Abstract
Background
Acid-suppressive agents (ASAs) may be associated with cancer; previous studies reported that the risk of cancer with acid suppressants has differed depending on the site of cancer. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between ASA use and the type of cancer risk.
Methods
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched for publications up to the end of September 2019 for MeSH terms and text words related to cancer and ASAs. Studies on the association between ASAs and cancer risk, which included a control group and reported the relative risk of cancer, were included. The inverse-variance random effect model was used to estimate the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and subgroup analysis for type of acid suppressants, drug uptake duration, and cumulative doses was performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test and Q statistic.
Results
Thirty-nine cohort and case–control studies were included. ASA use was found to be significantly associated with a 46% higher risk of gastric cancer (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.18–1.80) and a 53% higher risk of liver cancer (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.31–1.78) compared with nonuse; however, there was no significant association for esophageal, colorectal, pancreatic, lung, breast, prostate, and kidney cancer; melanoma; and lymphoma.
Conclusions
ASAs were significantly associated with an increased risk of gastric and liver cancer; therefore, special attention of ASA use considering the potential risk of gastric and liver cancer is needed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Histamine 2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), common acid-suppressive agents (ASAs), are the mainstay treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Both classes of drugs can effectively alleviate patient symptoms and decrease the frequency and duration of gastroesophageal reflux, although through different mechanisms of action [1].
During acid-suppressive therapy, hypergastrinemia, defined as an excessive gastrin level (> 100–150 pg/mL), has been implicated as a potential factor in the pathogenesis of carcinoid, which can subsequently spread to different organs. According to a large population-based study analyzing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, the most frequent sites for carcinoids were the colon (35.9%); small intestine (32.9%); respiratory system, including the larynx, trachea, bronchi, and lung (25.1%); and stomach (3.2%) for more than 8000 patients with carcinoid tumors [2]. Rare carcinoids were also found in the esophagus (0.04%), liver (0.2%), gallbladder (0.2%), pancreas (0.6%), and female reproductive organs (0.6%). H2RAs and PPIs, which inhibit gastrin secretion by decreasing gastric acidity, may cause hypergastrinemia. The association between hypergastrinemia and cancer is well documented in the literature [3,4,5].
Decreased gastric acidity during acid-suppressive therapy may result in bacterial overgrowth in the gut. Studies have postulated that gastric bacterial overgrowth is predictive of several nongastrointestinal clinical outcomes, including lung and liver disease, and even cancer [6, 7]. For example, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, defined as bacterial culture of > 105 CFU/mL in the upper jejunal aspirate, is known to be directly related to the severity of liver disease [8]. Another recent study found that the alteration of gut microbiome occurred at a higher rate in patients with lung cancer compared with that in cancer-free individuals [9].
Considering these mechanisms, ASAs may be associated with cancers, and the results of previous studies regarding this association have differed by the site of cancer [10]. A meta-analysis showed an increased risk of gastric cancer in patients using PPI or H2RA, whereas it showed a lack of association between colorectal and pancreatic cancers and long-term PPIs. However, a definitive conclusion could not be made because of the limited studies included [10,11,12]. In addition, the correlation between PPI use and chronic kidney disease and liver dysfunction has been investigated [10, 13,14,15]. Thus, pooled estimates combining hazard ratios from each study according to different types of cancer and the use of PPI/H2RA are needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between ASA use and the risk of various types of cancer.
Methods
Literature search
The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library core databases were searched for articles published up until the end of September 2019. We used MeSH terms and text words related to cancer (“neoplasm,” “tumor,” and “adenoma”) and ASAs (“proton pump inhibitor” and “histamine H2 antagonist”). The drug name, brand name, and chemical name of all acid-suppressive agents, including PPIs (omeprazole, esomeprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, lansoprazole, dexlansoprazole, tenatoprazole, and benatoprazole) and H2RAs (azacitidine, cimetidine, famotidine, lafutidine, nizatidine, ranitidine, and roxatidine), were used in the search. The details of the search strategy are noted in Supplement Table 1.
Study selection
Only studies that met the following criteria were included: (1) the study reported the association between ASAs and the risk of cancer; (2) the study compared at least two independent groups (i.e., ASA receiving group and a nonuse group); (3) the study quantified and reported the relative risk of cancer between groups by calculating parameters, such as the risk ratio (RR), hazard ratio (HR), or odds ratio (OR); (4) the studies were randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled studies, and observational studies; (5) peer-reviewed original studies; and (6) English-language studies. Two reviewers independently conducted the study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction (HJS, NJ). Disagreement between the two reviewers was resolved by consensus with the third reviewer (PS). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [16], and the study protocol was registered to PROSPERO (CRD42019131274) prior to conducting the study.
