Previous meta-analyses have shown that the antidiabetic agent metformin is associated with reduced cancer incidence and mortality. However, this effect has not been consistently demonstrated in animal models and recent epidemiologic studies. We performed a meta-analysis with a focus on confounders and biases, including body mass index (BMI), study type, and time-related biases. We identified 71 articles published between January 1, 1966, and May 31, 2013, through Pubmed, ISI Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), Embase, and the Cochrane library that were related to metformin and cancer incidence or mortality. Study characteristics and outcomes were abstracted for each study that met inclusion criteria. We included estimates from 47 independent studies and 65,540 cancer cases in patients with diabetes. Overall cancer incidence was reduced by 31% [summary relative risk (SRR), 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52–0.90], although between-study heterogeneity was considerable (I2 = 88%). Cancer mortality was reduced by 34% (SRR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54–0.81; I2 = 21%). BMI-adjusted studies and studies without time-related biases also showed significant reduction in cancer incidence (SRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70–0.96 with I2 = 76% and SRR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.89–0.91 with I2 = 56%, respectively), albeit with lesser magnitude (18% and 10% reduction, respectively). However, studies of cancer mortality and individual organ sites did not consistently show significant reductions across all types of analyses. Although these associations may not be causal, our results show that metformin may reduce cancer incidence and mortality in patients with diabetes However, the reduction seems to be of modest magnitude and not affecting all populations equally. Clinical trials are needed to determine if these observations apply to nondiabetic populations and to specific organ sites. Cancer Prev Res; 7(9); 867–85. ©2014 AACR.

The recognition that hyper-insulinemic states such as metabolic syndrome or type II diabetes mellitus are associated with increased cancer risk has led to intensified interest in the potential of various antidiabetic drugs to prevent cancer (1). Metformin, an oral, well-tolerated biguanide that is used for first-line treatment of diabetes, has been shown to decrease the progression from prediabetes to overt diabetes (2–4). Its multiple actions at both cellular and organismal levels that contribute to anticancer effects include decreased insulin/insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) signaling, inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), inhibition of mitochondrial complex I in the electron transport chain, activation of AMP-activated kinase (AMPK), and reduction of endogenous production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), and associated DNA damage (5).

The evidence for a cancer preventive effect for metformin, however, has not been consistently demonstrated in animal or human studies. Multiple studies examining the effect of metformin on tumor formation in rodent carcinogenesis models have shown results ranging from no effect to strong inhibition, albeit using doses that are not always achievable in humans (6–10). Epidemiologic studies comparing the incidence of cancer in diabetics using metformin with those using insulin or other antidiabetic agents have shown somewhat variable results (11–15). Several authors performed meta-analyses to determine if a consistent effect on overall cancer incidence, cancer mortality, or cancer incidence at specific target organs was evident (11–15). A shortcoming of these previous meta-analyses was the inability to identify subgroups that might benefit most (or suffer harm) from metformin. For instance, a recent clinical trial showed that metformin affected breast cancer proliferation differentially according to insulin resistance status and body mass index (BMI), with a trend toward inhibiting proliferation only in women with insulin resistance or high BMI (16). Furthermore, a number of the published studies suffered from time-related biases resulting in inappropriate comparison between metformin users versus nonusers and potentially exaggerated metformin's protective effects (17). Time-related bias in observational studies can produce illusory results in favor of metformin. They are most often a form of differential misclassification bias that can generally be avoided by appropriate accounting of follow-up time and exposure status in the design and analysis of such studies. There are different types of time-related biases. Immortal time bias refers to a period of cohort follow-up time during which a cancer event (that determines end of follow-up) cannot occur. Immortal time bias, for example, can arise when the period between cohort entry and date of first exposure to metformin, during which cancer has not occurred, is either misclassified or simply excluded and not accounted for in the analysis. This is frequently found in studies that compare “users” against “nonusers.” The use of a time-dependent approach takes into account this source of bias. In cohort studies where a first-line therapy with metformin is compared with second- or third-line therapies, patients are unlikely to be at the same stage of diabetes, which can induce confounding of the association with an outcome (e.g., cancer incidence) by disease duration. An outcome related to the first-line therapy may also be attributed to the second-line therapy if it occurs after a long period of exposure. Such a situation requires matching on disease duration and consideration of latency time windows in the analysis (17).

Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with emphasis on studies controlling for BMI, prospective studies, and studies without time-related biases.

Literature search

The aim of the study was to evaluate the association between metformin use and cancer incidence and mortality in patients with diabetes. The meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines for the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the PRISMA statement (18, 19). The search was carried out on observational studies and trials, without language restrictions. The literature from January 1, 1966, to May 31, 2013, was searched using the following databases: Pubmed, ISI Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), Embase, and the Cochrane library. The following main keywords or corresponding MeSH terms were used: “Metformin,” “Biguanides,” or “Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy,” and “cancer” or “neoplasms.” The search string used for Pubmed is the following: (Metformin and cancer) or [“Metformin”(Mesh) and “Neoplasms”(Mesh) and “epidemiologic studies”(Mesh)] not [“polycystic ovary syndrome” or “Polycystic Ovary Syndrome”(Mesh)]. A manual search was performed for references cited in the selected articles, and in selected reviews or books. This literature search was independently carried out by 2 academic investigators. Group discussion resolved any disagreement with article selection.

Methods of data extraction

Criteria for article inclusion in the analysis were: (i) independence from other studies in order to avoid giving double weight to estimates derived from the same study; when 2 or more studies were not independent, only the study with larger sample size was included; (ii) sufficient information to allow adequate estimation of the hazard ratio (HR)/relative risk (RR)/odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI; i.e., crude data or adjusted estimates and standard errors, CIs, or P values); (iii) comparison of cancer incidence or mortality in patients with diabetes (comparisons with nondiabetic populations were excluded).

We extracted fully adjusted risk estimates for ever use of metformin, alone or in combination with other antidiabetic treatments, compared with antidiabetic treatments other than metformin or no treatment, and we calculated the corresponding variance using the formula proposed by Greenland (20). Association between metformin and cancer incidence/mortality across selected studies was computed as a summary relative risk (SRR) with 95% CIs.

Statistical analysis

Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 parameter, which represents the percentage of total variation across studies that is attributable to heterogeneity rather than to chance. A threshold below 50% is generally considered acceptable (21). To account for possible sources of bias, we considered the STROBE checklist proposed for observational epidemiologic studies (22). Several sensitivity analyses were considered in this work, taking into account factors presented in the STROBE checklist that could introduce bias. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions were carried out to investigate between-study heterogeneity and the influence of confounding factors, study design, interaction with other treatments, definitions of disease and population features on the risk estimates. A key factor considered was the adjustment for BMI, given its modifying effect on metformin activity on diabetes incidence (3) and breast cancer proliferation (16).

We also investigated heterogeneity because of study design because retrospective cohort studies could have important sources of bias. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to verify the effect of single studies and inclusion and exclusion criteria on the stability of the summary estimates, such as the use of insulin as treatment comparator. The SRR was estimated by pooling the study-specific estimates by random effects models fitted using SAS (Proc Mixed) with maximum likelihood estimates and CIs based on t distribution (23), to be conservative.

To take into account time-related biases that can occur in observational studies (17), we carried out subgroup analyses including only studies that were designed or analyzed to avoid immortal time bias, time-window bias, and time-lagging issues. The summary estimates were based only on studies that specifically used time-dependent techniques needed to avoid immortal time bias and to treat exposures to the different antidiabetic agents as time-dependent variables.

To verify whether publication bias might affect the validity of the estimates, funnel plots were investigated considering regression of Ln(RR) on the sample size, weighted by the inverse of the pooled variance (24). All analyses were performed with SAS software version 8.02 and STATA software version 11.

Meta-analysis

The flow diagram for study inclusion in the meta-analysis is shown in Figure 1. A total of 71 articles were retrieved and checked for relevance in terms of intervention, population studied, and reporting of cancer incidence/mortality data. Twenty-four (25–48) articles were excluded (Supplementary Table S1). Because the UKPDS trials had partially overlapping patient populations, only the risk estimate for the metformin monotherapy trial was included (49).

Figure 1.

Study flow diagram. Of 750 citations identified, 47 independent studies were included in the analysis.

Figure 1.

Study flow diagram. Of 750 citations identified, 47 independent studies were included in the analysis.

Close modal

Overall we included estimates from 47 studies and 65,540 cancer cases: 19 studies (50–67) presented data on overall cancer incidence, 7 studies (38, 49, 54, 68–72) on overall cancer mortality, and 32 studies (45, 48, 50, 52–54, 56, 57, 59, 66, 73–96) reported estimates on single cancer sites. Table 1 shows the characteristics of these 47 studies. There were 11 prospective cohort studies, 16 case–control studies, 14 retrospective cohort studies, and 6 clinical trials of patients with diabetes randomized to metformin versus other treatment published between 1998 and 2013. Treatment comparators were sulfonylureas, insulin, or other antidiabetic treatments. If more than one estimate was presented, the estimate for metformin alone was preferred to metformin combined with other treatments and a comparator other than insulin was chosen.

Table 1.

