Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29265740›Full record

ReviewBasic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology2018

Considerations for Pharmacoepidemiological Studies of Drug-Cancer Associations.

Anton Pottegård, Søren Friis, Til Stürmer, Jesper Hallas, Shahram Bahmanyar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Role of Galectin-3 in Liver Inflammation and Fibrosis.Journal of inflammation research · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anton PottegårdClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Søren FriisDanish Cancer Society Research Center, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Til StürmerDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Jesper HallasClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Shahram BahmanyarDepartment of Medicine, Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology, Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Propensity scores and preventive drug use in the elderlyR01AG056479 · NIA · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Til Sturmer · 2017 to 2026
$5.0M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG056479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this MiniReview, we provide general considerations for the planning and conduct of pharmacoepidemiological studies of associations between drug use and cancer development. We address data sources, study design, assessment of drug exposure, ascertainment of cancer outcomes, confounder adjustment and future perspectives. Aspects of data sources include assessment of complete history of drug use and data on dose and duration of drug use, allowing estimates of cumulative exposure. Outcome data from formal cancer registries are preferable, but cancer data from other sources, for example, patient or pathology registries, medical records or claims are also suitable. The two principal designs for observational studies evaluating drug-cancer associations are the cohort and case-control designs. A key challenge in studies of drug-cancer associations is the exposure assessment due to the typically long period of cancer development. We present methods to examine early and late effects of drug use on cancer development and discuss the need for employing 'lag-time' in order to avoid reverse causation. We emphasize that a new-user study design should always be considered. We also underline the need for 'dose-response' analyses, as drug-cancer associations are likely to be dose-dependent. Generally, studies of drug-cancer associations should explore risk of site-specific cancer, rather than cancer overall. Additional differentiation may also be crucial for organ-specific cancer with various distinct histological subtypes (e.g., lung or ovary cancer). We also highlight the influence of confounding factors and discuss various methods to address confounding, while emphasizing that the choices of methods depend on the design and specific objectives of the individual study. In some studies, use of active comparator(s) may be preferable. Pharmacoepidemiological studies of drug-cancer associations are expected to evolve considerably in the coming years, due to the increasing availability of long-term data on drug exposures and cancer outcomes, the increasing conduct of multinational studies, allowing studies of rare cancers and subtypes of cancer, and methodological improvements specifically addressing cancer and other long-term outcomes.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic Research DesignConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansNeoplasmsObservational Studies as TopicPharmacoepidemiologyPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID29265740
PMCPMC7025319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.