Quality assessment
The quality assessment tool used was the Risk of Bias Assessment for Non-randomized Studies (ROBANS) since we could only include observational studies. ROBANS is a domain-based evaluation tool and is developed using 39 nonrandomized studies in 2013; it shows moderate reliability and validity [17]. It is composed of five items (selection of participants, confounding variables, measurement of intervention, blinding for outcome assessment, and incomplete outcome data) and was assessed at three levels (high, unclear, or low) for each study. We added the item of recall bias as another risk of bias since some of the included studies investigated the use of ASAs using patient-reported survey.
Data extraction
We extracted the baseline characteristics, exposures, and outcomes of included studies using the prespecified protocol. The study design, country, study period, number of participants (control/case), mean age, and percentage of male participants were collected. Interventions (PPI/H2RA) and outcomes, including relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI), exposure/follow-up period, and covariates in regression analysis or matching, were also extracted.
Data analysis
The primary outcome was the adjusted estimates of the risk of cancer associated with ASAs. We used the best-adjusted relative risks with a 95% CI after controlling the confounding variables from each included study for the meta-analysis. In the base-case analysis, we prioritized data from groups with any use of ASAs ever, PPI use, prescription drug, long-term follow-up, and the highest cumulative defined cumulative daily drug dose (cDDD), in this order. If the study only reported the relative risk of cancer by subdivision, we used the result of the most common cancer type. For example, the studies of gastric cancer reported the results of both gastric cardia and noncardia adenocarcinoma. We used the gastric cardia adenocarcinoma data in the base-case analysis and performed a subgroup analysis for each type of gastric cancer.
The inverse-variance random effect model was used to estimate the pooled data. Each study reported a different type of relative risk, such as HR, RR, or OR. In the meta-analysis, HRs were considered as RRs [18, 19], and ORs were converted to RRs using the method described by Zhang and Yu [20]. In addition, we performed subgroup analysis according to PPI/H2RA use, types of cancer (if possible), drug uptake duration, cDDD, specific subgroup patients (e.g., different types of cancers, patients with Helicobacter pylori, patients with hepatitis B or C virus), and studies of low risk of bias of measurement of intervention (i.e., ASAs taken by both prescription and over-the-counter [OTC]). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test and Q statistic, with significance of the Q-statistic test being considered at P < 0.05. Heterogeneity was considered for I2 values of more than 50% [21]. The funnel plot was used to estimate possible publication bias owing to the tendency to publish studies with positive results. We used Review Manager 5.3 software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014).
Results
Literature search
Our literature search identified 49,694 articles (Fig. 1). After removal of duplicate articles, title or abstract screening was conducted for 43,585 articles. In the title/abstract review, 39,864 articles were removed and 3682 articles were excluded from the full-text review owing to one of the following reasons: no patients with cancer, no acid-suppressant therapy, ineligible study design, no comparator group available, no outcomes of interest reported, and nonoriginal studies. Finally, 39 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60].
General characteristics of the included studies
The 39 studies investigated esophageal cancer (n = 6), gastric cancer (n = 10), colorectal cancer (n = 7), liver cancer (n = 5), pancreatic cancer (n = 7), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 6), prostate cancer (n = 3), kidney cancer (n = 1), melanoma (n = 2), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 1), and other cancers (n = 2). Some studies have included the results of association with more than one cancer; thus, each outcome for different types of cancer, respectively, was analyzed in the meta-analysis of each cancer. There were 30 case–control studies and 11 cohort studies in total, including two cohort studies in the study by Kao et al. and a case–control and a cohort study by Tran et al. (Table 1). The studies were from several countries: the USA, Canada, the UK, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea.
Quality assessment
The items estimating a low risk of bias with more than 75% were selection of participants, blinding for outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and other risk of bias (recall bias) (Fig. 2). The confounding variables and measurement of intervention were assessed as more than 50% of unclear or high risk of bias, because there were studies that only reported crude estimates, and the suitable confounding covariates for the adjusted estimates were not included. ASAs can also be bought as OTC drugs in many countries; thus, we evaluated an unclear risk of bias for the measurement of intervention if the included studies indicated the possibility that the patients assessed were taking OTCs.
Acid-suppressive agents and esophageal cancer
Five studies with 15,161 individuals reported that ASAs and the risk of esophageal cancer were not significantly associated (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.77–1.29), with no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 13%, P = 0.33) (Fig. 3a). We did not include the study by Habel et al. in the meta-analysis as they reported the combined relative risk of esophageal and stomach cancer. In the subgroup analysis, both PPI use and H2RA use did not show a significant association with esophageal cancer (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.55–1.03 in PPI users and RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.72–1.32 in H2RA users) (Table 2). The association according to the treatment duration or type of esophageal cancer (adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma) was also insignificant.
