer or preventing cancer recurrence, randomized controlled trial data have thus far not demonstrated the previously anticipated improvement in survival or risk reduction in recurrence. While the biological plausibility for anti‐cancer effect may be present as shown by pre‐clinical studies, it is possible that current anti‐cancer therapies such as chemotherapy and radiation are effective at disrupting specific pathways that are more influential in tumorigenesis than the pathways acted upon by cardiovascular drugs and anti‐inflammatory drugs. As such, the effect of cardiovascular and anti‐inflammatory drugs may be less significant and not translate to clinical benefit as demonstrated by this systematic review and meta‐analysis.

4.1. Future directions

Although the study of cardiovascular and anti‐inflammatory drugs in treating cancer does not appear to have translated to meaningful clinical value, there are growing data on the role of these drugs in prevention of cancer in high risk or healthy individuals. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of aspirin as studied mostly in healthy individuals to prevent cardiovascular outcomes evaluated colorectal cancer prevention as a secondary endpoint, with findings suggestive that high dose aspirin (as defined as 500–1200 mg per day) may reduce the risk of colon cancer development (OR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.50–0.96). 88 , 89 There are limited data on cancer risk reduction in healthy individuals as a primary endpoint in previously completed studies. Therefore, given the growing incidence of cancer globally, a potential avenue to explore cardiovascular and anti‐inflammatory drugs is to pivot toward prevention of cancer development in high risk and healthy individuals.

4.2. Limitations

This study has several limitations. Celecoxib, a COX‐2 inhibitor and NSAID that was previously equated to aspirin in cardio‐protection, was withdrawn from the market in 2004 over concerns for cardiovascular adverse effects. Several studies in our meta‐analysis included celecoxib and were halted early due to withdrawal of celecoxib. However, we have included celecoxib in our analysis as it was thought to be an anti‐inflammatory drug with cardioprotective effects at the time of each prospective trial's start date. Excluding these studies would likely have little impact on our results because of the lack of heterogeneity. Another limitation is publication bias as additional negative studies may not have been published in the literature, although this would have likely not affected our results, as our findings were largely null.

5. CONCLUSION

This is the first known systematic review evaluating the efficacy of cardiovascular and anti‐inflammatory drugs in treating or preventing recurrence of cancer as studied in randomized controlled clinical trials. The majority of randomized control trials evaluating the efficacy of cardiovascular drugs in oncology have not demonstrated a survival benefit or reduction in cancer recurrence. The two studies that did demonstrate survival benefit were both small studies with a total of 210 patients compared with a total patient population of 28,266 patients from all trials. Although initial pre‐clinical data as well as retrospective and cohort data for the repurposing of cardiovascular and anti‐inflammatory drugs in oncology were hopeful, the promise of improved survival or a decrease in cancer relapse has thus far failed to materialize in randomized controlled trials for individuals with cancer.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

David J. Benjamin: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Alyson Haslam: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); validation (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Vinay Prasad: Conceptualization (equal); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); supervision (lead); validation (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

V.P. has received grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Johns Hopkins, MedPage, The Free Press, UnitedHealthcare, OptumRx, Patreon, YouTube, and Substack outside the submitted work. D.J.B. has the following disclosures: Consulting or Advisory Role: Seagen, Astellas, Eisai. Speakers' Bureau: Merck. Travel and Accommodations: Merck. A.H. has no disclosures.

ETHICS STATEMENT

As our study involved publicly available data and did not involve individual patient data, this study was not submitted for institutional review board, in accordance with 45 CFR §46.102(f).

Supporting information

Data S1:

CAM4-13-e7049-s001.xlsx (2.8MB, xlsx)

Benjamin DJ, Haslam A, Prasad V. Cardiovascular/anti‐inflammatory drugs repurposed for treating or preventing cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials. Cancer Med. 2024;13:e7049. doi: 10.1002/cam4.7049