Epidemiologic studies of metformin and cancer risk

First author (ref.) (country)Study designEndpointSample sizeRisk estimates (95% CI)Treatment comparisonAdjusting variables (other than age and sex)
UKPD Study Group (49) (UK) RCT Mortality Cases: 139 At risk: 753 Any site: 0.71 (0.29–1.76)a Diet alone (n = 411) vs. intensive blood-glucose control policy with metformin (n = 342) n.a. 
Schernthaner (61,72) QUARTET M (Europe) RCT Incidence Cases: 9At risk: 1,194 Any site: 0.51 (0.14–1.90) Metformin monotherapy (n = 597) vs. pioglitazone (n = 597) n.a. 
Hanefeld (62,72) QUARTET C (Europe and North America) RCT Incidence Cases: 9At risk: 639 Any site: 1.99 (0.43–12.32) Metformin + sulfonylurea (n = 320) vs. pioglitazone + sulfonylurea (n = 319) n.a. 
Yang (85) (UK) General practice nested case–control in a retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 125 Controls: 1,195 Colon: 1.00 (0.60–1.70) 3 or more years of metformin therapy vs. noninsulin users Smoking, history of cholecystectomy, diabetes duration, BMI, sulfonylurea use, aspirin/NSAID use 
Bowker (69) (Canada) Population-based retrospective cohort Mortality Cases: 407At risk: 10,309 Any site: 0.77 (0.63–0.91) Metformin vs. sulfonylureas use Insulin use and CDS. 
Monami (55) (Italy) Hospital-based retrospective case–control study Incidence Cases: 195 Controls: 195 Any site: 0.28 (0.13–0.57) Exposure to metformin for more than 36 months vs. other hypoglycemic drugs users Duration of diabetes, BMI, HbA1c, comorbidity, smoking and alcohol abuse, concomitant hypoglycemic treatment 
Oliveria (76) (USA) Population-based retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 813At risk: 191,223 Colon: 0.67 (0.52–0.85) Bladder: 0.99 (0.70–1.39) Liver: 0.73 (0.34–1.56) Pancreas: 1.26 (0.80–1.99) Ever use of metformin monotherapy vs. never use HBV and HCV infection, cirrhosis, alcoholism, polyps, obesity, ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic pancreatitis, dermatomyositis, polymyositis, idiopathic DVT, partial gastrectomy, pelvic radiation, and schistosomiasis. 
Currie (59) (UK) General practice retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 373At risk: 7,897 Any site: 0.74 (0.65–0.84); Breast: 1.02 (0.71–1.45); Colon: 0.56 (0.40–0.76); Prostate: 0.93 (0.67–1.32); Pancreas: 0.20 (0.11–0.36) Metformin monotherapy vs. sulfonylureas monotherapy Smoking, comorbidity, HbA1c, diabetes duration, weight 
Donadon (80) (Italy) Hospital-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 465 Controls: 490 Liver: 0.33 (0.10–0.70) Metformin users vs. nonusers No adjusting variables were considered 
Home (52) RECORD, (Europe) RCT Incidence Cases: 125At risk: 2,225 Any site: 1.22 (0.86–1.74) Breast: 1.0 (0.32–3.10)b Prostate: 2.0 (0.68–5.82)b Pancreas: 5.99 (0.72–49.6)b Liver: 4.0 (0.18–88.7)b Metformin (n = 1,122) vs. rosiglitazone (n = 1,103) n.a. 
Li (86) (USA) Hospital-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 255 Controls: 106 Pancreas: 0.38 (0.22–0.69) Metformin users vs. nonusers Race, smoking, alcohol, BMI, family history of cancer, duration of diabetes, and insulin use. 
Libby (54) (Scotland, UK) Population-based retrospective cohort Incidence and mortality Cases: 771At risk: 8,170 Any site incidence: 0.63 (0.53–0.75); Breast: 0.60 (0.32–1.10); Colon: 0.60 (0.38–0.94); Lung: 0.70 (0.43–1.15) Any site mortality: 0.63 (0.49–0.81) Metformin users vs. nonusers Smoking, BMI, HbA1c, material deprivation, other drug use (sulfonylureas or insulin) 
Wright (79) (USA) Population-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 97 Controls: 101 Prostate: 0.56 (0.32–1.00) Metformin users vs. nonusers BMI, statin and aspirin use, other diabetes treatment, PSA screening history, family history of prostate cancer 
Bodmer (73) (UK) General practice retrospective nested case–control Incidence Cases: 17 Controls: 120 Breast: 0.44 (0.24–0.82) Users of 40+ prescriptions (>5 years) of metformin vs. nonusersc General practice and calendar time by matching, other use of prandial glucose regulators, acarbose, estrogens, smoking, BMI, diabetes duration, and HbA1c 
Hassan (81) (USA) Hospital-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 122 Controls: 86 Liver: 0.30 (0.20–0.60) Biguanide users vs. nonusers Race, educational level, cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking, HCV, HBV, family history of cancer 
Kahn (63) ADOPT (USA) RCT Incidence Cases: 160At risk: 4,351 Any site: ADOPT-G: 0.78 (0.53–1.14)ADOPT-R: 0.92 (0.63–1.35)Breast: 2.0 (0.60–6.62)b Colon: 1.75 (0.51–5.96)b Prostate: 1.0 (0.41–2.40)b Pancreas: 0.1 (0.005–1.84)b Metformin (n = 1,454) vs. glibencamide (n = 1,441) vs. rosiglitazone (n = 1,456) n.a. 
Landman (70) (Netherlands) General practice prospective cohort Mortality Cases: 122At risk: 1,353 Any site: 0.43 (0.23–0.80) Metformin users vs. nonusers Smoking, diabetes duration, HbA1c, serum creatinine, BMI, blood pressure, total cholesterol/HDL, albuminuria, insulin use, sulfonylurea use and macrovascular complications 
Williams-Herman (64) (18 countries worldwide) RCT Incidence Cases: 18At risk: 543 Any site: 0.61 (0.22–1.79) Metformin (n = 364) vs. Sitagliptin (n = 179) n.a. 
Yang (58) (China) Hospital-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 271At risk: 6,103 Any site: 0.99 (0.70, 1.41) Sulfonylurea use + ever use of metformin vs. never use of metformin BMI, smoking status, alcohol, HbA1c, SBP, LDL-C–related risk, HDL and triglyceride, statins, RAS inhibitor usage, insulin usage 
Azoulay (77) (Canada) Population-based retrospective nested case–control Incidence Cases: 739 Controls: 7,359 Prostate: 1.23 (0.99–1.52) Ever vs. never users of metforminc HbA1c, alcohol use, obesity, smoking, lower urinary tract symptoms, previous cancer, previous use of NSAID, antihypertensive drugs, and statins, use of other antidiabetic agents 
Baur (65) (Germany) Hospital-based prospective cohort Incidence and mortality Cases: 66At risk: 1,308 Any site incidence: 0.66 (0.26–1.64)Any site mortality: 0.71 (0.2–2.59) Metformin users vs. nonusers Smoking, BMI, HbA1c 
Bosco (74) (Denmark) Population-based retrospective nested case–control Incidence Cases: 393 Controls: 3,930 Breast: 0.81 (0.63–0.96) Metformin for at least 1 year vs. women not prescribed antidiabetic medication, or used metformin for at least 1 year Diabetes complications, clinical obesity year of birth, parity, postmenopausal hormone use. 
Ferrara (75) (USA) Population-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 9,082At risk: 252,467 Breast: 0.90 (0.80–1.00); Colon: 1.00 (0.90–1.20); Prostate: 1.00 (0.90–1.10); Pancreas: 1.20 (1.00–1.50); Lung: 1.00 (0.80–1.10); NHL: 1.00 (0.80–1.20); Corpus Uteri: 0.90 (0.80–1.20); Kidney/renal pelvis: 1.30 (1.0–1.6); Rectum: 0.90 (0.70–1.20); Melanoma: 0.80 (0.60–1.10) Ever use of pioglitazone and metformin vs. never use of metformin Year of cohort entry, race/ethnicity, income, smoking, glycemic control, diabetes duration, creatinine levels, congestive heart failure, use of other diabetes medications 
Hense (51) (Germany) Population-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 1,364At risk: 26,742 Any site: 0.95 (0.90–1.01) Metformin (only) users vs. nonusers Diabetes duration, BMI, insulin therapy 
Lai (84) (Taiwan) Population-based retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 129At risk: 19,624 Lung: 0.55 (0.37–0.82) Metformin users vs. nonusers Pulmonary tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and propensity score (quintile). 
Lee (53) (South Korea) Population-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 339At risk: 15,717 Any site: 0.12 (0.08–0.19); Colon: 0.36 (0.13–0.98); Liver: 0.06 (0.02–0.16); Esophagus: 0.44 (0.07–2.61); Stomach: 1.41 (0.42–4.73) At least 2 prescription of metformin vs. any other oral antihyperglycemic medication Other oral antihyperglycemic medication, Charlson comorbidity index score, metformin dosage and duration 
Mellbin (71) (Sweden) Prospective cohort follow-up analysis from RCT Mortality N = 1,073N events = 37 Any site: 0.25 (0.08–0.83) Patients using metformin vs. not using at discharge Smoking habits, previous myocardial infarction or previous congestive heart failure, creatinine at randomization, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass grafting during the hospitalization, and mean updated blood glucose 
Morden (56) (USA) General practice retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 5,466At risk: 81,681 Any site: 1.01 (0.94–1.08); Breast: 1.28 (1.05–1.57); Colon: 0.94 (0.72–1.22); Prostate: 0.97 (0.76–1.24); Pancreas: 1.25 (0.89–1.75) Metformin vs. not in insulin-treated patients Race, low-income subsidy status, comorbidities, tobacco exposure, Charlson, comorbidities excluding malignancy, diabetes, insulin dose quartiles 
Bo (68) (Italy) Hospital-based retrospective cohort Mortality Cases: 122At risk: 3,703 Any site: 0.56 (0.34–0.94) Metformin use vs. diet control only Diabetes duration, HbA1c, smoking, BMI, presence of retinopathy, nephropathy, coronary or peripheral artery disease, other co-morbidities and the use of antihypertensive drugs and acetylsalicylic acid 
Bodmer (83) (UK) General practice retrospective nested case–control Incidence Cases: 920 Controls: 5,519 Colon: 1.43 (1.08–1.90) Metformin users (50+ prescriptions) vs. nonusers Diabetes duration, BMI, smoking, prior use of aspirin, NSAID, statins, estrogen use (women), sulfonylureas and insulin use 