Acid-suppressive agents and gastric cancer
Nine studies including 130,074 individuals estimated that ASA users showed a 46% higher risk of gastric cancer compared with that of nonusers (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.18–1.80), with slight significant heterogeneity (I2 = 51%, P = 0.04) (Fig. 3b). There was no evidence of publication bias based on the funnel plot (Fig. 4b). Both PPI use and H2RA use were associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.13–2.07 in PPI users and RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.08–1.60 in H2RA users) (Table 2). The significant association was also shown in patients with Helicobacter pylori. For the group consisting of individuals who used ASAs for 1 year or more/less than 1 year, the subgroup of cardia or noncardia cancer, a significant association with gastric cancer was not shown.
Acid-suppressive agents and colorectal cancer
In total, 605,043 individuals in seven studies showed no significant association between ASAs and colorectal cancer (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91–1.14) (Fig. 3c). We could not detect any evidence for heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = 0.74) or publication bias (Fig. 4c). In the subgroup analysis, the results were consistent with those of the base-case analysis: PPI/H2RA, drug intake duration of less than 1 year/1 year or more, and fewer than 60 cDDDs/60 cDDDs or more (Table 2).
Acid-suppressive agents and liver cancer
Seven cohorts from five studies of the association between ASAs and liver cancer included 809,465 individuals. ASA use was significantly associated with a 53% increased risk of liver cancer compared with nonuse (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.31–1.78) (Fig. 3d). Significant heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 84%, P < 0.001) and there was no evidence of publication bias based on the funnel plot (Fig. 4d). In the subgroup analysis by type of ASAs, there was no significant association between H2RA users and the risk of liver cancer, whereas PPIs were significantly associated with liver cancer (Table 2). According to the cDDD, ASA users with 365 DDDs or more and those with less than 365 DDDs did not show a significant association with the risk of liver cancer. With regard to the type of liver cancer, ASA use associated with an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.17–1.68), but not of intrahepatic bile duct carcinoma. PPI use was also associated with the increasing risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis B or C virus (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.03–2.03).
Acid-suppressive agents and pancreatic cancer
Seven studies including 554,115 individuals demonstrated that the use of ASAs was not significantly related with the risk of pancreatic cancer compared with nonuse (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.92–2.45) (Fig. 3e). Significant heterogeneity was shown (I2 = 84%, P < 0.001), and there was no evidence of publication bias (Fig. 4e). The subgroup analyses of PPI or H2RA, drug intake duration, and cDDDs between ASA use and the risk of pancreatic cancer did not show a significant association (Table 2).
Acid-suppressive agents and breast cancer
In total, 209,329 individuals were included in six studies to estimate the association between ASAs and breast cancer. ASA use was not significantly associated with the risk of breast cancer (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80–1.01) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 86%, P < 0.001) (Fig. 5a). The results of subgroup analyses were consistent with those of the base-case analysis (Table 2).
Acid-suppressive agents and prostate cancer
Three studies including 84,522 individuals investigated the association between ASAs and prostate cancer. We did not find a significant association between the risk of prostate cancer and ASA use (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99–1.20); no heterogeneity was found (I2 = 0%, P = 0.72) (Fig. 5b).
Acid-suppressive agents and other cancers
Two studies on lung cancer and two studies of melanoma were also included in the systematic review. ASA use was not significantly associated with the risk of lung cancer or melanoma compared with nonuse with no significant heterogeneity (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91–1.27; I2 = 43%, P = 0.18 for lung cancer and RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72–1.02; I2 = 0%, P = 0.73 for melanoma).
One study reported kidney cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, periampullary cancer, and all types of cancer. There was no significant association between PPIs and kidney cancer (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88–0.91) in the study by Nayan et al. and between H2RA and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.41–1.41) in Beiderbeck et al.’s study. Chien et al. reported that PPI use increased the risk of periampullary cancer compared with nonuse (aOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16–1.17). Habel et al. studied the association between cimetidine use and all types of cancer and reported no significant association for uterine, ovarian, and kidney/bladder cancers and lymphoma/myeloma/leukemia (Table 1).
Discussion
This systematic review assessed the association between ASA use and the risk of development of each cancer. We found that ASA use was associated with a 46% increase in the risk of gastric cancer and a 53% increase in the risk of liver cancer, but it was not significantly associated with other cancers, including esophageal, colorectal, pancreatic, breast, and prostate cancer. In particular, the increase in the risk of gastric and liver cancer with PPI use was higher than that with H2RA use.
