Evidence Hub

Metformin use and survival in people with ovarian cancer: A population-based cohort study from British Columbia, Canada

Paramdeep Kaur, A. Berchuck, A. Chase, Bronwyn Grout, Cindy McKinnon Deurloo, Leigh C. Pearce, Malcolm C. Pike, Jean Richardson et al.

Neoplasia, 2024

4,951 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Objectives There is an active debate regarding whether metformin use improves survival in people with ovarian cancer. We examined this issue using methods designed to avoid immortal time bias—as bias that occurs when participants in a study cannot experience the outcome for a certain portion of the study time. Methods We used time-dependent analyses to study the association between metformin use for all 4,951 patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 1997 through 2018 in the province of British Columbia, Canada. Cox proportional hazards models were run to estimate the association between metformin and survival in the full cohort of ovarian cancer patients and among a cohort restricted to patients with diabetes. Results Metformin use was associated with a 17 % better ovarian cancer survival in the full cohort (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.83 (95 %CI 0.67, 1.02)), and a 16 % better ovarian cancer survival for serous cancers patient's cohort (aHR = 0.84 (95 %CI 0.66, 1.07)), although both were not significant. However, a statistically significant protective effect was observed when restricting to the diabetic cohort (aHR = 0.71 (95 %CI 0.54–0.91)), which was also seen among serous cancers (aHR = 0.73 (95 %CI 0.54–0.98)). Conclusion Metformin use was associated with improved ovarian cancer survival. The lack of statistical significance in the full cohort may reflect that diabetes is associated with reduced cancer survival, and thus diabetes itself may offset the benefit of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,951 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free