Background: Massive studies have examined associations between use of aspirin and lung cancer risk. However, findings from previous studies are inconsistent and it remains unclear whether there is a causality between them. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis and further carried out Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses to elucidate the associations between aspirin use with lung cancer risk. Methods: Eligible studies were identified by searching the PubMed and several databases up to November 2019. Cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of aspirin exposure and lung cancer were included. Relative risk (RR) were evaluated for lung cancer risk. Subgroup analyses regarding gender, pathologic subtypes and smoking status were also executed. MR analyses were conducted using statistics obtained from Neale Lab and International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO) to assess the possible causal relationship of aspirin on lung cancer risk. Findings: Sixteen eligible studies involving 1,522,687 patients were included. The combined RR of aspirin use for lung cancer risk was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-0.98). In terms of pathology, a significant protective effect of aspirin on lung cancer was observed in squamous cell lung cancer (RR=0.80; 95% CI 0.65-0.98). In subgroup meta-analyses, significant association between aspirin use and reduced lung cancer risk was only observed among men (RR=0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.97). The MR risk analysis suggested a causal effect of aspirin on lung cancer risk, with evidence of a decreased risk for overall lung cancer (OR=0.042; 95% CI 0.003-0.564) and squamous cell lung cancer (OR=0.002; 95% CI 1.21×10-5-0.301). Interpretation: Our study provided evidence for a causal protective effect of aspirin on lung cancer risk among men, particularly on the squamous cell lung cancer risk. Funding Statement: National Key RD Key Project of Guangzhou Scientific Research Project; High-level university construction project of Guangzhou Medical University Declaration of Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. Ethics Approval Statement: No patients participated in study design, patient recruitment and research conduct. Therefore, there is no need for ethical approval.
Read full abstract