The results of our meta-analysis were similar to previous studies [10, 12]. Previous systematic review reported that long-term PPI use (at least 3 months) was significantly associated with a 78% increase in the risk of gastric cancer compared with nonuse [10], which is slightly higher than our results (36%). It may be because Islam et al. investigated the risk of gastric cancer with long-term PPI, while our study included ever use of PPIs or H2RAs. Another meta-analysis found that PPIs and H2RAs were associated with a 39% and 40% increase in gastric cancer risk [12]. In our subgroup analysis, the risk of gastric cancer in PPI users was higher than H2RA users (39% vs. 26%) when compared with nonusers. The mechanism by which ASAs relate an increased risk of gastric cancer is unknown; however, several pathways have been suggested [12]. Researchers have speculated that cancer may arise from bacterial overgrowth and nitrosamine formation caused by the suppression of gastric acid formation [61,62,63,64,65]. In contrast to this theory, other researchers have proposed that acid-suppressing medications cause hypergastrinemia, which ultimately is related to gastric polyps and carcinomas [66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77].
A previous meta-analysis reported that PPI use did not show a significant association with hepatocellular carcinoma [78], but they mentioned that their meta-analysis lacked sufficient evidence to confirm the association. On the other hand, we found a statistically significant association between ASA use and liver cancer or hepatocellular carcinoma. The risk of liver cancer was associated with PPI use, but not H2RA use. The exact pathway through which PPIs associate with an increasing risk of liver cancer is unknown; however, several mechanisms have been suggested [79]. Long-term PPI use and the associated hypergastrinemia have been implicated in carcinogenic effects on liver cells [80]. Other speculated mechanisms include the possibility that bacterial overgrowth due to decreased acid secretion in the stomach causes the transformation of primary bile acids to secondary bile acids, which subsequently exert deleterious effects on the liver, possibly leading to liver cancer [81,82,83]. In addition, it should be noted that exposure of mouse models to PPIs has been demonstrated to promote liver tumors, the progression of alcoholic liver disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis [84, 85]. Tran et al. explained that H2RA use generally results in weaker acid suppression and lower effects on gastrin [79, 86].
Hu et al. showed that PPI use was not associated with the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma and/or high-grade dysplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus [87]. We also did not find a significant association between ASAs and esophageal cancer. This result was similar for both PPIs and H2RAs. Theoretically, PPIs and H2RAs decrease esophageal acid and bile refluxate exposure of the esophagus, thereby promoting mucosal healing and acting as a potential chemoprotective modality to mitigate esophageal cancers [87]. However, the guidelines for GERD recommend the use of ASAs for symptom control and not specifically for the prevention of esophageal adenocarcinoma [88]. It is important to note that reflux symptoms are poorly correlated with the actual amount of esophageal refluxate in patients with GERD; thus, PPI exposure may not be correlated with the incidence of esophageal cancers [89].
When Islam et al. pooled the ORs of colorectal and pancreatic cancers in PPI users and compared these values to those of nonusers, no significant association was observed [10]. These results were similar to our results: the RRs of ASAs for the risk of colorectal cancer and pancreatic cancer were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.91–1.14) and 1.50 (95% CI, 0.92–2.45). We could not find the previous systematic reviews of lung, breast, and prostate cancers and ASAs.
The results of the present study should be interpreted while considering some limitations. First, cohort and case–control studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Owing to the study designs of the included studies, we could not show a causal relationship between ASAs and cancers. However, we can describe a plausible mechanism and relative. Second, the results may include potential confounders, as the meta-analysis pooled studies that reported crude relative outcomes or adjusted outcomes with insufficient covariates. Third, ASAs can be bought OTC without a physician’s prescription in most countries, so interventions may have been misclassified. We conducted the subgroup analysis for studies including both prescription medication and OTCs and the results remained consistent. Some results changed but we could not suggest them due to the small number of studies included in the subgroup analysis.
Despite these limitations, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis for the association between ASA use and multiple types of cancer. We found that the increased risk of gastric and liver cancers was associated when ASAs were used, but there was no significant association between ASA use and other cancers. Although a limited number of studies were included in this meta-analysis, the results can be the best available evidence. In particular, low heterogeneity and a consistent direction were shown in esophageal cancer and colorectal cancer. We also conducted subgroup analyses according to PPI/H2RA, duration of drug uptake, subtypes of cancer, and cumulative daily drug dose; these subgroup results can provide comprehensive and detailed information. Notably, our results showed that PPI use was associated with liver cancer, whereas H2RA use was not.
Conclusions
The results of our meta-analysis suggests that ASA use was associated with an increased risk of gastric and liver cancer, but we did not find it to be significantly associated with esophageal or colorectal cancer. There was no strong evidence for the association of lung, breast, prostate, and kidney cancer; melanoma; and lymphoma risk with ASA use. The prescription of ASAs should be carefully considered under the potential risk of gastric and liver cancer until further well-designed studies with large sample cohorts confirm the results.
References
Antony Q (2009) Preventing stress ulcers with acid suppression. Pharmacy Times. https://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/issue/2009/2009-05/hspstressulcers-0509.