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209‐249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Haslam A, Kim MS, Prasad V. Updated estimates of eligibility for and response to genome‐targeted oncology drugs among US cancer patients, 2006‐2020. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(7):926‐932. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Haslam A, Prasad V. Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who are eligible for and respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy drugs. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e192535. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Marquart J, Chen EY, Prasad V. Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who benefit from genome‐driven oncology. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(8):1093‐1098. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Prasad V, De Jesús K, Mailankody S. The high price of anticancer drugs: origins, implications, barriers, solutions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(6):381‐390. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.31 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Prasad V, Mailankody S. Research and development spending to bring a single cancer drug to market and revenues after approval. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(11):1569‐1575. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Pantziarka P, Bouche G, Meheus L, Sukhatme V, Sukhatme VP, Vikas P. The repurposing drugs in oncology (ReDO) project. Ecancermedicalscience. 2014;8:422. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2014.442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Regulska K, Regulski M, Karolak B, Murias M, Stanisz B. Can cardiovascular drugs support cancer treatment? The rationale for drug repurposing. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(4):1059‐1065. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2019.03.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Dimitroulakos J, Nohynek D, Backway KL, et al. Increased sensitivity of acute myeloid leukemias to lovastatin‐induced apoptosis: a potential therapeutic approach. Blood. 1999;93(4):1308‐1318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Saraei P, Asadi I, Kakar MA, Moradi‐Kor N. The beneficial effects of metformin on cancer prevention and therapy: a comprehensive review of recent advances. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:3295‐3313. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S200059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Pathi S, Jutooru I, Chadalapaka G, Nair V, Lee SO, Safe S. Aspirin inhibits colon cancer cell and tumor growth and downregulates specificity protein (Sp) transcription factors. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e48208. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Chuang MC, Yang YH, Tsai YH, et al. Survival benefit associated with metformin use in inoperable non‐small cell lung cancer patients with diabetes: a population‐based retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0191129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Chuang MC, Yang YH, Hsieh MJ, et al. The association of aspirin use with overall survival of patients with inoperable non‐small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1):1257. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08999-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Couttenier A, Lacroix O, Vaes E, Cardwell CR, De Schutter H, Robert A. Statin use is associated with improved survival in ovarian cancer: a retrospective population‐based study. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0189233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Scott OW, Tin Tin S, Elwood JM, et al. Post‐diagnostic beta blocker use and breast cancer‐specific mortality: a population‐based cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;193(1):225‐235. doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06528-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Liu H, Naxerova K, Pinter M, et al. Use of angiotensin system inhibitors is associated with immune activation and longer survival in non‐metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(19):5959‐5969. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Jackson SS, Pfeiffer RM, Liu Z, et al. Association between aspirin use and biliary tract cancer survival. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(12):1802‐1804. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Gyawali B, Prasad V. Drugs that lack single‐agent activity: are they worth pursuing in combination? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(4):193‐194. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.27 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Tran AA, Prasad V. Drug repurposing for cancer treatments: a well‐intentioned, but misguided strategy. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(9):1134‐1136. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30424-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Korniluk A, Koper O, Kemona H, Dymicka‐Piekarska V. From inflammation to cancer. Ir J Med Sci. 2017;186(1):57‐62. doi: 10.1007/s11845-016-1464-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Chen WY, Ballman KV, Winer EP, et al. A randomized phase III, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled trial of aspirin as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (A011502): the aspirin after breast cancer (ABC) Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(36_suppl):360922. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.36_suppl.360922 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Jeong IG, Lim B, Yun SC, Lim JH, Hong JH, Kim CS. Adjuvant low‐dose statin use after radical prostatectomy: the PRO‐STAT randomized clinical trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27(18):5004‐5011. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0480 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Skinner H, Hu C, Tsakiridis T, et al. Addition of metformin to concurrent Chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: the NRG‐LU001 phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(9):1324‐1332. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2318 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Tsakiridis T, Pond GR, Wright J, et al. Metformin in combination with Chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: the OCOG‐ALMERA randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(9):1333‐1341. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Seckl MJ, Ottensmeier CH, Cullen M, et al. Multicenter, phase III, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of pravastatin added to first‐line standard chemotherapy in small‐cell lung cancer (LUNGSTAR). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(14):1506‐1514. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.7391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Meyerhardt JA, Shi Q, Fuchs CS, et al. Effect of celecoxib vs placebo added to standard adjuvant therapy on disease‐free survival among patients with stage III colon cancer. JAMA. 2021;325(13):1277‐1285. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.2454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Jouve JL, Lecomte T, Bouché O, et al. Pravastatin combination with sorafenib does not improve survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2019;71(3):516‐522. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.04.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Hong JY, Nam EM, Lee J, et al. Randomized double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled phase II trial of simvastatin and gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2014;73(1):125‐130. doi: 10.1007/s00280-013-2328-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Blanc JF, Khemissa F, Bronowicki JP, et al. Phase 2 trial comparing sorafenib, pravastatin, their combination or supportive care in HCC with child‐Pugh B cirrhosis. Hepatol Int. 2021;15(1):93‐104. doi: 10.1007/s12072-020-10120-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. El‐Hamamsy M, Elwakil H, Saad AS, Shawki MA. A randomized controlled open‐label pilot study of simvastatin addition to whole‐brain radiation therapy in patients with brain metastases. Oncol Res. 2016;24(6):521‐528. doi: 10.3727/096504016X14719078133528 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Lee Y, Lee KH, Lee GK, et al. Randomized phase II study of Afatinib plus simvastatin versus Afatinib alone in previously treated patients with advanced Nonadenocarcinomatous non‐small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res Treat. 2017;49(4):1001‐1011. doi: 10.4143/crt.2016.546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Han JY, Lee SH, Yoo NJ, et al. A randomized phase ii study of gefitinib plus simvastatin versus gefitinib alone in previously treated patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(6):1553‐1560. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2525 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Kim ST, Kang JH, Lee J, et al. Simvastatin plus capecitabine–cisplatin versus placebo plus capecitabine–cisplatin in patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer: a double‐blind randomised phase 3 study. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(16):2822‐2830. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Lim SH, Kim TW, Hong YS, et al. A randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled multi‐centre phase III trial of XELIRI/FOLFIRI plus simvastatin for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015;113(10):1421‐1426. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Nanni O, Amadori D, De Censi A, et al. Metformin plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the first‐line treatment of HER2‐negative metastatic breast cancer. The MYME randomized, phase 2 clinical trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;174(2):433‐442. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-05070-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Pimentel I, Lohmann AE, Ennis M, et al. A phase II randomized clinical trial of the effect of metformin versus placebo on progression‐free survival in women with metastatic breast cancer receiving standard chemotherapy. Breast. 2019;48:17‐23. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2019.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Kordes S, Pollak MN, Zwinderman AH, et al. Metformin in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(7):839‐847. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00027-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Zheng Y, Zhu J, Zhang H, Liu Y, Sun H. Metformin plus first‐line chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective open‐label pilot trial. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2019;84(6):1349‐1357. doi: 10.1007/s00280-019-03963-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Reni M, Dugnani E, Cereda S, et al. (Ir)relevance of metformin treatment in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: an open‐label, randomized phase II trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(5):1076‐1085. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1722 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Lee Y, Joo J, Lee YJ, et al. Randomized phase II study of platinum‐based chemotherapy plus controlled diet with or without metformin in patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2021;151:8‐15. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Alghandour R, Ebrahim MA, Elshal AM, Ghobrial F, Elzaafarany M, ELbaiomy MA. Repurposing metformin as anticancer drug: randomized controlled trial in advanced prostate cancer (MANSMED). Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2021;39(12):831.e1‐831.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.05.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Sabichi AL, Lee JJ, Grossman HB, et al. A randomized controlled trial of celecoxib to prevent recurrence of non‐muscle–invasive bladder cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(10):1580‐1589. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Lilenbaum R, Socinski MA, Altorki NK, et al. Randomized phase II trial of docetaxel/Irinotecan and gemcitabine/Irinotecan with or without celecoxib in the second‐line treatment of non–small‐cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(30):4825‐4832. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4773 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Edelman MJ, Wang X, Hodgson L, et al. Phase III randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind trial of celecoxib in addition to standard chemotherapy for advanced non–small‐cell lung cancer with Cyclooxygenase‐2 overexpression: CALGB 30801 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(19):2184‐2192. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.3743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Kelly JD, Tan WS, Porta N, et al. BOXIT—A randomised phase III placebo‐controlled trial evaluating the addition of celecoxib to standard treatment of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder (CRUK/07/004). Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):593‐601. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Bi N, Liang J, Zhou Z, et al. Effect of concurrent Chemoradiation with celecoxib vs concurrent Chemoradiation alone on survival among patients with non–small cell lung cancer with and without cyclooxygenase 2 genetic variants: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(12):e1918070. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Ruysscher DD, Bussink J, Rodrigus P, et al. Concurrent celecoxib versus placebo in patients with stage II–III non‐small cell lung cancer: a randomised phase II trial. Radiother Oncol. 2007;84(1):23‐25. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2007.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Koch A, Bergman B, Holmberg E, et al. Effect of celecoxib on survival in patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: a double blind randomised clinical phase III trial (CYCLUS study) by the Swedish lung cancer study group. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(10):1546‐1555. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.03.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Guo Q, Liu X, Lu L, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety of celecoxib combined with chemotherapy in management of gastric cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(51):e8857. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008857 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Midgley RS, McConkey CC, Johnstone EC, et al. Phase III randomized trial assessing rofecoxib in the adjuvant setting of colorectal cancer: final results of the VICTOR trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(30):4575‐4580. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.29.6244 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Gitlitz BJ, Bernstein E, Santos ES, et al. A randomized, placebo‐controlled, multicenter, biomarker‐selected, phase 2 study of Apricoxib in combination with Erlotinib in patients with advanced non–small‐cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9(4):577‐582. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Kawata S, Yamasaki E, Nagase T, et al. Effect of pravastatin on survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. A randomized controlled trial. Br J Cancer. 2001;84(7):886‐891. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1716 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Marrone KA, Zhou X, Forde PM, et al. A randomized phase II study of metformin plus paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab in patients with chemotherapy‐Naïve advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non‐small cell lung cancer. Oncologist. 2018;23(7):859‐865. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Konings IRHM, van der Gaast A, van der Wijk LJ, de Jongh FE, Eskens FALM, Sleijfer S. The addition of pravastatin to chemotherapy in advanced gastric carcinoma: a randomised phase II trial. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(18):3200‐3204. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.07.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Kim J, Han W, Kim EK, et al. Phase II randomized study of neoadjuvant metformin plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole for ER‐positive postmenopausal breast cancer [METEOR study]. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(15_suppl):576. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.576 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Pujalte Martin M, Borchiellini D, Thamphya B, et al. TAXOMET: a French prospective multicentric randomized phase II study of docetaxel plus metformin versus docetaxel plus placebo in metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2021;19(6):501‐509. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2021.08.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Li L, Jiang L, Wang Y, et al. Combination of metformin and Gefitinib as first‐line therapy for nondiabetic advanced NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations: a randomized, double‐blind phase II trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(23):6967‐6975. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. El Shorbagy S, abuTaleb F, Labib HA, et al. Prognostic significance of VEGF and HIF‐1 α in hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving Sorafenib versus metformin Sorafenib combination. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2021;52(1):269‐279. doi: 10.1007/s12029-020-00389-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Goodwin PJ, Chen BE, Gelmon KA, et al. Effect of metformin vs placebo on invasive disease‐free survival in patients with breast cancer: the MA.32 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;327(20):1963‐1973. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.6147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Strasser‐Weippl K, Higgins MJ, Chapman JAW, et al. Effects of celecoxib and low‐dose aspirin on outcomes in adjuvant aromatase inhibitor‐treated patients: CCTG MA.27. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(9):1003‐1008. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djy017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Köhne CH, De Greve J, Hartmann JT, et al. Irinotecan combined with infusional 5‐fluorouracil/folinic acid or capecitabine plus celecoxib or placebo in the first‐line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. EORTC study 40015. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(5):920‐926. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdm544 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Falandry C, Debled M, Bachelot T, et al. Celecoxib and exemestane versus placebo and exemestane in postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer patients: a double‐blind phase III GINECO study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116(3):501‐508. doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0229-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Hus M, Grzasko N, Szostek M, et al. Thalidomide, dexamethasone and lovastatin with autologous stem cell transplantation as a salvage immunomodulatory therapy in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2011;90(10):1161‐1166. doi: 10.1007/s00277-011-1276-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Reichle A, Vogt T, Coras B, et al. Targeted combined anti‐inflammatory and angiostatic therapy in advanced melanoma: a randomized phase II trial. Melanoma Res. 2007;17(6):360‐364. doi: 10.1097/CMR.0b013e3282f1d2c8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Tong H, Wei B, Chen S, et al. Adjuvant celecoxib and lanreotide following transarterial chemoembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized pilot study. Oncotarget. 2017;8(29):48303‐48312. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.15684 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Reckamp KL, Koczywas M, Cristea MC, et al. Randomized phase 2 trial of erlotinib in combination with high‐dose celecoxib or placebo in patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2015;121(18):3298‐3306. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Edelman MJ, Tan MT, Fidler MJ, et al. Randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, multicenter phase II study of the efficacy and safety of apricoxib in combination with either docetaxel or pemetrexed in patients with biomarker‐selected non‐small‐cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(2):189‐194. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.5789 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Haldar R, Ricon‐Becker I, Radin A, et al. Perioperative COX2 and β‐adrenergic blockade improves biomarkers of tumor metastasis, immunity, and inflammation in colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2020;126(17):3991‐4001. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32950 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Jin CH, Wang AH, Chen JM, et al. Observation of curative efficacy and prognosis following combination chemotherapy with celecoxib in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. J Int Med Res. 2011;39(6):2129‐2140. doi: 10.1177/147323001103900609 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Arrieta O, Barrón F, Padilla MÁS, et al. Effect of metformin plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors compared with tyrosine kinase inhibitors alone in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor‐mutated lung adenocarcinoma: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(11):e192553. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Lee Y, Lee SH, Lee GK, Lim EJ, Han JY. A randomized phase II study of Irinotecan plus cisplatin with or without simvastatin in ever‐smokers with extended disease small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res Treat. 2023;55(3):885‐893. doi: 10.4143/crt.2023.283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Gridelli C, Gallo C, Ceribelli A, et al. Factorial phase III randomised trial of rofecoxib and prolonged constant infusion of gemcitabine in advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer: the GEmcitabine‐COxib in NSCLC (GECO) study. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(6):500‐512. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70146-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Yulian ED, Siregar NC, Bajuadji. Combination of simvastatin and FAC improves response to Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Cancer Res Treat. 2021;53(4):1072‐1083. doi: 10.4143/crt.2020.1024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Alarfi H, Youssef LA, Salamoon M. A prospective, randomized, placebo‐controlled study of a combination of simvastatin and chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. J Oncol. 2020;2020:4174395. doi: 10.1155/2020/4174395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Razmjoo S, Hosseini SM, Shahbazian H, Arvandi S, Ghadamgahi P. A phase III randomized clinical trial study of chemoradiation using lovastatin/cisplatin in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Middle East J Cancer. 2022;13(1):120‐127. doi: 10.30476/mejc.2021.87318.1407 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Riaño I, Martín L, Varela M, et al. Efficacy and safety of the combination of pravastatin and Sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (ESTAHEP clinical trial). Cancer. 2020;12(7):1900. doi: 10.3390/cancers12071900 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Zhao Y, Gong C, Wang Z, et al. A randomized phase II study of aromatase inhibitors plus metformin in pre‐treated postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8(48):84224‐84236. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.20478 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Yee D, Isaacs C, Wolf DM, et al. Ganitumab and metformin plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in stage 2/3 breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2021;7(1):1‐8. doi: 10.1038/s41523-021-00337-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Yoon WS, Chang JH, Kim JH, et al. Efficacy and safety of metformin plus low‐dose temozolomide in patients with recurrent or refractory glioblastoma: a randomized, prospective, multicenter, double‐blind, controlled, phase 2 trial (KNOG‐1501 study). Discov Oncol. 2023;14(1):90. doi: 10.1007/s12672-023-00678-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Coombes RC, Tovey H, Kilburn L, et al. Effect of celecoxib vs placebo as adjuvant therapy on disease‐free survival among patients with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(9):1‐11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Maiello E, Giuliani F, Gebbia V, et al. FOLFIRI with or without celecoxib in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II study of the Gruppo Oncologico dell'Italia Meridionale (GOIM). Ann Oncol. 2006;17:vii55‐9. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdl952 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. James ND, Sydes MR, Mason MD, et al. Celecoxib plus hormone therapy versus hormone therapy alone for hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer: first results from the STAMPEDE multiarm, multistage, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(5):549‐558. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70088-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Guzman‐Esquivel J, Mendoza‐Hernandez MA, Tiburcio‐Jimenez D, et al. Decreased biochemical progression in patients with castration‐resistant prostate cancer using a novel mefenamic acid anti‐inflammatory therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Oncol Lett. 2020;19(6):4151‐4160. doi: 10.3892/ol.2020.11509 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Dirix LY, Ignacio J, Nag S, et al. Treatment of advanced hormone‐sensitive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with exemestane alone or in combination with celecoxib. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1253‐1259. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.3744 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Groen HJM, Sietsma H, Vincent A, et al. Randomized, placebo‐controlled phase III study of docetaxel plus carboplatin with celecoxib and cyclooxygenase‐2 expression as a biomarker for patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer: the NVALT‐4 study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(32):4320‐4326. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.5214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Reyners AKL, de Munck L, Erdkamp FLG, et al. A randomized phase II study investigating the addition of the specific COX‐2 inhibitor celecoxib to docetaxel plus carboplatin as first‐line chemotherapy for stage IC to IV epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinomas: the DoCaCel study. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(11):2896‐2902. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Sayed R, Saad AS, El Wakeel L, Elkholy E, Badary O. Metformin addition to chemotherapy in stage IV non‐small cell lung cancer: an open label randomized controlled study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(15):6621‐6626. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.15.6621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Shah D, Di Re A, Toh JWT. Aspirin chemoprevention in colorectal cancer: network meta‐analysis of low, moderate, and high doses. Br J Surg. 2023;110(12):1691‐1702. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Guirguis‐Blake JM, Evans CV, Perdue LA, Bean SI, Senger CA. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1585‐1597. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.3337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data S1:

CAM4-13-e7049-s001.xlsx (2.8MB, xlsx)

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information.

Articles from Cancer Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES