Do you take a STATIN?

[Donna G]

Statins May Fight Lung Cancer

Cholesterol-Lowering Drug May Have Added Benefit for Lung Cancer

May 8, 2007 —

People taking statins to control their cholesterol levels may be getting an unexpected benefit for their lungs, new research suggests.

A study appearing in the latest issue of the journal Chest showed that patients who had taken statins for six months or longer cut their lung cancer risk by more than half.

In the study, a team of researchers led by Louisiana State University's Dr. Vikas Khurana looked back at the records of more than 400,000 patients in the Veterans Administration Hospital System, more than 160,000 of whom were taking statins at the time.

The research lends credence to previous animal and test tube studies suggesting that statins are capable of blocking the growth of cancer cells.

"Our study suggests that statins have a potential role in primary chemoprevention for lung cancer," the researchers write in their conclusion. "Due to the high prevalence of statin use and grave prognosis of lung cancer, even a modest reduction means a considerable effect on public health."

The numbers seem to agree. In 2005, lung cancer accounted for about 160,000 deaths in the United States. The researchers note that they hope future studies will help determine whether the drugs can one day be used to fight lung cancer in a clinical setting.

Dr. Tim Johnson, ABC News' medical editor, said on "Good Morning America" Tuesday that the findings, though preliminary, are intriguing. But he agreed that more research is needed to clarify the effects of statins on lung cancer and to iron out some potentially confusing trends.

"When they looked at people who had taken statins for less than six months, they seemed to have somewhat of an increased risk," Dr. Tim said. "So it is a complicated study and we now need a so-called gold-standard randomized trial."

Not Yet a First-Line Cancer Treatment

Dr. Tim added that despite excitement over the findings, a prudent approach is needed to appropriately rein in enthusiasm.

"We've been burned before," he said. "For example, there were a lot of studies that seemed to suggest women should take hormone replacement therapy. But the final study showed it might be dangerous.

"If they're already taking it for lowering cholesterol, it is a great drug and they should keep taking it. They might want to take comfort in the possibility that they might also be reducing their risk for lung cancer. But nobody should start taking statins for that reason alone."

[Tom K]

I was taking statins for 6 years before I was diagnosed. Of course since I had smoked for 35 years and my real father (I never met him) died of LC at age 45, it may be that my risk was already to high.

[twodogs]

I was on Statins for ten years before my cancer DX. I did all the 'OR' drugs, Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor and probably mORe.

I knock off taking them during treatment as I'm back into now. Assuming I'll relapse again,(please), I'll likely go back on them as I am quite hypertension prone.

John

[nonni]

Yes ...Donna...I had been taken 'statin's' 5 years before I was dx...and I am still on them...but hopefully they will find this is true...could be a big help...specially if you have to take them anyway...hugs to everyone...Nonni

[Nushka]

I take lipitor. I have high cholesterol so that is the reason. I was on it about 2 years before dx but lc runs in my family. It may have kept it from being out of hand before we found it.

Nina

[J.C.]

and on the other side

this article is against it.

I took Pravachol for ten years

prior to bc, now I don't need

them anymore.

http://www.statinalert.org/mainpage.html

Jackie

[Linda661]

My mom had been taking Lipitor for some years before her LC dx.

Interesting that my dad had been put on a statin about 6 months before his brain cancer emerged out of the blue. I had found some research at the time that suggested that statins could actually encourage the growth of the type of cancer he had if someone was already predisposed to its occurance -- scary stuff. Sad thing is, he didn't really need the statin in the first place: his cholesterol was in perfect range for a heart patient (i.e. their ideal numbers are lower than the "average" person), but his cardiologist put him on it just to drive those numbers down even lower.

Linda