IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0018210.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antidepressants and Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk: A Review of the Literature and Researchers' Financial Associations with Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Cosgrove
  • Ling Shi
  • David E Creasey
  • Maria Anaya-McKivergan
  • Jessica A Myers
  • Krista F Huybrechts

Abstract

Background: Antidepressant (AD) use has been purported to increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer, although both epidemiological and pre-clinical studies have reported mixed results [1]–[6]. Previous studies in a variety of biomedical fields have found that financial ties to drug companies are associated with favorable study conclusions [7]. Methods and Findings: We searched English-language articles in MEDLINE, PsychINFO, the Science Citations Index and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (through November 2010). A total of 61 articles that assessed the relationship between breast and ovarian cancer and AD use and articles that examined the effect of ADs on cell growth were included. Multi-modal screening techniques were used to investigate researchers' financial ties with industry. A random effects meta-analysis was used to pool the findings from the epidemiological literature. Thirty-three percent (20/61) of the studies reported a positive association between ADs and cancer. Sixty-seven percent (41/61) of the studies reported no association or antiproliferative effect. The pooled odds ratio for the association between AD use and breast/ovarian cancer in the epidemiologic studies was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.03–1.20). Researchers with industry affiliations were significantly less likely than researchers without those ties to conclude that ADs increase the risk of breast or ovarian cancer. (0/15 [0%] vs 20/46 [43.5%] (Fisher's Exact test P = 0.0012). Conclusions: Both the pre-clinical and clinical data are mixed in terms of showing an association between AD use and breast and ovarian cancer. The possibility that ADs may exhibit a bi-phasic effect, whereby short-term use and/or low dose antidepressants may increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer, warrants further investigation. Industry affiliations were significantly associated with negative conclusions regarding cancer risk. The findings have implications in light of the 2009 USPSTF guidelines for breast cancer screening and for the informed consent process.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Cosgrove & Ling Shi & David E Creasey & Maria Anaya-McKivergan & Jessica A Myers & Krista F Huybrechts, 2011. "Antidepressants and Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk: A Review of the Literature and Researchers' Financial Associations with Industry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-8, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0018210
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0018210
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0018210&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0018210?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trevor Sheldon, 2005. "Focus on the Funding and Production of Evidence Rather Than Its Publication," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(7), pages 1-1, July.
    2. Kristin Rising & Peter Bacchetti & Lisa Bero, 2008. "Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-10, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dahm, Matthias & González, Paula & Porteiro, Nicolás, 2009. "Trials, tricks and transparency: How disclosure rules affect clinical knowledge," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1141-1153, December.
    2. David Krauth & Andrew Anglemyer & Rose Philipps & Lisa Bero, 2014. "Nonindustry-Sponsored Preclinical Studies on Statins Yield Greater Efficacy Estimates Than Industry-Sponsored Studies: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, January.
    3. Arnaud Vaganay, 2016. "Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0018210. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.