4.6 Article

Metformin and the risk of endometrial cancer: A case-control analysis

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 129, Issue 3, Pages 565-569

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.03.009

Keywords

Metformin; Diabetes mellitus; Endometrial cancer; Antidiabetic drugs; Insulin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To explore the risk of endometrial cancer in relation to metformin and other antidiabetic drugs. Methods. We conducted a case-control analysis to explore the association between use of metformin and other antidiabetic drugs and the risk of endometrial cancer using the UK-based General Practice Research Database (GPRD). Cases were women with an incident diagnosis of endometrial cancer, and up to 6 controls per case were matched in age, sex, calendar time, general practice, and number of years of active history in the GPRD prior to the index date. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated and results were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression analyses for BMI, smoking, a recorded diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, and diabetes duration. Results. A total of 2554 cases with incident endometrial cancer and 15,324 matched controls were identified. Ever use of metformin compared to never use of metformin was not associated with an altered risk of endometrial cancer (adj. OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63-1.18). Stratified by exposure duration, neither long-term (>= 25 prescriptions) use of metformin (adj. OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.54-1.17), nor long-term use of sulfonylureas (adj. OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.44), thiazolidinediones (>= 15 prescriptions; adj. OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.67-2.21), or insulin (adj. OR 1.05 (0.79-1.82) was associated with the risk of endometrial cancer. Conclusion. Use of metformin and other antidiabetic drugs were not associated with an altered risk of endometrial cancer. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available