TY - JOUR
T1 - Metformin use and survival of patients with pancreatic cancer
T2 - A cautionary lesson
AU - Chaiteerakij, Roongruedee
AU - Petersen, Gloria M.
AU - Bamlet, William R.
AU - Chaffee, Kari G.
AU - Zhen, David B.
AU - Burch, Patrick A.
AU - Leof, Emma R.
AU - Roberts, Lewis R.
AU - Oberg, Ann L.
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported by Mayo Clinic SPORE in pancreatic cancer (National Institutes of Health [NIH] Grant No. P50CA102701) and the Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science Activities (NIH National Center for Research Resources Clinical and Translational Science Award Grant No. UL1-TR000135). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Wako Diagnostics (Inst), Innova Diagnostics (Inst), Bayer AG (Inst), BTG (Inst), Ariad Pharmaceuticals (Inst)
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
PY - 2016/6/1
Y1 - 2016/6/1
N2 - Purpose: The inclusion of metformin in the treatment arms of cancer clinical trials is based on improved survival that has been demonstrated in retrospective epidemiologic studies; however, unintended biases may exist when analysis is performed by using a conventional Cox proportional hazards regression model with dichotomous ever/never categorization. We examined the impact of metformin exposure definitions, analytical methods, and patient selection on the estimated effect size of metformin exposure on survival in a large cohort of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Patients and Methods: Of newly diagnosed patients with PDAC with diabetes, 980 were retrospectively included, and exposure to metformin documented. Median survival was assessed by using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were computed to compare time-varying covariate analysis with conventional Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Results: Median survival of metformin users versus nonusers was 9.9 versus 8.9 months, respectively. By the time-varying covariate analysis, metformin use was not statistically significantly associated with improved survival (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81 to1.07; P = .28). There was no evidence of benefit in the subset of patients who were naïve to metformin at the time of PDAC diagnosis (most representative of patients enrolled in clinical trials; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.30; P = .89); however, when the analysis was performed by using the conventional Cox model, an artificial survival benefit of metformin was detected (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.01; P = .08), which suggested biased results from the conventional Cox analysis. Conclusion: Our findings did not suggest the benefit of metformin use after patients are diagnosed with PDAC. We highlight the importance of patient selection and appropriate statistical analytical methods when studying medication exposure and cancer survival.
AB - Purpose: The inclusion of metformin in the treatment arms of cancer clinical trials is based on improved survival that has been demonstrated in retrospective epidemiologic studies; however, unintended biases may exist when analysis is performed by using a conventional Cox proportional hazards regression model with dichotomous ever/never categorization. We examined the impact of metformin exposure definitions, analytical methods, and patient selection on the estimated effect size of metformin exposure on survival in a large cohort of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Patients and Methods: Of newly diagnosed patients with PDAC with diabetes, 980 were retrospectively included, and exposure to metformin documented. Median survival was assessed by using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were computed to compare time-varying covariate analysis with conventional Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Results: Median survival of metformin users versus nonusers was 9.9 versus 8.9 months, respectively. By the time-varying covariate analysis, metformin use was not statistically significantly associated with improved survival (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81 to1.07; P = .28). There was no evidence of benefit in the subset of patients who were naïve to metformin at the time of PDAC diagnosis (most representative of patients enrolled in clinical trials; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.30; P = .89); however, when the analysis was performed by using the conventional Cox model, an artificial survival benefit of metformin was detected (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.01; P = .08), which suggested biased results from the conventional Cox analysis. Conclusion: Our findings did not suggest the benefit of metformin use after patients are diagnosed with PDAC. We highlight the importance of patient selection and appropriate statistical analytical methods when studying medication exposure and cancer survival.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84973162069&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84973162069&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.3511
DO - 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.3511
M3 - Article
C2 - 27069086
AN - SCOPUS:84973162069
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 34
SP - 1898
EP - 1904
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 16
ER -