Modlin IM, Sandor A (1997) An analysis of 8305 cases of carcinoid tumors. Cancer 79:813–829. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19970215)79:4<813::aid-cncr19>3.0.co;2-2
Thorburn CM, Friedman GD, Dickinson CJ, Vogelman JH, Orentreich N, Parsonnet J (1998) Gastrin and colorectal cancer: a prospective study. Gastroenterology 115:275–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5085(98)70193-3
Smith JP, Nadella S, Osborne N (2017) Gastrin and gastric cancer. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol 4:75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmgh.2017.03.004
Dacha S, Razvi M, Massaad J, Cai Q, Wehbi M (2015) Hypergastrinemia. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 3:201–208. https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/gov004
Rosen R, Amirault J, Liu H, Mitchell P, Hu L, Khatwa U, Onderdonk A (2014) Changes in gastric and lung microflora with acid suppression: acid suppression and bacterial growth. JAMA Pediatr 168:932–937. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.696
Bajaj JS (2019) Alcohol, liver disease and the gut microbiota. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 16:235–246. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-018-0099-1
Bajaj JS, Heuman DM, Hylemon PB, Sanyal AJ, White MB, Monteith P, Noble NA, Unser AB, Daita K, Fisher AR, Sikaroodi M, Gillevet PM (2014) Altered profile of human gut microbiome is associated with cirrhosis and its complications. J Hepatol 60:940–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2013.12.019
Li M, Yuan J, Wen S, Chen J (2018) Alteration of gut microbiome in lung cancer patients. J Thorac Oncol 13:S947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2018.08.1772
Islam MM, Poly TN, Walther BA, Dubey NK, Anggraini Ningrum DN, Shabbir SA, Jack Li YC (2018) Adverse outcomes of long-term use of proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 30:1395–1405. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000001198
Tran-Duy A, Spaetgens B, Hoes AW, de Wit NJ, Stehouwer CD (2016) Use of proton pump inhibitors and risks of fundic gland polyps and gastric cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:1706–1719.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2016.05.018
Ahn JS, Eom CS, Jeon CY, Park SM (2013) Acid suppressive drugs and gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. World J Gastroenterol 19:2560–2568. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i16.2560
Qiu T, Zhou J, Zhang C (2018) Acid-suppressive drugs and risk of kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 33:1566–1573. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.14157
Lambert AA, Lam JO, Paik JJ, Ugarte-Gil C, Drummond MB, Crowell TA (2015) Risk of community-acquired pneumonia with outpatient proton-pump inhibitor therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 10:e0128004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128004
Trifan A, Stanciu C, Girleanu I, Stoica OC, Singeap AM, Maxim R, Chiriac SA, Ciobica A, Boiculese L (2017) Proton pump inhibitors therapy and risk of Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 23:6500–6515. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i35.6500
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151:W65–W94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
Kim SY, Park JE, Lee YJ, Seo HJ, Sheen SS, Hahn S, Jang BH, Son HJ (2013) Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. J Clin Epidemiol 66:408–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.016
Davies HT, Crombie IK, Tavakoli M (1998) When can odds ratios mislead? BMJ 316:989–991. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7136.989
Stare J, Maucort-Boulch D (2016) Odds ratio, hazard ratio and relative risk. Metodoloski zvezki 13:59–67
Zhang J, Yu KF (1998) What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA 280:1690–1691. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.19.1690
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Suleiman UL, Harrison M, Britton A, McPherson K, Bates T (2000) H2-receptor antagonists may increase the risk of cardio-oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a case-control study. Eur J Cancer Prev 9:185–191
Tan MC, El-Serag HB, Yu X, Thrift AP (2018) Acid suppression medications reduce risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s oesophagus: a nested case-control study in US male veterans. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 48:469–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.14895
Duan L, Wu AH, Sullivan-Halley J, Bernstein L (2009) Antacid drug use and risk of esophageal and gastric adenocarcinomas in Los Angeles County. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 18:526–533. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0764
Farrow DC, Vaughan TL, Sweeney C, Gammon MD, Chow WH, Risch HA, Stanford JL, Hansten PD, Mayne ST, Schoenberg JB, Rotterdam H, Ahsan H, West AB, Dubrow R, Raumeni JF Jr, Blot WJ (2000) Gastroesophageal reflux disease, use of H2 receptor antagonists, and risk of esophageal and gastric cancer. Cancer Causes Control 11:231–238. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008913828105
Habel LA, Levin TR, Friedman GD (2000) Cimetidine use and risk of breast, prostate, and other cancers. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 9:149–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1557(200003/04)9:2<149::AID-PDS481>3.0.CO;2-1
