Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 23;9(2):326. doi: 10.3390/jcm9020326

Table 1.

Summary of each individual meta-analysis on associations of the use of statin and all-cause mortality in various cancers.

Type/Author, Year Study Design No of Study No of Total Participants Random Effects
(Reported)
(ES, 95%CI)
Random Effects
(Re-Analyzed)
(ES, 95%CI)
Fixed Effects
(Re-Analyzed)
(ES, 95%CI)
Largest Effect § Egger I2 (P) † P
(Random)
P
(Fixed)
95% PI
(Random)
Small Study Effect Same Direction Evidence
Bladder cancer
Luo 2015 Obs 1 1117 1.14
(0.89–1.44)
1.14
(0.89–1.44)
1.14
(0.89–1.44)
1.14
(0.89–1.44)
- - 0.286 0.286 NA - No Non-significant
Breast cancer
Mei 2017 Cohort 7 24,255 0.65
(0.43–0.99)
0.65
(0.43–0.98)
0.72
(0.67–0.77)
0.78
(0.72–0.84)
0.541 92.7 (<0.001) 0.042 <0.001 0.15–2.76 No Yes Weak
Liu 2017 Cohort 8 68,373 0.72
(0.58–0.89)
0.72
(0.58–0.89)
0.74
(0.69–0.78)
0.46
(0.38–0.55)
0.702 87.4 (<0.001) 0.002 <0.001 0.36–1.44 No Yes Weak
Manthravadi 2016 Cohort 8 40,756 0.66
(0.44–0.99)
0.66
(0.44–0.99)
0.64
(0.57–0.70)
0.39
(0.33–0.46)
0.864 89.0 (<0.001) 0.043 <0.001 0.18–2.40 No Yes Weak
Zhong 2015 (post-diagnostic) Obs 6 51,265 0.75
(0.55–1.02)
0.75
(0.55–1.03)
0.72
(0.64–0.80)
0.47
(0.38–0.59)
0.816 77.8 (<0.001) 0.079 <0.001 0.27–2.09 No No Non-significant
Zhong 2015 (pre-diagnostic) Obs 3 49,116 0.73
(0.62–0.86)
0.73
(0.63–0.86)
0.76
(0.69–0.83)
0.60
(0.45–0.81)
0.501 33.3 (0.269) <0.001 <0.001 0.18–2.95 No Yes Suggestive
Colorectal cancer
Mei 2017 Cohort 9 44,476 0.76
(0.68–0.86)
0.76
(0.68–0.86)
0.75
(0.72–0.80)
0.72
(0.67–0.78)
0.793 67.3 (0.002) <0.001 <0.001 0.54–1.07 No Yes Suggestive *
Gray 2016 (post-diagnostic) Obs 11 21,030 0.84
(0.73–0.98)
0.85
(0.73–0.98)
0.84
(0.79–0.90)
0.90
(0.80–1.01)
0.760 69.0 (<0.001) 0.029 <0.001 0.53–1.34 No No Weak
Gray 2016 (pre-diagnostic) Obs 6 44,026 0.85
(0.76–0.96)
0.85
(0.76–0.96)
0.84
(0.80–0.88)
0.85
(0.79–0.92)
0.720 76.0 (<0.001) 0.011 <0.001 0.59–1.24 No Yes Suggestive *
Ling 2015 (post-diagnostic) Cohort 5 10,038 0.93
(0.68–1.27)
0.93
(0.68–1.27)
0.81
(0.73–0.90)
0.75
(0.66–0.84)
0.443 69.4 (0.011) 0.639 <0.001 0.33–2.59 No No Non-significant
Ling 2015 (pre-diagnostic) Cohort 4 12,396 0.73
(0.61–0.88)
0.73
(0.62–0.86)
0.74
(0.66–0.84)
0.81
(0.68–0.96)
0.251 19.9 (0.291) <0.001 <0.001 0.45–1.19 No Yes Suggestive
Cai 2015 (post & pre-diagnostic) Obs 4 11,786 0.76
(0.61–0.95)
0.79
(0.65–0.95)
0.79
(0.65–0.95)
0.71
(0.54–0.94)
0.587 0.0 (0.447) 0.013 0.013 0.52–1.18 No Yes Suggestive
Cai 2015 (post-diagnostic) Obs 4 15,862 0.76
(0.68–0.85)
0.76
(0.68–0.85)
0.76
(0.68–0.85)
0.75
(0.66–0.84)
0.723 0.0 (0.393) <0.001 <0.001 0.60–0.96 No Yes Convincing
Cai 2015 (pre-diagnostic) Obs 2 10,553 0.70
(0.54–0.91)
0.70
(0.54–0.91)
0.70
(0.54–0.91)
0.71
(0.54–0.94)
- 0.0 (0.795) 0.007 0.007 NA - Yes -
Zhong 2015 (post-diagnostic) Obs 6 12,441 0.96
(0.76–1.22)
0.97
(0.75–1.24)
0.86
(0.77–0.95)
0.75
(0.66–0.85)
0.295 65.9 (0.004) 0.792 0.003 0.45–2.09 No No Weak
Zhong 2015 (pre-diagnostic) Obs 3 18,733 0.77
(0.66–0.89)
0.78
(0.69–0.88)
0.79
(0.72–0.87)
0.82
(0.74–0.91)
0.353 31.4 (0.300) <0.001 <0.001 0.27–2.25 No Yes Suggestive
