Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40996732›Full record

Trial reportJAMA oncology2025

Low-Dose Aspirin for Individualized Cancer Prevention in Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of the ASPREE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Le Thi Phuong Thao, Tri-Long Nguyen, Jasmine Singh, Sean G Byars, Alexander G Bick, Leslie Ford, Peter Gibbs, John J McNeil, Anne M Murray, Suzanne G Orchard and 9 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01038583 (Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT01038583 unknown statusnot on this map

Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly

TypeobservationalSponsorHennepin Healthcare Research InstituteRan2010 to 2024Enrolled19,114ConditionsFunctional Disability, Dementia, Heart Disease, StrokeArms100 mg enteric-coated aspirin, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

19 authors.

Le Thi Phuong ThaoSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Tri-Long NguyenSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jasmine SinghSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sean G ByarsAustralian Centre for Blood Diseases, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Alexander G BickDivision of Genetic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Leslie FordDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Peter GibbsPersonalised Oncology Division, Walter and Elize Hall Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
John J McNeilSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anne M MurrayBerman Center for Outcomes and Clinical Research, Hennepin Health Research Institute, Hennepin Healthcare and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Suzanne G OrchardSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
James PhungSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Asad UmarGastrointestinal and Other Cancers Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland.
Erica M WoodSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Robyn L WoodsSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Paul LacazeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Andrew T ChanClinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
David J CurtisAustralian Centre for Blood Diseases, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Zoe K McQuiltenSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Rory WolfeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The role of low-dose aspirin (LDA) in cancer prevention among older adults is unclear. Identifying individuals likely to experience benefit or harm is crucial for guiding personalized prevention strategies. Objective: To identify subgroups of the older population who may benefit most from LDA for cancer prevention by developing and validating an effect score model, including individual characteristics such as clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and other factors, to predict the individualized treatment effects (ITEs) of LDA in cancer incidence. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study is a nonprespecified secondary analysis of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) randomized clinical trial conducted between 2010 and 2014. Australian community-dwelling ASPREE participants (aged ≥70 years) provided biospecimen samples for CHIP testing. CHIP was measured in 18 genes using a targeted sequencing assay. Analyses were conducted between May 2023 and July 2025. Exposures: LDA (100 mg per day) or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall cancer incidence at 5 years. Twelve candidate models for predicting ITEs were assessed; the final model was selected to maximize cancer risk reduction and internally validated using bootstrapping. Participants were grouped into treatment-favorable (ITE >0) and treatment-unfavorable (ITE <0) subgroups based on the final predictive model. Results: A total of 9350 participants were included in the analysis (median age, 73.7 [IQR, 71.6-77.1] years; 5021 females [53.7%]) to LDA (4667 [49.9%]) or placebo (4683 [50.1%]). The median follow-up was 4.5 (IQR, 3.3-5.5) years. Factors associated with LDA benefit included older age, nonsmoking status, CHIP with a variant allele frequency of 10% or greater, family history of cancer, and lower body mass index. CHIP was the strongest predictor of benefit. Personalized treatment based on the model improved 5-year absolute cancer risk reduction by a median of 2.3% (IQR, 0.7%-3.7%) compared with a treat-all approach (LDA to all participants). LDA was associated with lower cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.72-1.00]) in the treatment-favorable subgroup and higher cancer risk (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.95-1.38]) in the treatment-unfavorable subgroup (P = .02 for heterogeneity). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest significant heterogeneity in the effectiveness of LDA for cancer prevention among older adults, with CHIP identified as a key predictive factor. Further study is needed to fully understand the implications of these findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01038583.

Indexed as

AspirinNeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaFemaleHumansIncidenceMalePrecision MedicineAspirin

Identifiers

PMID40996732
PMCPMC12464852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.