García Rodríguez LA, Lagergren J, Lindblad M (2006) Gastric acid suppression and risk of oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma: a nested case control study in the UK. Gut 55:1538–1544. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2005.086579
Cheung KS, Chan EW, Wong AYS, Chen L, Wong ICK, Leung WK (2018) Long-term proton pump inhibitors and risk of gastric cancer development after treatment for Helicobacter pylori: a population-based study. Gut 67:28–35. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314605
Johnson AG, Jick SS, Perera DR, Jick H (1996) Histamine-2 receptor antagonists and gastric cancer. Epidemiology 7:434–436. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199607000-00016
La Vecchia C, Negri E, D’Avanzo B, Franceschi S (1990) Histamine-2-receptor antagonists and gastric cancer risk. Lancet 336:355–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(90)91888-h
Niikura R, Hayakawa Y, Hirata Y, Yamada A, Fujishiro M, Koike K (2018) Long-term proton pump inhibitor use is a risk factor of gastric cancer after treatment for Helicobacter pylori: a retrospective cohort analysis. Gut 67:1908–1910. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315710
Poulsen AH, Christensen S, McLaughlin JK, Thomsen RW, Sørensen HT, Olsen JH, Friis S (2009) Proton pump inhibitors and risk of gastric cancer: a population-based cohort study. Br J Cancer 100:1503–1507. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605024
Tamim H, Duranceau A, Chen LQ, Lelorier J (2008) Association between use of acid-suppressive drugs and risk of gastric cancer. A nested case-control study. Drug Saf 31:675–684. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200831080-00004
Chubak J, Boudreau DM, Rulyak SJ, Mandelson MT (2009) Colorectal cancer risk in relation to use of acid suppressive medications. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 18:540–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.1749
Hwang IC, Chang J, Park SM (2017) Emerging hazard effects of proton pump inhibitor on the risk of colorectal cancer in low-risk populations: a Korean nationwide prospective cohort study. PLoS One 12:e0189114. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189114
Robertson DJ, Larsson H, Friis S, Pedersen L, Baron JA, Sørensen HT (2007) Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of colorectal cancer: a population-based, case-control study. Gastroenterology 133:755–760. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2007.06.014
Siersema PD, Yu S, Sahbaie P, Steyerberg EW, Simpson PW, Kuipers EJ, Triadafilopoulos G (2006) Colorectal neoplasia in veterans is associated with Barrett’s esophagus but not with proton-pump inhibitor or aspirin/NSAID use. Gastrointest Endosc 63:581–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2005.08.043
Yang YX, Hennessy S, Propert K, Hwang WT, Sedarat A, Lewis JD (2007) Chronic proton pump inhibitor therapy and the risk of colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 133:748–754. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2007.06.022
van Soest EM, van Rossum LG, Dieleman JP, van Oijen MG, Siersema PD, Sturkenboom MC, Kuipers EJ (2008) Proton pump inhibitors and the risk of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 103:966–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01665.x
Kao WY, Su CW, Chia-Hui Tan E, Lee PC, Chen PH, Tang JH, Huang YH, Huo TI, Chang CC, Hou MC, Lin HC, Wu JC (2019) Proton pump inhibitors and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B or C. Hepatology 69:1151–1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.30247
Li DK, Yan P, Abou-Samra AB, Chung RT, Butt AA (2018) Proton pump inhibitors are associated with accelerated development of cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma in noncirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis C infection: results from ERCHIVES. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 47:246–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.14391
Peng YC, Lin CL, Hsu WY, Chow WK, Lee SW, Yeh HZ, Chen CC, Kao CH (2018) Association between cholangiocarcinoma and proton pump inhibitors use: a nested case-control study. Front Pharmacol 9:718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00718
Shao YJ, Chan TS, Tsai K, Wu SY (2018) Association between proton pump inhibitors and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 48:460–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.14835
Tran KT, McMenamin ÚC, Hicks B, Murchie P, Thrift AP, Coleman HG, Iversen L, Johnston BT, Lee AJ, Cardwell CR (2018) Proton pump inhibitor and histamine-2 receptor antagonist use and risk of liver cancer in two population-based studies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 48:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.14796
Bradley MC, Murray LJ, Cantwell MM, Hughes CM (2012) Proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2-receptor antagonists and pancreatic cancer risk: a nested case-control study. Br J Cancer 106:233–239. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.511
Hicks B, Friis S, Pottegård A (2018) Use of proton pump inhibitors and risk of pancreatic cancer. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 27:926–930. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4576
Hwang IC, Chang J, Park SM (2018) Association between proton pump inhibitor use and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a Korean nationwide cohort study. PLoS One 13:e0203918. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203918
Kearns MD, Boursi B, Yang YX (2017) Proton pump inhibitors on pancreatic cancer risk and survival. Cancer Epidemiol 46:80–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2016.12.006
