Large-scale trial indicates no benefit from low-dose aspirin in preventing cancer in healthy women

July 05, 2005

A major study that includes nearly 40,000 healthy women found no benefit on preventing cancer from taking low-dose aspirin, or benefit on preventing cancer or cardiovascular disease from taking vitamin E, according to two articles in the July 6 issue of JAMA.

A growing body of literature has supported a protective effect of aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the development of cancer, according to background information in the first article. Observational epidemiological investigations suggest a strong inverse association, with risk reductions as high as 20 percent to 50 percent for various cancer sites. In contrast with the observational evidence on cancer incidence, data from randomized trials, which provide more definitive results due to their ability to minimize bias and confounding, have been far more limited. The Physicians' Health Study (PHS) found no effect on colorectal cancer of 325 mg aspirin administered every other day over a 5-year randomized period or in post trial follow-up. In addition, no randomized trial has yet assessed the impact of aspirin on the development of breast cancer.

The Women's Health Study (WHS) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, conducted between September 1992 and March 2004, evaluating the balance of benefits and risks of 100 mg of aspirin every other day, and 600 IU of vitamin E every other day on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer in a cohort of 39,876 healthy female health care professionals over an average duration of 10.1 years.

In the first article, Nancy R. Cook, Sc.D., of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues evaluated the findings for the aspirin component of the WHS with regard to cancer risk. In this part of the study, 19,934 women received a dose of 100 mg of aspirin every other day and 19,942 women received placebo.

The researchers found that aspirin had no observed effect on total cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or cancer of any other site, with the exception of lung cancer for which there was a trend toward reduction in risk (22 percent reduced risk). There was also no reduction in cancer death either overall or by site, except for lung cancer death (30 percent reduced risk). No evidence of differential effects of aspirin by follow-up time or interaction with vitamin E was found.

"The findings from the WHS suggest that aspirin at a dose of 100 mg every other day is not effective in reducing risk of cancer in healthy women, although a beneficial effect on lung cancer cannot be ruled out. This large study of almost 40,000 women had a duration of 10 years of treatment and follow-up, which was the longest of any trial completed to date, and should be sufficient to detect long-term effects. To determine whether higher doses of aspirin taken daily would be effective in cancer prevention requires direct randomized trial data. Such data would need to be considered in the context of risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects before recommending higher-dose aspirin for cancer chemoprevention among low-risk individuals," the authors conclude.
-end-
(JAMA. 2005;294:47-55. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org)

Editor's Note: For funding/support and financial disclosure information, please see the JAMA article.

Editorial: Low-Dose Aspirin and Vitamin E - Challenges and Opportunities in Cancer Prevention

In an accompanying editorial, Eric J. Jacobs, Ph.D., and Michael J. Thun, M.D., of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, comment on the findings by Cook et al.

"Should the null results with respect to cancer from this large, well-conducted, long-term randomized trial, or from other chemoprevention trials, be considered discouraging news for cancer chemoprevention in general? There have been some successes in cancer chemoprevention, such as the use of tamoxifen to prevent breast cancer in high-risk women. However, currently, no agent has been shown to do for cancer what statins do for cardiovascular disease, namely substantially and relatively safely reduce disease occurrence in individuals not at especially high risk."

"Pharmacological primary prevention of diseases as heterogeneous as cancer is inherently difficult. Randomized trials of cancer chemoprevention will undoubtedly produce many null results. Nevertheless, continued systematic research on cancer chemoprevention, including long-term randomized trials of carefully chosen agents, is essential given the large potential benefits. At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect the discovery of an agent that will produce substantial reductions in overall cancer rates in the immediate future," authors write.

(JAMA. 2005;294:105-106. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org)

The JAMA Network Journals

Related Lung Cancer Articles from Brightsurf:

State-level lung cancer screening rates not aligned with lung cancer burden in the US
A new study reports that state-level lung cancer screening rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden.

The lung microbiome may affect lung cancer pathogenesis and prognosis
Enrichment of the lungs with oral commensal microbes was associated with advanced stage disease, worse prognosis, and tumor progression in patients with lung cancer, according to results from a study published in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

New analysis finds lung cancer screening reduces rates of lung cancer-specific death
Low-dose CT screening methods may prevent one death per 250 at-risk adults screened, according to a meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled clinical trials of lung cancer screening.

'Social smokers' face disproportionate risk of death from lung disease and lung cancer
'Social smokers' are more than twice as likely to die of lung disease and more than eight times as likely to die of lung cancer than non-smokers, according to research presented at the European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Lung cancer therapy may improve outcomes of metastatic brain cancer
A medication commonly used to treat non-small cell lung cancer that has spread, or metastasized, may have benefits for patients with metastatic brain cancers, suggests a new review and analysis led by researchers at St.

Cancer mortality continues steady decline, driven by progress against lung cancer
The cancer death rate declined by 29% from 1991 to 2017, including a 2.2% drop from 2016 to 2017, the largest single-year drop in cancer mortality ever reported.

Cancer-sniffing dogs 97% accurate in identifying lung cancer, according to study in JAOA
The next step will be to further fractionate the samples based on chemical and physical properties, presenting them back to the dogs until the specific biomarkers for each cancer are identified.

Lung transplant patients face elevated lung cancer risk
In an American Journal of Transplantation study, lung cancer risk was increased after lung transplantation, especially in the native (non-transplanted) lung of single lung transplant recipients.

Proposed cancer treatment may boost lung cancer stem cells, study warns
Epigenetic therapies -- targeting enzymes that alter what genes are turned on or off in a cell -- are of growing interest in the cancer field as a way of making a cancer less aggressive or less malignant.

Are you at risk for lung cancer?
This question isn't only for people who've smoked a lot.

Read More: Lung Cancer News and Lung Cancer Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.