Bodmer (82) (UK) General practice retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 307 Controls: 1,347 Pancreas: 0.83 (0.57–1.21) Metformin users vs. nonusers BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes duration, other antidiabetics drugs 
Bodmer (88) (UK) General practice retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 1.029 Controls: 6,174 Lung: 1.09 (0.85–1.38) Metformin users (40+ prescriptions) vs. nonusers BMI and smoking 
Chlebowski (48,95) (USA) Prospective Cohort (WHI program) Incidence Cases: 233At risk: 68,019 Breast: 0.65 (0.46–0.91) Metformin vs. other antidiabetic drugs Family history, prior breast biopsy, age at menarche, menopause, parity, age at first live birth, breastfeeding, education, smoking, alcohol use, BMI, physical activity, duration of prior estrogen alone, estrogen + progesterone use, bilateral oophorectomy, weight loss 
Hsieh (89) (Taiwan) Population-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 6.554At risk: 61,777 Any site: 0.56 (0.44–0.71) Breast: 0.57(0.33–0.97) Colon: 0.54 (0.39–0.76) Prostate: 0.97 (0.60–1.55) Lung: 0.64 (0.45–0.90)Liver: 0.66 (0.49–0.91) Pancreas: 0.63 (0.28–1.42) Stomach: 0.63 (0.39–1.08) Metformin vs. sulfonylurea Only age and sex 
Lehman (78) (USA) Population-based retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 360At risk: 5,042 Prostate: 2.15 (1.83–2.52) Metformin versus sulfonylurea only (restricted to nonstatin users)c HbA1c, diabetes duration, race/ethnicity, Charlson comorbidity score 
Liao (91) (Taiwan) Population-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 56At risk: 49,803 Pancreas: 0.85 (0.39–1.89) Metformin users vs. nonusers No adjusting variables were considered 
Magliano (66) (Australia) Community-based longitudinal cohort Incidence Cases: 309At risk: 1,294 Any site: 0.88 (0.67–1.17); Prostate: 2.16 (1.19–3.9) Metformin users vs. nonusers No adjusting variables were considered 
Mazzone (94) (USA) Hospital-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 507 Controls: 507 Lung: 0.48 (0.28–0.81) Metformin users vs. nonusers Medication use, BMI, HbA1C, smoking 
Ngwana (50) (Belgium) General practice retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 221At risk: 4,012 Any site: 0.20 (0.03–1.64); Breast: 0.46 (0.07–3.10); Colon: 0.11 (0.01–1.07); Prostate: 0.61 (0.31–1.19) Metformin vs. other antidiabetic treatments and diet only Weight and initial HbA1c 
Redaniel (90) (UK) General practice retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 873At risk: 52,657 Breast: 1.02 (0.79–1.3) Metformin vs. sulfonylurea Period, region, BMI, year of diagnosis 
Ruiter (57) (Netherlands) Hospital-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 3,552At risk: 85,289 Any site: 0.90 (0.88–0.91); Breast: 0.95 (0.91–0.98); Colon: 0.91 (0.88–0.94); Prostate: 0.92 (0.88–0.94); Pancreas: 0.73 (0.66–0.80); Liver: 0.67 (0.53–0.86); Lung: 0.87 (0.84–0.91); Esophagus: 0.90 (0.82–0.97); Stomach: 0.83 (0.76–0.90) Metformin vs. sulfonylurea derivativesc Age at first oral glucose-lowering drug prescription, number of other drugs used in the year before the start of OGLD, number of hospitalizations in the year before the start of OGLD, calendar time 
Becker (96) (UK) General practice retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 291 Controls: 1,746 Endometrial: 0.88 (0.58–1.32) Metformin users (25+ prescriptions) vs. no prior use BMI, smoking, diabetes duration 
Chaiteerakij et al. (93) (USA) Hospital-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 105 Controls: 34 Liver: 0.4 (0.2–0.9) Metformin users vs. nonusers Ethnicity, and residential area, propensity scores for statin-use 
Chen (92) (Taiwan) Population-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 22,047 Controls: 25,773 Liver: 0.79 (0.75–0.83) Metformin users vs. nonusers Cirrhosis, HCV, DM duration, comorbidities, other medications 
Chung (67) (South Korea) Population-based retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 73At risk: 1,217 Any site: 0.57 (0.39–0.85) Metformin users vs. nonusers Not specified 
Currie (60) (UK) General practice retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 4,029At risk: 84,622 Any site: 0.91 (0.83–1.00) Metformin vs. sulfonylurea Systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, total cholesterol, serum creatinine, BMI, smoking status, antihypertensive lipid-lowering, antiplatelet therapy, duration of diabetes, prior history of cancer, LVD, microvascular disease, number of contacts with the general practitioner in the year before the index date, Charlson comorbidity index 
Smiechowski (87) (Canada) Population-based prospective nested case–control Incidence Cases: 808 Controls:7,764 Lung: 0.94 (0.76–1.17) Metformin users vs. nonusers Diabetes duration, HbA1c, obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol use, previous cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin, statins, and other antidiabetic drugs 
First author (ref.) (country)Study designEndpointSample sizeRisk estimates (95% CI)Treatment comparisonAdjusting variables (other than age and sex)
UKPD Study Group (49) (UK) RCT Mortality Cases: 139 At risk: 753 Any site: 0.71 (0.29–1.76)a Diet alone (n = 411) vs. intensive blood-glucose control policy with metformin (n = 342) n.a. 
Schernthaner (61,72) QUARTET M (Europe) RCT Incidence Cases: 9At risk: 1,194 Any site: 0.51 (0.14–1.90) Metformin monotherapy (n = 597) vs. pioglitazone (n = 597) n.a. 
Hanefeld (62,72) QUARTET C (Europe and North America) RCT Incidence Cases: 9At risk: 639 Any site: 1.99 (0.43–12.32) Metformin + sulfonylurea (n = 320) vs. pioglitazone + sulfonylurea (n = 319) n.a. 
Yang (85) (UK) General practice nested case–control in a retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 125 Controls: 1,195 Colon: 1.00 (0.60–1.70) 3 or more years of metformin therapy vs. noninsulin users Smoking, history of cholecystectomy, diabetes duration, BMI, sulfonylurea use, aspirin/NSAID use 
Bowker (69) (Canada) Population-based retrospective cohort Mortality Cases: 407At risk: 10,309 Any site: 0.77 (0.63–0.91) Metformin vs. sulfonylureas use Insulin use and CDS. 
Monami (55) (Italy) Hospital-based retrospective case–control study Incidence Cases: 195 Controls: 195 Any site: 0.28 (0.13–0.57) Exposure to metformin for more than 36 months vs. other hypoglycemic drugs users Duration of diabetes, BMI, HbA1c, comorbidity, smoking and alcohol abuse, concomitant hypoglycemic treatment 
Oliveria (76) (USA) Population-based retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 813At risk: 191,223 Colon: 0.67 (0.52–0.85) Bladder: 0.99 (0.70–1.39) Liver: 0.73 (0.34–1.56) Pancreas: 1.26 (0.80–1.99) Ever use of metformin monotherapy vs. never use HBV and HCV infection, cirrhosis, alcoholism, polyps, obesity, ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic pancreatitis, dermatomyositis, polymyositis, idiopathic DVT, partial gastrectomy, pelvic radiation, and schistosomiasis. 
Currie (59) (UK) General practice retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 373At risk: 7,897 Any site: 0.74 (0.65–0.84); Breast: 1.02 (0.71–1.45); Colon: 0.56 (0.40–0.76); Prostate: 0.93 (0.67–1.32); Pancreas: 0.20 (0.11–0.36) Metformin monotherapy vs. sulfonylureas monotherapy Smoking, comorbidity, HbA1c, diabetes duration, weight 
Donadon (80) (Italy) Hospital-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 465 Controls: 490 Liver: 0.33 (0.10–0.70) Metformin users vs. nonusers No adjusting variables were considered 
Home (52) RECORD, (Europe) RCT Incidence Cases: 125At risk: 2,225 Any site: 1.22 (0.86–1.74) Breast: 1.0 (0.32–3.10)b Prostate: 2.0 (0.68–5.82)b Pancreas: 5.99 (0.72–49.6)b Liver: 4.0 (0.18–88.7)b Metformin (n = 1,122) vs. rosiglitazone (n = 1,103) n.a. 
Li (86) (USA) Hospital-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 255 Controls: 106 Pancreas: 0.38 (0.22–0.69) Metformin users vs. nonusers Race, smoking, alcohol, BMI, family history of cancer, duration of diabetes, and insulin use. 
Libby (54) (Scotland, UK) Population-based retrospective cohort Incidence and mortality Cases: 771At risk: 8,170 Any site incidence: 0.63 (0.53–0.75); Breast: 0.60 (0.32–1.10); Colon: 0.60 (0.38–0.94); Lung: 0.70 (0.43–1.15) Any site mortality: 0.63 (0.49–0.81) Metformin users vs. nonusers Smoking, BMI, HbA1c, material deprivation, other drug use (sulfonylureas or insulin) 
Wright (79) (USA) Population-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 97 Controls: 101 Prostate: 0.56 (0.32–1.00) Metformin users vs. nonusers BMI, statin and aspirin use, other diabetes treatment, PSA screening history, family history of prostate cancer 
Bodmer (73) (UK) General practice retrospective nested case–control Incidence Cases: 17 Controls: 120 Breast: 0.44 (0.24–0.82) Users of 40+ prescriptions (>5 years) of metformin vs. nonusersc General practice and calendar time by matching, other use of prandial glucose regulators, acarbose, estrogens, smoking, BMI, diabetes duration, and HbA1c 
Hassan (81) (USA) Hospital-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 122 Controls: 86 Liver: 0.30 (0.20–0.60) Biguanide users vs. nonusers Race, educational level, cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking, HCV, HBV, family history of cancer 
Kahn (63) ADOPT (USA) RCT Incidence Cases: 160At risk: 4,351 Any site: ADOPT-G: 0.78 (0.53–1.14)ADOPT-R: 0.92 (0.63–1.35)Breast: 2.0 (0.60–6.62)b Colon: 1.75 (0.51–5.96)b Prostate: 1.0 (0.41–2.40)b Pancreas: 0.1 (0.005–1.84)b Metformin (n = 1,454) vs. glibencamide (n = 1,441) vs. rosiglitazone (n = 1,456) n.a. 