Lai SW, Sung FC, Lin CL, Liao KF (2014) Use of proton pump inhibitors correlates with increased risk of pancreatic cancer: a case-control study in Taiwan. J Kuwait Med Assoc 46:44–48
Peng YC, Lin CL, Hsu WY, Lu IT, Yeh HZ, Chang CS, Kao CH (2018) Proton pump inhibitor use is associated with risk of pancreatic cancer: a nested case-control study. Dose-Response 16(4):1559325818803283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325818803283
Hsu CL, Chang CH, Lin JW, Wu LC, Chuang LM, Lai MS (2013) Histamine-2 receptor antagonists and risk of lung cancer in diabetic patients – an exploratory analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 22:632–640. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.3441
Chen CH, Lee CZ, Lin YC, Kao LT, Lin HC (2019) Negative association of proton pump inhibitors with subsequent development of breast cancer: a nationwide population-based study. J Clin Pharmacol 59:350–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.1329
Coogan PF, Zhang Y, Palmer JR, Strom BL, Rosenberg L (2005) Cimetidine and other histamine 2-receptor antagonist use in relation to risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 14:1012–1015. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0547
Ding DC, Sung FC, Chen W, Wang JH, Lin SZ (2019) Proton pump inhibitors reduce breast cancer risk in gastric ulcer patients: a population-based cohort study. Breast J 26:474–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13519
Hálfdánarson ÓÖ, Fall K, Ogmundsdottir MH, Lund SH, Steingrímsson E, Ogmundsdottir HM, Zoega H (2019) Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and malignant melanoma: an Icelandic population-based case-control study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 28:471–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4702
Mathes RW, Malone KE, Daling JR, Porter PL, Li CI (2008) Relationship between histamine 2-receptor antagonist medications and risk of invasive breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17:67–72. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0765
Velicer CM, Dublin S, White E (2006) Cimetidine use and the risk for prostate cancer: results from the VITAL cohort study. Ann Epidemiol 16:895–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.03.003
Nayan M, Juurlink DN, Austin PC, Macdonald EM, Finelli A, Kulkarni GS, Hamilton RJ (2017) Canadian Drug Safety and Effectiveness Research Network (CDSERN). Medication use and kidney cancer risk: a population-based study. Eur J Cancer 83:203–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.001
Beiderbeck AB, Holly EA, Sturkenboom MC, Coebergh JW, Stricker BH, Leufkens HG (2003) Prescription medications associated with a decreased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Am J Epidemiol 157:510–516. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwg004
Chien LN, Huang YJ, Shao YH, Chang CJ, Chuang MT, Chiou HY, Yen Y (2016) Proton pump inhibitors and risk of periampullary cancers - a nested case-control study. Int J Cancer 138:1401–1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29896
Langman MJ (1985) Antisecretory drugs and gastric cancer. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 290:1850–1852. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.290.6485.1850
Freston JW (1982) Cimetidine: II. Adverse reactions and patterns of use. Ann Intern Med 97:728–734. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-97-5-728
Stockbruegger RW (1985) Bacterial overgrowth as a consequence of reduced gastric acidity. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 111:7–16. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365528509093749
Stockbrugger RW, Cotton PB, Eugenides N, Bartholomew BA, Hill MJ, Walters CL (1982) Intragastric nitrites, nitrosamines, and bacterial overgrowth during cimetidine treatment. Gut 23:1048–1054. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.23.12.1048
Rowland JR (1988) The toxicology of N-nitroso compounds. In: Hill MJ (ed) Nitrosamines-toxicology and microbiology. Ellis Horwood pp, London, pp 117–141
Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Festen HP, Jansen JB, Lamers CB, Nelis F, Snel P, Lückers A, Dekkers CP, Havu N, Meuwis-sen SG (1994) Long-term treatment with omeprazole for refractory reflux esophagitis: efficacy and safety. Ann Intern Med 121:161–167. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-3-199408010-00001
Lamberts R, Creutzfeldt W, Stöckmann F, Jacubaschke U, Maas S, Brunner G (1988) Long-term omeprazole treatment in man: effects on gastric endocrine cell populations. Digestion 39:126–135. https://doi.org/10.1159/000199615
Laine L, Ahnen D, McClain C, Solcia E, Walsh JH (2000) Review article: potential gastrointestinal effects of long-term acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 14:651–668. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.00768.x
Havu N (1986) Enterochromaffin-like cell carcinoids of gastric mucosa in rats after life-long inhibition of gastric secretion. Digestion 35:42–55. https://doi.org/10.1159/000199381
Smith JP, Wood JG, Solomon TE (1989) Elevated gastrin levels in patients with colon cancer or adenomatous polyps. Dig Dis Sci 34:171–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01536047
Seitz JF, Giovannini M, Gouvernet J, Gauthier AP (1991) Elevated serum gastrin levels in patients with colorectal neoplasia. J Clin Gastroenterol 13:541–545. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004836-199110000-00013
