BACKGROUND: Recent observational studies have produced conflicting results with respect to beta-blocker use after prostate cancer diagnosis and mortality outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether post-diagnostic use of beta-blockers is associated with prostate cancer mortality and all-cause mortality.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cohort of 6270 men newly-diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer between 1st April 1998, and 31st December 2009, followed until 1st October 2012, was identified using large population-based electronic databases from the United Kingdom. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of mortality outcomes associated with post-diagnostic use of beta-blockers. Secondary analyses were performed to examine the independent effects of non-selective beta-blockers, as well as cumulative duration of use.
RESULTS: During a mean follow-up time of 3.8years (standard deviation: 2.7years), 1761 deaths occurred, including 715 from prostate cancer. Post-diagnostic use of beta-blockers was not associated with a decreased risk of prostate cancer mortality (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.72-1.31) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.81-1.16). There was no statistically significant association for non-selective beta-blockers (prostate cancer mortality, HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.72-1.53 and all-cause mortality, HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.74-1.18), and no statistically significant trends of cumulative duration of use for both mortality outcomes.
CONCLUSION: The use of beta blockers, including those of the non-selective type, was not associated with a decreased risk of prostate cancer and all-cause mortality.
Assayag J, Pollak MN, Azoulay L. Are you the author?
Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Experimental Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Reference: Eur J Cancer. 2014 Nov;50(16):2838-45.