Landman (70) (Netherlands) General practice prospective cohort Mortality Cases: 122At risk: 1,353 Any site: 0.43 (0.23–0.80) Metformin users vs. nonusers Smoking, diabetes duration, HbA1c, serum creatinine, BMI, blood pressure, total cholesterol/HDL, albuminuria, insulin use, sulfonylurea use and macrovascular complications 
Williams-Herman (64) (18 countries worldwide) RCT Incidence Cases: 18At risk: 543 Any site: 0.61 (0.22–1.79) Metformin (n = 364) vs. Sitagliptin (n = 179) n.a. 
Yang (58) (China) Hospital-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 271At risk: 6,103 Any site: 0.99 (0.70, 1.41) Sulfonylurea use + ever use of metformin vs. never use of metformin BMI, smoking status, alcohol, HbA1c, SBP, LDL-C–related risk, HDL and triglyceride, statins, RAS inhibitor usage, insulin usage 
Azoulay (77) (Canada) Population-based retrospective nested case–control Incidence Cases: 739 Controls: 7,359 Prostate: 1.23 (0.99–1.52) Ever vs. never users of metforminc HbA1c, alcohol use, obesity, smoking, lower urinary tract symptoms, previous cancer, previous use of NSAID, antihypertensive drugs, and statins, use of other antidiabetic agents 
Baur (65) (Germany) Hospital-based prospective cohort Incidence and mortality Cases: 66At risk: 1,308 Any site incidence: 0.66 (0.26–1.64)Any site mortality: 0.71 (0.2–2.59) Metformin users vs. nonusers Smoking, BMI, HbA1c 
Bosco (74) (Denmark) Population-based retrospective nested case–control Incidence Cases: 393 Controls: 3,930 Breast: 0.81 (0.63–0.96) Metformin for at least 1 year vs. women not prescribed antidiabetic medication, or used metformin for at least 1 year Diabetes complications, clinical obesity year of birth, parity, postmenopausal hormone use. 
Ferrara (75) (USA) Population-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 9,082At risk: 252,467 Breast: 0.90 (0.80–1.00); Colon: 1.00 (0.90–1.20); Prostate: 1.00 (0.90–1.10); Pancreas: 1.20 (1.00–1.50); Lung: 1.00 (0.80–1.10); NHL: 1.00 (0.80–1.20); Corpus Uteri: 0.90 (0.80–1.20); Kidney/renal pelvis: 1.30 (1.0–1.6); Rectum: 0.90 (0.70–1.20); Melanoma: 0.80 (0.60–1.10) Ever use of pioglitazone and metformin vs. never use of metformin Year of cohort entry, race/ethnicity, income, smoking, glycemic control, diabetes duration, creatinine levels, congestive heart failure, use of other diabetes medications 
Hense (51) (Germany) Population-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 1,364At risk: 26,742 Any site: 0.95 (0.90–1.01) Metformin (only) users vs. nonusers Diabetes duration, BMI, insulin therapy 
Lai (84) (Taiwan) Population-based retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 129At risk: 19,624 Lung: 0.55 (0.37–0.82) Metformin users vs. nonusers Pulmonary tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and propensity score (quintile). 
Lee (53) (South Korea) Population-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 339At risk: 15,717 Any site: 0.12 (0.08–0.19); Colon: 0.36 (0.13–0.98); Liver: 0.06 (0.02–0.16); Esophagus: 0.44 (0.07–2.61); Stomach: 1.41 (0.42–4.73) At least 2 prescription of metformin vs. any other oral antihyperglycemic medication Other oral antihyperglycemic medication, Charlson comorbidity index score, metformin dosage and duration 
Mellbin (71) (Sweden) Prospective cohort follow-up analysis from RCT Mortality N = 1,073N events = 37 Any site: 0.25 (0.08–0.83) Patients using metformin vs. not using at discharge Smoking habits, previous myocardial infarction or previous congestive heart failure, creatinine at randomization, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass grafting during the hospitalization, and mean updated blood glucose 
Morden (56) (USA) General practice retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 5,466At risk: 81,681 Any site: 1.01 (0.94–1.08); Breast: 1.28 (1.05–1.57); Colon: 0.94 (0.72–1.22); Prostate: 0.97 (0.76–1.24); Pancreas: 1.25 (0.89–1.75) Metformin vs. not in insulin-treated patients Race, low-income subsidy status, comorbidities, tobacco exposure, Charlson, comorbidities excluding malignancy, diabetes, insulin dose quartiles 
Bo (68) (Italy) Hospital-based retrospective cohort Mortality Cases: 122At risk: 3,703 Any site: 0.56 (0.34–0.94) Metformin use vs. diet control only Diabetes duration, HbA1c, smoking, BMI, presence of retinopathy, nephropathy, coronary or peripheral artery disease, other co-morbidities and the use of antihypertensive drugs and acetylsalicylic acid 
Bodmer (83) (UK) General practice retrospective nested case–control Incidence Cases: 920 Controls: 5,519 Colon: 1.43 (1.08–1.90) Metformin users (50+ prescriptions) vs. nonusers Diabetes duration, BMI, smoking, prior use of aspirin, NSAID, statins, estrogen use (women), sulfonylureas and insulin use 
Bodmer (82) (UK) General practice retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 307 Controls: 1,347 Pancreas: 0.83 (0.57–1.21) Metformin users vs. nonusers BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes duration, other antidiabetics drugs 
Bodmer (88) (UK) General practice retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 1.029 Controls: 6,174 Lung: 1.09 (0.85–1.38) Metformin users (40+ prescriptions) vs. nonusers BMI and smoking 
Chlebowski (48,95) (USA) Prospective Cohort (WHI program) Incidence Cases: 233At risk: 68,019 Breast: 0.65 (0.46–0.91) Metformin vs. other antidiabetic drugs Family history, prior breast biopsy, age at menarche, menopause, parity, age at first live birth, breastfeeding, education, smoking, alcohol use, BMI, physical activity, duration of prior estrogen alone, estrogen + progesterone use, bilateral oophorectomy, weight loss 
Hsieh (89) (Taiwan) Population-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 6.554At risk: 61,777 Any site: 0.56 (0.44–0.71) Breast: 0.57(0.33–0.97) Colon: 0.54 (0.39–0.76) Prostate: 0.97 (0.60–1.55) Lung: 0.64 (0.45–0.90)Liver: 0.66 (0.49–0.91) Pancreas: 0.63 (0.28–1.42) Stomach: 0.63 (0.39–1.08) Metformin vs. sulfonylurea Only age and sex 
Lehman (78) (USA) Population-based retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 360At risk: 5,042 Prostate: 2.15 (1.83–2.52) Metformin versus sulfonylurea only (restricted to nonstatin users)c HbA1c, diabetes duration, race/ethnicity, Charlson comorbidity score 
Liao (91) (Taiwan) Population-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 56At risk: 49,803 Pancreas: 0.85 (0.39–1.89) Metformin users vs. nonusers No adjusting variables were considered 
Magliano (66) (Australia) Community-based longitudinal cohort Incidence Cases: 309At risk: 1,294 Any site: 0.88 (0.67–1.17); Prostate: 2.16 (1.19–3.9) Metformin users vs. nonusers No adjusting variables were considered 
Mazzone (94) (USA) Hospital-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 507 Controls: 507 Lung: 0.48 (0.28–0.81) Metformin users vs. nonusers Medication use, BMI, HbA1C, smoking 
Ngwana (50) (Belgium) General practice retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 221At risk: 4,012 Any site: 0.20 (0.03–1.64); Breast: 0.46 (0.07–3.10); Colon: 0.11 (0.01–1.07); Prostate: 0.61 (0.31–1.19) Metformin vs. other antidiabetic treatments and diet only Weight and initial HbA1c 
Redaniel (90) (UK) General practice retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 873At risk: 52,657 Breast: 1.02 (0.79–1.3) Metformin vs. sulfonylurea Period, region, BMI, year of diagnosis 
Ruiter (57) (Netherlands) Hospital-based prospective cohort Incidence Cases: 3,552At risk: 85,289 Any site: 0.90 (0.88–0.91); Breast: 0.95 (0.91–0.98); Colon: 0.91 (0.88–0.94); Prostate: 0.92 (0.88–0.94); Pancreas: 0.73 (0.66–0.80); Liver: 0.67 (0.53–0.86); Lung: 0.87 (0.84–0.91); Esophagus: 0.90 (0.82–0.97); Stomach: 0.83 (0.76–0.90) Metformin vs. sulfonylurea derivativesc Age at first oral glucose-lowering drug prescription, number of other drugs used in the year before the start of OGLD, number of hospitalizations in the year before the start of OGLD, calendar time 
Becker (96) (UK) General practice retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 291 Controls: 1,746 Endometrial: 0.88 (0.58–1.32) Metformin users (25+ prescriptions) vs. no prior use BMI, smoking, diabetes duration 
Chaiteerakij et al. (93) (USA) Hospital-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 105 Controls: 34 Liver: 0.4 (0.2–0.9) Metformin users vs. nonusers Ethnicity, and residential area, propensity scores for statin-use 
Chen (92) (Taiwan) Population-based retrospective case–control Incidence Cases: 22,047 Controls: 25,773 Liver: 0.79 (0.75–0.83) Metformin users vs. nonusers Cirrhosis, HCV, DM duration, comorbidities, other medications 
Chung (67) (South Korea) Population-based retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 73At risk: 1,217 Any site: 0.57 (0.39–0.85) Metformin users vs. nonusers Not specified 
Currie (60) (UK) General practice retrospective cohort Incidence Cases: 4,029At risk: 84,622 Any site: 0.91 (0.83–1.00) Metformin vs. sulfonylurea Systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, total cholesterol, serum creatinine, BMI, smoking status, antihypertensive lipid-lowering, antiplatelet therapy, duration of diabetes, prior history of cancer, LVD, microvascular disease, number of contacts with the general practitioner in the year before the index date, Charlson comorbidity index 
Smiechowski (87) (Canada) Population-based prospective nested case–control Incidence Cases: 808 Controls:7,764 Lung: 0.94 (0.76–1.17) Metformin users vs. nonusers Diabetes duration, HbA1c, obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol use, previous cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin, statins, and other antidiabetic drugs 