Singh P, Indaram A, Greenberg R, Visvalingam V, Bank S (2000) Long term omeprazole therapy for reflux esophagitis: follow up in serum gastrin levels, EC cell hyperplasia and neoplasia. World J Gastroenterol 6:789–792. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v6.i6.789
Jalving M, Koornstra JJ, Wesseling J, Boezen HM, DE Jong S, Kleibeuker JH (2006) Increased risk of fundic gland polyps during long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 24:1341–1348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03127.x
Solcia E, Fiocca R, Havu N, Dalväg A, Carlsson R (1992) Gastric endocrine cells and gastritis in patients receiving long-term omeprazole treatment. Digestion 51:82–92. https://doi.org/10.1159/000200921
Pashankar DS, Israel DM (2002) Gastric polyps and nodules in children receiving long-term omeprazole therapy. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 35:658–662. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005176-200211000-00013
Cats A, Schenk BE, Bloemena E, Roosedaal R, Lindeman J, Biemond I, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Meuwissen SG, Kuipers EJ (2000) Parietal cell protrusions and fundic gland cysts during omeprazole maintenance treatment. Hum Pathol 31:684–690. https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2000.7637
van Grieken NC, Meijer GA, Weiss MM, Bloemena E, Lindeman J, Baak JP, Meuwissen SG, Kuipers EJ (2001) Quantitative assessment of gastric corpus atrophy in subjects using omeprazole: a randomized follow-up study. Am J Gastroenterol 96:2882–2886. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.04242.x
Zhao J, Hua L, Li N, An R, Liang C (2018) Letter: proton pump inhibitors use and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 48:886–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.14962
Tran KT, McMenamin ÚC, Hicks B, Murchie P, Thrift AP, Coleman HG, Iversen L, Johnston BT, Lee AJ, Cardwell CR (2018) Proton pump inhibitor and histamine-2 receptor antagonist use and risk of liver cancer in two population-based studies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 48:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.14796
Caplin M, Khan K, Savage K, Rode J, Varro A, Michaeli D, Grimes S, Brett B, Pounder R, Dhillon A (1999) Expression and processing of gastrin in hepatocellular carcinoma, fibrolamellar carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol 30:519–526
Llorente C, Schnabl B (2015) The gut microbiota and liver disease. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol 1:275–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmgh.2015.04.003
Jansen PLM (2007) Endogenous bile acids as carcinogens. J Hepatol 47:434–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2007.06.001
Komichi D, Tazuma S, Nishioka T, Hyogo H, Chayama K (2005) Glycochenodeoxycholate plays a carcinogenic role in immortalized mouse cholangiocytes via oxidative DNA damage. Free Radic Biol Med 39:1418–1427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2005.07.005
Llorente C, Jepsen P, Inamine T, Wang L, Bluemel S, Wang HJ, Loomba R, Bajaj JS, Schubert ML, Sikaroodi M, Gillevet PM, Xu J, Kisseleva T, Ho SB, DePew J, Du X, Sørensen HT, Vilstrup H, Nelson KE, Brenner DA, Fouts DE, Schnabl B (2017) Gastric acid suppression promotes alcoholic liver disease by inducing overgrowth of intestinal Enterococcus. Nat Commun 8:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00796-x
Hayashi H, Shimamoto K, Taniai E, Ishii Y, Morita R, Suzuki K, Shibutani M, Mitsumori K (2012) Liver tumor promoting effect of omeprazole in rats and its possible mechanism of action. J Toxicol Sci 37:491–501. https://doi.org/10.2131/jts.37.491
Dacha S, Razvi M, Massaad J, Cai Q. Wehbi M (2015) Hypergastrinemia. Gastroenterol Rep 3:201–208. https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/gov004
Hu Q, Sun TT, Hong J, Fang JY, Xiong H, Meltzer SJ (2017) Proton pump inhibitors do not reduce the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 12:e0169691. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169691
Katz PO, Gerson LB, Vela MF (2013) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 108:308–328. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2012.444
Kleiman DA, Sporn MJ, Beninato T, Metz Y, Crawford C, Fahey TJ 3rd, Zarnegar R (2013) Early referral for 24-h esophageal pH monitoring may prevent unnecessary treatment with acid-reducing medications. Surg Endosc 27:1302–1309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2602-z
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Caitlin E. Kantner for proofreading the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the Postdoctoral Research Program of Sungkyunkwan University (2017).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HJS was involved in the study concept and design, literature search, study selection, quality assessment, data extraction, data analysis, data interpretation, and manuscript writing. NJ was involved in the literature search, study selection, quality assessment, data extraction, and manuscript writing. PS was involved in the study selection, quality assessment, and manuscript writing. All authors reviewed and approved the final version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 40 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Song, H.J., Jeon, N. & Squires, P. The association between acid-suppressive agent use and the risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 76, 1437–1456 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-020-02927-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-020-02927-8