Home  |  Archive  |  Online Submission  |  News & Events  |  Subscribe  |  APFA  |  Society  |  Links  |  Contact Us  |  中文版

Ahead of print
Authors' Accepted
Current Issue
Special Issues
Browse by Category

Manuscript Submission

Online Submission
Online Review
Instruction for Authors
Instruction for Reviewers
English Corner new!

About AJA

About AJA
Editorial Board
Contact Us

Resources & Services

Email alert

Download area

Copyright licence
EndNote style file
Manuscript word template
Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in English)

Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in Chinese)

Proof-reading for the

AJA Club (in English)
AJA Club (in Chinese)


Societies & Institutes
Databases & Libraries
Other links


Volume 19, Issue 6 (November 2017) 19, 666–671; 10.4103/1008-682X.190327

Effect of statins type on incident prostate cancer risk: a meta‑analysis and systematic review

Ping Tan1, 2, Chen Zhang3, Shi-You Wei4, Zhuang Tang1, 2, Liang Gao1, 2, Lu Yang1, 2, Qiang Wei1, 2

1 Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
2 Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
3 Department of Cardiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
4 Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

Correspondence: Dr. L Yang (uro_yanglu@163.com) or Dr. Q Wei (uro_weiqiang@163.com)

Date of Submission 18-Jan-2016 Date of Decision 08-Jun-2016 Date of Acceptance 25-Aug-2016 Date of Web Publication 02-Dec-2016


The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of statins type or even when grouping statins by hydrophilic or hydrophobic nature on prostate cancer risk. A literature search was performed without language restrictions using the databases of PubMed (1984.1-2015.3), MEDLINE (1984.1-2015.3), and EMBASE (1990.1-2015.3). Two independent reviewers appraised eligible studies and extracted data. Weighted averages were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistic heterogeneity scores were assessed with the standard Cochran's Q-test and I2 statistic. Publication bias was detected using the Begg's and Egger's tests. All statistical analyses were conducted by STATA version 10. Finally, fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Both hydrophilic and hydrophobic statins showed no association with incidence of prostate cancer (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.82-1.17; RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.73-1.08, respectively). Meanwhile, the risk of prostate cancer was not reduced in simvastatin (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.72-1.05), pravastatin (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.94-1.11), atorvastatin (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.76-1.02), fluvastatin (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-1.01), or lovastatin users (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.79-1.08). The funnel plot showed that there was no publication bias. The results showed that statins had a neutral effect on prostate cancer risk; hydrophilic and hydrophobic statins as well as any subtype of statins did not affect the risk of prostate cancer.

Keywords: meta-analysis; prostate cancer; statins type; systematic review

Keywords: meta-analysis; prostate cancer; statins type; systematic review

Full Text | PDF |

Browse:  203
Copyright 1999-2017  Shanghai Materia Medica, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.  All rights reserved