Abbreviations: ADOPT, a diabetes outcome progression trial; %CI, percent CI; CDS, chronic disease score; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; N, number; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; OGLD, oral glucose lowering drugs; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; RAS, renin–angiotensin system; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RECORD, rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiac outcomes and regulation of glycaemia in diabetes; SBP, systolic blood pressure; UKPDS, United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study.

aRisk estimate for users of metformin alone.

bADOPT-G and ADOPT-R, glibenclamide and rosiglitazone arms of ADOPT study. Risk estimates represent multiple comparisons from a single trial, and the analysis takes account of correlation between these comparisons; risk estimates for single cancer sites were calculated from crude data.

cExcluded patients on monotherapy with insulin.

We also examined SRRs stratified by BMI adjustment and time-related bias. For the latter analysis, 18 studies were judged to have avoided these biases (49, 51, 52, 55, 57, 61, 62, 64, 70, 71, 75, 77, 78, 80, 86, 87). However, the small number of studies may imply lack of robustness of the SRR estimates and where fewer than 3 studies were adjusted for BMI, the BMI-adjusted SRRs are not reported. Estimates from randomized clinical trials were considered to be adjusted for BMI.

Overall cancer incidence and mortality—effects of BMI and study type

The SRRs for metformin and overall cancer incidence (50–59) and mortality (45, 50–54, 56–59, 73–84, 86, 87) are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2. A risk reduction of 31% (SRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52–0.90), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 88%), was estimated for overall cancer incidence in subjects taking metformin compared with other antidiabetic compounds. There was a statistically significant, 34% reduction in cancer mortality (0.66, 95% CI, 0.54–0.81), with limited heterogeneity (I2 = 21%).

Figure 2.

Forest plot of the association between metformin and cancer incidence or cancer mortality. Forest plots of risk estimates from observational studies and randomized controlled trials of metformin use and cancer incidence (A) or cancer mortality (B). Black boxes indicate HRs, and horizontal lines represent 95% CIs. Black diamonds, SRR estimates. The vertical dotted line represents a risk estimate of 1.00.

Figure 2.

Forest plot of the association between metformin and cancer incidence or cancer mortality. Forest plots of risk estimates from observational studies and randomized controlled trials of metformin use and cancer incidence (A) or cancer mortality (B). Black boxes indicate HRs, and horizontal lines represent 95% CIs. Black diamonds, SRR estimates. The vertical dotted line represents a risk estimate of 1.00.

Close modal
Table 2.

Summary risk estimates (SRRs) and 95% CIs for all endpoints

EndpointsGroupsSRR (95% CI)I2Number of studiesa
Cancer incidence All studies 0.69 (0.52–0.90) 88 19 
 Adjusted for BMI 0.82 (0.70–0.96) 76 11 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.90 (0.89–0.91) 56 
 Prospective studies 0.71 (0.47–1.07) 89 12 
 Randomized clinical trials 0.95 (0.69–1.30) 
Cancer mortality All studies 0.66 (0.54–0.81) 21 
 Adjusted for BMI 0.60 (0.45–0.80) 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.45 (0.16–1.26) 
 Prospective studies 0.48 (0.23–0.97) 
Single cancer sites 
 Breast All studies 0.88 (0.75–1.03) 60 13 
 Adjusted for BMI 0.82 (0.67–1.00) 48 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.94 (0.90–0.99) 32 
 Prospective studies 0.94 (0.90–0.99) 44 
 Colon All studies 0.80 (0.64–1.00) 76 12 
 Adjusted for BMI 0.84 (0.50–1.40) 81 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.92 (0.85–0.98) 24 
 Prospective studies 0.82 (0.57–1.17) 74 
 Prostate All studies 1.06 (0.80–1.41) 91 12 
 Adjusted for BMI 0.98 (0.68–1.40) 55 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 1.25 (0.87–1.80) 96 
 Prospective studies 0.93 (0.89–0.97) 59 
 Pancreas All studies 0.75 (0.49–1.15) 84 11 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.48 (0.16–1.43) 83 
 Time-related unbiased 0.77 (0.38–1.55) 40 
 Prospective studies 0.89 (0.61–1.29) 80 
 Liver All studies 0.47 (0.28–0.79) 82 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.65 (0.39–1.08) 38 
 Prospective studies 0.78 (0.72–0.85) 52 
 Lung All studies 0.82 (0.67–0.99) 57 
 Adjusted for smoking 0.95 (0.82–1.11) 57 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.88 (0.81–0.95) 36 
 Prospective studies 0.97 (0.69–1.35) 26 
EndpointsGroupsSRR (95% CI)I2Number of studiesa
Cancer incidence All studies 0.69 (0.52–0.90) 88 19 
 Adjusted for BMI 0.82 (0.70–0.96) 76 11 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.90 (0.89–0.91) 56 
 Prospective studies 0.71 (0.47–1.07) 89 12 
 Randomized clinical trials 0.95 (0.69–1.30) 
Cancer mortality All studies 0.66 (0.54–0.81) 21 
 Adjusted for BMI 0.60 (0.45–0.80) 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.45 (0.16–1.26) 
 Prospective studies 0.48 (0.23–0.97) 
Single cancer sites 
 Breast All studies 0.88 (0.75–1.03) 60 13 
 Adjusted for BMI 0.82 (0.67–1.00) 48 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.94 (0.90–0.99) 32 
 Prospective studies 0.94 (0.90–0.99) 44 
 Colon All studies 0.80 (0.64–1.00) 76 12 
 Adjusted for BMI 0.84 (0.50–1.40) 81 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.92 (0.85–0.98) 24 
 Prospective studies 0.82 (0.57–1.17) 74 
 Prostate All studies 1.06 (0.80–1.41) 91 12 
 Adjusted for BMI 0.98 (0.68–1.40) 55 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 1.25 (0.87–1.80) 96 
 Prospective studies 0.93 (0.89–0.97) 59 
 Pancreas All studies 0.75 (0.49–1.15) 84 11 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.48 (0.16–1.43) 83 
 Time-related unbiased 0.77 (0.38–1.55) 40 
 Prospective studies 0.89 (0.61–1.29) 80 
 Liver All studies 0.47 (0.28–0.79) 82 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.65 (0.39–1.08) 38 
 Prospective studies 0.78 (0.72–0.85) 52 
 Lung All studies 0.82 (0.67–0.99) 57 
 Adjusted for smoking 0.95 (0.82–1.11) 57 
 Adjusted for time-related bias 0.88 (0.81–0.95) 36 
 Prospective studies 0.97 (0.69–1.35) 26 

aEstimates may not correspond to number of studies.

A significant reduction in overall cancer incidence in metformin users was also found when the estimates were adjusted for BMI (SRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70–0.96; I2 = 76%), but not in BMI-unadjusted studies (SRR, 0.58 with 95% CI, 0.31–1.09 and I2 = 94%; P = 0.49 for the difference between estimates). However, no reduction was found when the analysis was restricted to prospective studies (SRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47–1.07; I2 = 89%) or randomized clinical trials (SRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69–1.30; I2 = 5%), although the latter studies included only 321 events. Meta-regression also indicates that publication year is not associated with risk estimates (P = 0.59), nor was there an association with the use of insulin treatment as comparator (P = 0.89).

The SRR for cancer mortality from BMI-adjusted results confirmed a significant reduction with metformin use (SRRs adjusted for BMI: 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45–0.80; I2 = 0), whereas the reduction from unadjusted estimates was not significant (SRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.23–2.46; I2 = 71%). Analysis of prospective studies only showed a statistically significant reduction with metformin, in contrast to the effect seen on cancer incidence (SRR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.23–0.97; I2 = 0).