Endocrine-Related Gynecological Cancer
Xie 2017 Obs 9 5449 - 0.70
(0.58–0.83)
0.71
(0.63–0.80)
0.66
(0.55–0.80)
0.250 33.3 (0.151) <0.001 <0.001 0.47–1.04 No Yes Suggestive
Endometrial Cancer
Xie 2017 Obs 4 3460 - 0.80
(0.62–1.03)
0.84
(0.69–1.01)
0.92
(0.70–1.20)
0.046 0.0 (0.680) 0.083 0.058 0.34–1.89 Yes Yes Non-significant
Zhong 2015 (post-diagnostic) Obs 3 3261 0.89
(0.72–1.09)
0.86
(0.64–1.15)
0.89
(0.72–1.09)
0.92
(0.70–1.20)
0.156 0.0 (0.203) 0.309 0.255 0.05–13.49 No Yes Non-significant
Kidney Cancer
Nayan 2017 Overall 7 11,491 0.74
(0.63–0.88)
0.74
(0.63–0.88)
0.78
(0.71–0.87)
0.80
(0.66–0.97)
0.057 51.8 (0.052) 0.001 <0.001 0.47–1.17 Yes Yes Weak
Luo 2015 Obs 3 5881 0.81
(0.68–0.96)
0.81
(0.69–0.96)
0.82
(0.72–0.94)
0.84
(0.69–1.00)
0.378 26.0 (0.260) 0.015 0.005 0.19–3.47 No No Suggestive
Lymphoma
Zhong 2015 (post-diagnostic) Obs 3 782 1.15
(0.85–1.55)
1.15
(0.85–1.55)
1.15
(0.85–1.55)
1.23
(0.88–1.71)
0.195 0.0 (0.602) 0.362 0.362 0.16–8.24 No Yes Non-significant
Ovarian Cancer
Li 2018 Obs 7 16,389 0.74
(0.63–0.87)
0.74
(0.63–0.87)
0.79
(0.73–0.86)
0.81
(0.72–0.90)
0.061 55.0 (0.038) <0.001 <0.001 0.49–1.11 No Yes Suggestive
Xie 2017 Obs 5 1989 - 0.63
(0.54–0.74)
0.63
(0.54–0.74)
0.66
(0.55–0.80)
0.200 0.0 (0.680) <0.001 <0.001 0.48–0.82 No Yes Convincing
Zhong 2015
(post-diagnostic)
Obs 2 276 0.39
(0.22–0.71)
0.39
(0.22–0.71)
0.39
(0.22–0.71)
0.24
(0.07–0.87)
- 0.0 (0.395) 0.002 0.002 NA - Yes -
Pancreatic Cancer
Jian-Yu 2018 Overall 6 12,057 0.75
(0.59–0.90)
0.81
(0.69–0.95)
0.92
(0.87–0.97)
0.94
(0.89–1.01)
0.008 81.1 (<0.001) 0.009 0.001 0.52–1.26 Yes No Weak
Prostate Cancer
Mei 2017 Cohort 10 73,716 0.72
(0.63–0.81)
0.72
(0.63–0.81)
0.89
(0.87–0.91)
0.79
(0.76–0.82)
0.044 95.0 (<0.001) <0.001 <0.001 0.46–1.12 Yes Yes Weak
Meng 2016 (post-diagnostic) Obs 7 58,838 0.84
(0.71–0.99)
0.77
(0.68–0.86)
0.80
(0.76–0.83)
0.79
(0.75–0.83)
0.376 72.0 (0.002) <0.001 <0.001 0.54–1.09 No Yes Suggestive *
Meng 2016 (pre-diagnostic) Obs 2 1337 0.56
(0.38–0.85)
0.56
(0.38–0.83)
0.56
(0.38–0.83)
0.57
(0.38–0.85)
- 0.0 (0.770) 0.004 0.004 NA - Yes -
Raval 2016 Cohort 6 31,539 0.76
(0.63–0.90)
0.76
(0.63–0.91)
0.80
(−0.75–0.86)
0.86
(0.78–0.95)
0.503 71.0 (0.004) 0.004 <0.001 0.44–1.29 No Yes Weak
Luo 2015 Obs 5 22,439 0.82
(0.70–0.97)
0.83
(0.70–0.97)
0.85
(0.78–0.93)
0.86
(0.78–0.95)
0.461 46.0 (0.110) 0.022 <0.001 0.52–1.31 No Yes Suggestive
Zhong 2015
(post-diagnostic)
Obs 3 18,814 0.59
(0.35–0.99)
0.59
(0.34–1.01)
0.82
(0.75–0.90)
0.86
(0.78–0.95)
0.228 84.1 (0.001) 0.053 <0.001 0.00–406.64 No No Non-significant
Urothelial Tract Cancer
Zhong 2015
(post-diagnostic)
Obs 5 9488 0.87
(0.75–1.00)
0.87
(0.75–1.00)
0.87
(0.79–0.95)
0.89
(0.71–1.12)
0.917 52.8 (0.070) 0.049 0.001 0.56–1.34 No No Weak

ES, Effect size; CI, Confidence interval; PI, Prediction interval; Obs, Observational study. § Risk ratio (95% Confidence interval) of the largest study in each meta-analysis. † I2 metric of inconsistency (95% confidence interval of I2) and P-value of the Cochran Q test for evaluation of heterogeneity. * Convincing or suggestive level of evidence due to the greater number of studies that decrease risk.