SynthesisOncotarget2016
Systematic review with network meta-analysis: statins and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Statin use and risk of HCC in patients with MASLD and T2DM: an umbrella review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025 · on this mapPooled it
- KASL clinical practice guidelines for management of chronic hepatitis B.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2022Guideline
- A Meta-Analysis of Statin Use and Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Pooled it
- KASL clinical practice guidelines for management of chronic hepatitis B.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2019Guideline
- Pharmacological interventions for non-alcohol related fatty liver disease (NAFLD): an attempted network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Phase 2 trial comparing sorafenib, pravastatin, their combination or supportive care in HCC with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis.Hepatology international · 2021Trial
- Risk Factors and Prevention of Cancer and CVDs: A Chicken and Egg Situation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Current and emerging strategies for the prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Review
- Research Progress of Liver Cancer Recurrence Based on Energy Metabolism of Liver Cancer Stem Cells.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025Review
- The Impact of Statins on the Survival of Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Sorafenib or Lenvatinib.Cancers · 2024Article
- Metabolism as a New Avenue for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Screening and interventions to prevent nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis-associated hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Statin Use Reduces the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Cureus · 2022Review
- Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma: Clinical challenges of an intriguing link.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Hepatocellular Carcinoma Due to Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Current Concepts and Future Challenges.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2022Review
- Antitumor Effects and Mechanisms of Metabolic Syndrome Medications on Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2022Review
- Crosstalk between Statins and Cancer Prevention and Therapy: An Update.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Target Therapies for NASH/NAFLD: From the Molecular Aspect to the Pharmacological and Surgical Alternatives.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Organ-specific cholesterol metabolic aberration fuels liver metastasis of colorectal cancer.Theranostics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesUsage of statins is suggested to decrease the incidence of HCC. When it comes to different statin subtypes, the chemopreventive action remains controversial. We aim to compare the usage of different statins and reduction of HCC risk.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase.com and Cochrane Library database up to August 10, 2015. Duplicated or overlapping reports were eliminated. We performed a traditional pair-wise meta-analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare different treatments with a random-effects model.
resultsWe reviewed five observational studies enrolling a total of 87127 patients who received at least two different treatment strategies including rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, fluvastatin, cerivastatin, and lovastatin or observation alone. Direct comparisons showed that usage of atorvastatin (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.45-0.89) and fluvastatin (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.40-0.85) could significantly cut the risk of liver cancer. The difference of indirect comparisons between the included regimens is not statistically significant. However, usage of all types of statins, such as fluvastatin (RR 0.55, 95%CI 0.26-1.11), atorvastatin (RR 0.59, 95%CI 0.30-1.16), simvastatin (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.38-1.25), cerivastatin (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.19-2.70), pravastatin (RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.37-1.45), lovastatin (RR 0.81, 95%CI 0.34-1.96) and rosuvastatin (RR 0.92, 95%CI 0.44-1.80), appeared to be superior to observation alone. Notably, fluvastatin was hierarchically the best when compared with the six other statins.
conclusionsOur analyses indicate the superiority of usage of statins in reduction of liver cancer. Available evidence supports that fluvastatin is the most effective strategy for reducing HCC risk compared with other statin interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.