Organ specific analyses—effects of BMI and study type on cancer incidence

The SRR estimates for breasts, prostate, colon, pancreas, liver, and lungs are illustrated in Fig. 3 and Table 2. The risk reduction with metformin use in unadjusted analyses reached statistical significance only for liver (9 studies, SRR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28–0.78; I2 = 82%) and lung cancer (8 studies, SRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67–0.99; I2 = 66%; Table 2). Analysis of prospective studies confirmed this association for liver but not lung cancer. Too few liver or lung cancer studies were available to address the effect of BMI. Most notably, the summary estimate for lung cancer adjusted for smoking showed no significant association (SRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82–1.11; I2 = 58%).

Figure 3.

Forest plots of the association between metformin use and individual site cancer incidence. Forest plots of risk estimates from observational studies and randomized controlled trials of metformin use and breast cancer (A), prostate cancer (B), colon cancer (C), pancreas cancer (D), liver cancer (E), and lung cancer (F). Black boxes indicate HRs, and horizontal lines represent 95% CIs. Black diamonds, SRR estimates. The vertical dotted line represents a risk estimate of 1.00. P for BMI is the P value for the interaction between BMI-adjusted analysis and unadjusted analysis.

Figure 3.

Forest plots of the association between metformin use and individual site cancer incidence. Forest plots of risk estimates from observational studies and randomized controlled trials of metformin use and breast cancer (A), prostate cancer (B), colon cancer (C), pancreas cancer (D), liver cancer (E), and lung cancer (F). Black boxes indicate HRs, and horizontal lines represent 95% CIs. Black diamonds, SRR estimates. The vertical dotted line represents a risk estimate of 1.00. P for BMI is the P value for the interaction between BMI-adjusted analysis and unadjusted analysis.

Close modal

The meta-analysis of the 13 studies on breast cancer risk showed a nonsignificant trend (SRR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75–1.03; I2 = 60%). However, BMI adjustment showed borderline significance in 5 studies (SRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67–1.00; I2 = 48%). Analysis of 7 prospective studies showed statistical significance (SRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90–0.99; I2 = 44). Metformin treatment and prostate cancer risk did not show any association in 12 studies (SRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80–1.41; I2 = 91%), even upon BMI adjustment. However, in the subgroup of 6 prospective studies, the reduction became significant (SRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89–0.97; I2 = 59%), albeit with low magnitude. For colon cancer, the SRR suggested borderline significant risk reduction (12 studies, SRR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.64–1.00; I2 = 76%). The SRRs from subgroups of studies adjusted for BMI and with prospective designs did not suggest a significant reduction in cancer risk. No risk reduction was found for metformin use in pancreatic cancer (SRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.49–1.15; I2 = 84%) even after BMI adjustment or when the analysis was limited to 6 prospective studies (SRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61–1.29; I2 = 80%).

We also evaluated the effect of the BMI adjustment within studies (not only between studies) when the data were available. For 12 observational studies, we were able to extract risk estimates adjusted for BMI (or a proxy such as obesity) and crude estimates in order to measure the size of this confounding (Supplementary Table S2). Overall, the data show similar RR estimates between fully adjusted and crude RR estimates, suggesting limited confounding effect. Summary risk estimates for individual organs were obtained only for breast cancer, for which we had at least 4 studies. SRRs were very similar: 0.79 (0.54, 1.16) and 0.72 (0.48, 1.07) for adjusted and unadjusted estimates, respectively.

These analyses focused on patients with diabetes. In some studies, the diagnosis of diabetes was not verified and the comparator was “antidiabetic drug users” (57, 69, 73, 82, 83). A sensitivity analysis excluding those studies did not modify the results except for colorectal cancer, which became statistically significant (SRR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58–0.92) after excluding the paper by Ruiter and colleagues (83). When the potential bias because of insulin treatment as comparator was taken into account, the conclusions did not change. No indication for publication bias was found for any of the summary estimates.

Analysis of studies without time-related biases

The SRRs for overall cancer incidence, organ-specific cancer incidence, and overall cancer mortality obtained from analysis of studies that avoided time-related biases are shown in Table 2. The SRR for overall cancer incidence was statistically significant in 8 studies (SRR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.89–0.91; I2 = 56%). The SRR for breast and colorectal cancer also became statistically significant: SRR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.90–0.99; I2 = 32%) and SRR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85–0.98; I2 = 24%), respectively. On the other hand, the risk reduction for overall cancer mortality and liver cancer incidence lost statistical significance (SRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16–1.26 and SRR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39–1.08, respectively). For lung cancer, the SRR suggested significant risk reduction, but adjustment for smoking eliminated the effect.

When only studies without time-related biases and adjusted for BMI were analyzed, the SRR for overall cancer incidence and breast cancer lost significance: SRR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88–1.01) and SRR = 0.89 (95% CI, 0.56–1.41), respectively. These numbers, however, were small.

Research on metformin use and cancer risk and mortality has expanded considerably over recent years, with conflicting data arising from different epidemiologic, human, and animal carcinogenesis studies. Several previous meta-analyses have concluded that patients with diabetes who use metformin have significantly lower risk of overall cancer incidence (30%–40%), mortality, and site-specific cancer incidence than those who use other antidiabetic medications (11–14). However, the studies included in these meta-analyses are susceptible to several confounders and biases. Here we focused for the first time on 2 critical issues with potential to skew the literature, the effect of BMI, and time-related biases in observational studies. The main results from our study show that metformin use is associated with decreased overall cancer incidence even after adjustment for BMI or time-related biases, but the magnitude of this effect is considerably smaller than observed without such adjustments (10%–18% vs. 31%). Simultaneous adjustment for both BMI and time-related biases results in loss of statistical significance, albeit based on few studies. This is reminiscent of results from Thakkar and colleagues, who showed a diminution in metformin's effect when considering cohort studies (30%) versus case–control studies (10%) versus randomized controlled trials (no effect; ref. 14). Examination of individual organ sites, which is limited by fewer available studies for analysis, shows nonsignificant associations or similarly smaller effects after adjustment. Taken together, these data underscore the importance of understanding the limitation in the current literature and suggest that if metformin use is associated with a reduced risk of cancer, the effect may be smaller than previously shown.

Obesity and its surrogate, high BMI, are intimately linked to increased risk of several cancer types (97, 98). Potential mechanisms include both direct and indirect effects of obesity on insulin, IGF-1, sex hormones, adipokines, and inflammation, many of which are directly impacted by metformin. In our analysis, BMI-adjusted studies showed statistically significant reduction in cancer incidence and mortality whereas unadjusted studies showed no effect. In 12 prospective studies where it was possible to compare BMI-adjusted versus crude estimates within each study, similar RR estimates were noted, suggesting limited confounding effect of BMI. Likewise, summary risk estimates within 4 breast cancer studies were similar. BMI adjustment did not significantly affect the cancer risk estimates for individual organ sites, although the risk estimates for breast cancer became borderline significant. A direct correlation between BMI and inflammation, adipocyte size, and aromatase expression has been shown in breast tissue from women undergoing breast cancer surgery, pointing to inflammation as a potential biologic basis for the cancer–obesity connection (99). However, BMI and insulin resistance had a modifying effect on the metformin modulation of breast cancer cell proliferation in a presurgical trial (16). Furthermore, metformin is the drug of choice in obese patients with diabetes because it reduces weight (3, 100), so its use is associated with obesity. Thus, modification of the cancer–obesity relationship by metformin is likely complex and requires extensive study.

A recent review by Suissa and Azoulay underscored the prevalence of time-related biases in observational studies, potentially leading to inflated estimates of the protective effect of metformin (17). These biases include immortal time bias (unexposed time is misclassified as drug-exposed time), time-window bias (differential exposure opportunity time windows between exposed and unexposed subjects), and time-lag bias (comparison of treatment given during different stages of the disease). Of note, exclusion of time-biased studies from our analysis resulted in statistically significant 10% risk reduction in overall cancer incidence, although the magnitude is substantially smaller than the previously reported 30% to 40%. In organ-specific analyses, reduction in colorectal cancer incidence became significant (8%), whereas liver cancer risk reduction became nonsignificant. Exclusion of time-biased studies in the analysis of cancer mortality resulted in loss of statistical significance.

The effect of metformin use on cancer mortality may result from different mechanisms than the effect on incidence. Retrospective analyses suggest that diabetics treated with metformin during chemotherapy have better survival than those treated with other antidiabetic agents (28, 101). Interestingly, mouse xenograft models show that metformin targets breast cancer stem cells and synergizes with doxorubicin to prevent relapse (102). If metformin increases the effectiveness of chemotherapy, then its inclusion in chemotherapeutic regimens may exert a favorable impact on survival.

This study has several limitations. These include heterogeneity of study designs and treatment comparators. More than two thirds of the studies had a retrospective design, which is prone to important sources of bias. However, our analyses of prospective studies generally found similar SRRs, although for breast, liver, and prostate cancer, these results became statistically significant. A second limitation is the nature of the comparator group, which mainly included treatment with insulin and insulin secreatagogues. These classes of agents increase insulin levels and have been associated with increased cancer risk (14, 55, 69, 103). Thus, the potential protective effect of metformin in an untreated or noninsulin using population cannot be precisely estimated. A third factor to consider is allocation bias, with metformin users being at different stage of diabetes than comparators, as discussed previously with regard to time-lag bias. Generally, treatment with metformin starts at a younger age, likely because of treatment guidelines (104) and in subjects with higher BMI, possibly because of its weight lowering effects (105). Although the majority of studies adjusted for confounders such as age, we here presented the analyses adjusting for BMI and excluding time-biased studies. However, BMI is dynamic, and weight gain is an important risk factor for mortality of several cancers (106). Therefore, adjustment for a single BMI value might be inadequate to account for confounding by BMI dynamics over time. Finally, the effect of other confounders, both known (but not adjusted for) or heretofore unrecognized, should not be underestimated. This is best illustrated by lung cancer, where overall and time-unbiased analyses point to a protective effect, whereas adjustment for smoking, which is by far the most important cause of lung cancer, leads to loss of significance.

A critical question emerging from this meta-analysis of studies in diabetic patients is the generalizability to nondiabetic populations. Our data demonstrate a cancer preventive signal, albeit of lesser magnitude once the appropriate adjustments are made than previously reported. This signal now needs to be studied in controlled clinical trials focusing on carefully defined populations, such as the prediabetic population in the Diabetes Prevention Program Trial (3, 4), for which long-term follow-up to ascertain the effects of metformin on cancer incidence is currently ongoing. However, it needs to be emphasized that existing data about metformin use in nondiabetic populations are severely limited.

Clinical trials are needed to determine if the observations seen in diabetic populations can be expanded to prediabetic or nondiabetic populations and to whom they should be expanded for the best benefit/risk ratio. Although some of these early phase trials are ongoing, additional information is needed before making general recommendations or launching large-scale clinical efforts.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Conception and design: S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, B.M. Heckman-Stoddard, B.K. Dunn, L. Ford, A. DeCensi, E. Szabo

Development of methodology: S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, B.M. Heckman-Stoddard, A. DeCensi

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, B.M. Heckman-Stoddard

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, B.M. Heckman-Stoddard, L. Ford

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, B.M. Heckman-Stoddard, B.K. Dunn, A. DeCensi, E. Szabo

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): S. Gandini, M. Puntoni, B.M. Heckman-Stoddard, L. Ford

Study supervision: M. Puntoni, A. DeCensi, E. Szabo

The study was supported by grants from the Italian Association for Cancer Research AIRC (IG 12072), the Italian Ministry of Health (RF-2009-1532226), and the Italian League Against Cancer (14/08) to A. DeCensi. A. DeCensi's work was partially performed during a sabbatical at the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, NIH.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Giovannucci
E
,
Harlan
DM
,
Archer
MC
,
Bergenstal
RM
,
Gapstur
SM
,
Habel
LA
, et al
Diabetes and cancer: a consensus report
.
Diabetes Care
2010
;
33
:
1674
85
.
2.
Selvin
E
,
Bolen
S
,
Yeh
HC
,
Wiley
C
,
Wilson
LM
,
Marinopoulos
SS
, et al
Cardiovascular outcomes in trials of oral diabetes medications: a systematic review
.
Arch Intern Med
2008
;
168
:
2070
80
.
3.
Knowler
WC
,
Barrett-Connor
E
,
Fowler
SE
,
Hamman
RF
,
Lachin
JM
,
Walker
EA
, et al
Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin
.
N Engl J Med
2002
;
346
:
393
403
.
4.
Knowler
WC
,
Fowler
SE
,
Hamman
RF
,
Christophi
CA
,
Hoffman
HJ
,
Brenneman
AT
, et al
10-year follow-up of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study
.
Lancet
2009
;
374
:
1677
86
.
5.
Algire
C
,
Moiseeva
O
,
Deschenes-Simard
X
,
Amrein
L
,
Petruccelli
L
,
Birman
E
, et al
Metformin reduces endogenous reactive oxygen species and associated DNA damage
.
Cancer Prev Res
2012
;
5
:
536
43
.
6.
Bojkova
B
,
Orendas
P
,
Garajova
M
,
Kassayova
M
,
Kutna
V
,
Ahlersova
E
, et al
Metformin in chemically-induced mammary carcinogenesis in rats
.
Neoplasma
2009
;
56
:
269
74
.
7.
Anisimov
VN
,
Berstein
LM
,
Popovich
IG
,
Zabezhinski
MA
,
Egormin
PA
,
Piskunova
TS
, et al
If started early in life, metformin treatment increases life span and postpones tumors in female SHR mice
.
Aging (Albany NY)
2011
;
3
:
148
57
.
8.
Hosono
K
,
Endo
H
,
Takahashi
H
,
Sugiyama
M
,
Uchiyama
T
,
Suzuki
K
, et al
Metformin suppresses azoxymethane-induced colorectal aberrant crypt foci by activating AMP-activated protein kinase
.
Mol Carcinog
2010
;
49
:
662
71
.
9.
Bhalla
K
,
Hwang
BJ
,
Dewi
RE
,
Twaddel
W
,
Goloubeva
OG
,
Wong
KK
, et al
Metformin prevents liver tumorigenesis by inhibiting pathways driving hepatic lipogenesis
.
Cancer Prev Res
2012
;
5
:
544
52
.
10.
Vitale-Cross
L
,
Molinolo
AA
,
Martin
D
,
Younis
RH
,
Maruyama
T
,
Patel
V
, et al
Metformin prevents the development of oral squamous cell carcinomas from carcinogen-induced premalignant lesions
.
Cancer Prev Res
2012
;
5
:
562
73
.
11.
Decensi
A
,
Puntoni
M
,
Goodwin
P
,
Cazzaniga
M
,
Gennari
A
,
Bonanni
B
, et al
Metformin and cancer risk in diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Cancer Prev Res
2010
;
3
:
1451
61
.
12.
Noto
H
,
Goto
A
,
Tsujimoto
T
,
Noda
M
. 
Cancer risk in diabetic patients treated with metformin: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
PLoS ONE
2012
;
7
:
e33411
.
13.
Soranna
D
,
Scotti
L
,
Zambon
A
,
Bosetti
C
,
Grassi
G
,
Catapano
A
, et al
Cancer risk associated with use of metformin and sulfonylurea in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis
.
Oncologist
2012
;
17
:
813
22
.
14.
Thakkar
B
,
Aronis
KN
,
Vamvini
MT
,
Shields
K
,
Mantzoros
CS
. 
Metformin and sulfonylureas in relation to cancer risk in type II diabetes patients: a meta-analysis using primary data of published studies
.
Metabolism
2013
;
62
:
922
34
.
15.
Franciosi
M
,
Lucisano
G
,
Lapice
E
,
Strippoli
GF
,
Pellegrini
F
,
Nicolucci
A
. 
Metformin therapy and risk of cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review
.
PLoS ONE
2013
;
8
:
e71583
.
16.
Bonanni
B
,
Puntoni
M
,
Cazzaniga
M
,
Pruneri
G
,
Serrano
D
,
Guerrieri-Gonzaga
A
, et al
Dual effect of metformin on breast cancer proliferation in a randomized presurgical trial
.
J Clin Oncol
2012
;
30
:
2593
600
.
17.
Suissa
S
,
Azoulay
L
. 
Metformin and the risk of cancer: time-related biases in observational studies
.
Diabetes Care
2012
;
35
:
2665
73
.
18.
Stroup
DF
,
Berlin
JA
,
Morton
SC
,
Olkin
I
,
Williamson
GD
,
Rennie
D
, et al
Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting
.
JAMA
2000
;
283
:
2008
12
.
19.
Moher
D
,
Liberati
A
,
Tetzlaff
J
,
Altman
DG
. 
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
.
J Clin Epidemiol
2009
;
62
:
1006
12
.
20.
Greenland
S
. 
Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature
.
Epidemiol Rev
1987
;
9
:
1
30
.
21.
Higgins
JP
,
Thompson
SG
. 
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis
.
Stat Med
2002
;
21
:
1539
58
.
22.
von Elm
E
,
Altman
DG
,
Egger
M
,
Pocock
SJ
,
Gøtzsche
PC
,
Vandenbroucke
JP
. 
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies
.
J Clin Epidemiol
2008
;
61
:
344
9
.
23.
van Houwelingen
HC
,
Arends
LR
,
Stijnen
T
. 
Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression
.
Stat Med
2002
;
21
:
589
624
.
24.
Macaskill
P
,
Walter
SD
,
Irwig
L
. 
A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis
.
Stat Med
2001
;
20
:
641
54
.
25.
Berstein
LM
,
Boyarkina
MP
,
Teslenko
SY
. 
Familial diabetes is associated with reduced risk of cancer in diabetic patients: a possible role for metformin
.
Med Oncol
2012
;
29
:
1308
13
.
26.
Buchs
AE
,
Silverman
BG
. 
Incidence of malignancies in patients with diabetes mellitus and correlation with treatment modalities in a large Israeli health maintenance organization: a historical cohort study
.
Metabolism
2011
;
60
:
1379
85
.
27.
Chung
YW
,
Han
DS
,
Park
KH
,
Eun
CS
,
Yoo
KS
,
Park
CK
. 
Insulin therapy and colorectal adenoma risk among patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a case-control study in Korea
.
Dis Colon Rectum
2008
;
51
:
593
7
.
28.
He
X
,
Esteva
FJ
,
Ensor
J
,
Hortobagyi
GN
,
Lee
MH
,
Yeung
SC
. 
Metformin and thiazolidinediones are associated with improved breast cancer-specific survival of diabetic women with HER2+ breast cancer
.
Ann Oncol
2012
;
23
:
1771
80
.
29.
Lee
JH
,
Kim
TI
,
Jeon
SM
,
Hong
SP
,
Cheon
JH
,
Kim
WH
. 
The effects of metformin on the survival of colorectal cancer patients with diabetes mellitus
.
Int J Cancer
2012
;
131
:
752
9
.
30.
Monami
M
,
Colombi
C
,
Balzi
D
,
Dicembrini
I
,
Giannini
S
,
Melani
C
, et al
Metformin and cancer occurrence in insulin-treated type 2 diabetic patients
.
Diabetes Care
2011
;
34
:
129
31
.
31.
Murtola
TJ
,
Tammela
TL
,
Lahtela
J
,
Auvinen
A
. 
Antidiabetic medication and prostate cancer risk: a population-based case-control study
.
Am J Epidemiol
2008
;
168
:
925
31
.
32.
Niraula
S
,
Pond
G
,
De Wit
R
,
Eisenberger
M
,
Tannock
IF
,
Joshua
AM
. 
Influence of concurrent medications on outcomes of men with prostate cancer included in the TAX 327 study
.
Can Urol Assoc J
2011
;
7
:
1
8
.
33.
Nkontchou
G
,
Cosson
E
,
Aout
M
,
Mahmoudi
A
,
Bourcier
V
,
Charif
I
, et al
Impact of metformin on the prognosis of cirrhosis induced by viral hepatitis C in diabetic patients
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2011
;
96
:
2601
8
.
34.
Stefansdottir
G
,
Zoungas
S
,
Chalmers
J
,
Kengne
AP
,
Knol
MJ
,
Leufkens
HG
, et al
Intensive glucose control and risk of cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetologia
2011
;
54
:
1608
14
.
35.
Tseng
CH
. 
Diabetes and risk of bladder cancer: a study using the National Health Insurance database in Taiwan
.
Diabetologia
2011
;
54
:
2009
15
.
36.
van Staa
TP
,
Patel
D
,
Gallagher
AM
,
de Bruin
ML
. 
Glucose-lowering agents and the patterns of risk for cancer: a study with the General Practice Research Database and secondary care data
.
Diabetologia
2012
;
55
:
654
65
.
37.
Yang
X
,
So
WY
,
Ma
RC
,
Kong
AP
,
Lee
HM
,
Yu
LW
, et al
Low HDL cholesterol, metformin use, and cancer risk in type 2 diabetes: the Hong Kong Diabetes Registry
.
Diabetes Care
2011
;
34
:
375
80
.
38.
Currie
CJ
,
Poole
CD
,
Jenkins-Jones
S
,
Gale
EA
,
Johnson
JA
,
Morgan
CL
. 
Mortality after incident cancer in people with and without type 2 diabetes: impact of metformin on survival
.
Diabetes Care
2012
;
35
:
299
304
.
39.
Hitron
A
,
Adams
V
,
Talbert
J
,
Steinke
D
. 
The influence of antidiabetic medications on the development and progression of prostate cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol
2012
;
36
:
e243
50
.
40.
Morgan
CL
,
Poole
CD
,
Evans
M
,
Barnett
AH
,
Jenkins-Jones
S
,
Currie
CJ
. 
What next after metformin? A retrospective evaluation of the outcome of second-line, glucose-lowering therapies in people with type 2 diabetes
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2012
;
97
:
4605
12
.
41.
Qiu
H
,
Rhoads
GG
,
Berlin
JA
,
Marcella
SW
,
Demissie
K
. 
Initial metformin or sulfonylurea exposure and cancer occurrence among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
.
Diabetes Obes Metab
2013
;
15
:
349
57
.
42.
Tseng
CH
. 
Diabetes, metformin use, and colon cancer: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan
.
Eur J Endocrinol
2012
;
167
:
409
16
.
43.
Lee
JH
,
Jeon
SM
,
Hong
SP
,
Cheon
JH
,
Kim
TI
,
Kim
WH
. 
Metformin use is associated with a decreased incidence of colorectal adenomas in diabetic patients with previous colorectal cancer
.
Dig Liver Dis
2012
;
44
:
1042
7
.
44.
Spratt
DE
,
Zhang
C
,
Zumsteg
ZS
,
Pei
X
,
Zhang
Z
,
Zelefsky
MJ
. 
Metformin and prostate cancer: reduced development of castration-resistant disease and prostate cancer mortality
.
Eur Urol
2013
;
63
:
709
16
.
45.
Lai
SW
,
Chen
PC
,
Liao
KF
,
Muo
CH
,
Lin
CC
,
Sung
FC
. 
Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in diabetic patients and risk reduction associated with anti-diabetic therapy: a population-based cohort study
.
Am J Gastroenterol
2012
;
107
:
46
52
.
46.
Kawaguchi
T
,
Taniguchi
E
,
Morita
Y
,
Shirachi
M
,
Tateishi
I
,
Nagata
E
, et al
Association of exogenous insulin or sulfonylurea treatment with an increased incidence of hepatoma in patients with hepatitis C virus infection
.
Liver Int
2010
;
30
:
479
86
.
47.
Vu
K
,
Busaidy
N
,
Cabanillas
ME
,
Konopleva
M
,
Faderl
S
,
Thomas
DA
, et al
A randomized controlled trial of an intensive insulin regimen in patients with hyperglycemic acute lymphoblastic leukemia
.
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk
2012
;
12
:
355
62
.
48.
Chlebowski
RT
,
McTiernan
A
,
Wactawski-Wende
J
,
Manson
JE
,
Aragaki
AK
,
Rohan
T
, et al
Diabetes, metformin, and breast cancer in postmenopausal women
.
J Clin Oncol
2012
;
30
:
2844
52
.
49.
Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group
.
Lancet
1998
;
352
:
854
65
.
50.
Ngwana
G
,
Aerts
M
,
Truyers
C
,
Mathieu
C
,
Bartholomeeusen
S
,
Wami
W
, et al
Relation between diabetes, metformin treatment and the occurrence of malignancies in a Belgian primary care setting
.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract
2012
;
97
:
331
6
.
51.
Hense
HW
,
Kajuter
H
,
Wellmann
J
,
Batzler
WU
. 
Cancer incidence in type 2 diabetes patients—first results from a feasibility study of the D2C cohort
.
Diabetol Metab Syndr
2011
;
3
:
15
.
52.
Home
PD
,
Kahn
SE
,
Jones
NP
,
Noronha
D
,
Beck-Nielsen
H
,
Viberti
G
. 
Experience of malignancies with oral glucose-lowering drugs in the randomised controlled ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial) and RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes) clinical trials
.
Diabetologia
2010
;
53
:
1838
45
.
53.
Lee
MS
,
Hsu
CC
,
Wahlqvist
ML
,
Tsai
HN
,
Chang
YH
,
Huang
YC
. 
Type 2 diabetes increases and metformin reduces total, colorectal, liver and pancreatic cancer incidences in Taiwanese: a representative population prospective cohort study of 800,000 individuals
.
BMC Cancer
2011
;
11
:
20
.
54.
Libby
G
,
Donnelly
LA
,
Donnan
PT
,
Alessi
DR
,
Morris
AD
,
Evans
JM
. 
New users of metformin are at low risk of incident cancer: a cohort study among people with type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2009
;
32
:
1620
5
.
55.
Monami
M
,
Lamanna
C
,
Balzi
D
,
Marchionni
N
,
Mannucci
E
. 
Sulphonylureas and cancer: a case–control study
.
Acta Diabetol
2009
;
46
:
279
84
.
56.
Morden
NE
,
Liu
SK
,
Smith
J
,
Mackenzie
TA
,
Skinner
J
,
Korc
M
. 
Further exploration of the relationship between insulin glargine and incident cancer: a retrospective cohort study of older Medicare patients
.
Diabetes Care
2011
;
34
:
1965
71
.
57.
Ruiter
R
,
Visser
LE
,
van Herk-Sukel
MP
,
Coebergh
JW
,
Haak
HR
,
Geelhoed-Duijvestijn
PH
, et al
Lower risk of cancer in patients on metformin in comparison with those on sulfonylurea derivatives: results from a large population-based follow-up study
.
Diabetes Care
2012
;
35
:
119
24
.
58.
Yang
X
,
So
WY
,
Ma
RC
,
Yu
LW
,
Ko
GT
,
Kong
AP
, et al
Use of sulfonylurea and cancer in type 2 diabetes—The Hong Kong Diabetes Registry
.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract
2010
;
90
:
343
51
.
59.
Currie
CJ
,
Poole
CD
,
Gale
EA
. 
The influence of glucose-lowering therapies on cancer risk in type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetologia
2009
;
52
:
1766
77
.
60.
Currie
CJ
,
Poole
CD
,
Evans
M
,
Peters
JR
,
Morgan
CL
. 
Mortality and other important diabetes-related outcomes with insulin vs other antihyperglycemic therapies in type 2 diabetes
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2013
;
98
:
668
77
.
61.
Schernthaner
G
,
Matthews
DR
,
Charbonnel
B
,
Hanefeld
M
,
Brunetti
P
. 
Efficacy and safety of pioglitazone versus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a double-blind, randomized trial
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2004
;
89
:
6068
76
.
62.
Hanefeld
M
,
Brunetti
P
,
Schernthaner
GH
,
Matthews
DR
,
Charbonnel
BH
. 
One-year glycemic control with a sulfonylurea plus pioglitazone versus a sulfonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2004
;
27
:
141
7
.
63.
Kahn
SE
,
Haffner
SM
,
Heise
MA
,
Herman
WH
,
Holman
RR
,
Jones
NP
, et al
Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide monotherapy
.
N Engl J Med
2006
;
355
:
2427
43
.
64.
Williams-Herman
D
,
Johnson
J
,
Teng
R
,
Golm
G
,
Kaufman
KD
,
Goldstein
BJ
, et al
Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Obes Metab
2010
;
12
:
442
51
.
65.
Baur
DM
,
Klotsche
J
,
Hamnvik
OP
,
Sievers
C
,
Pieper
L
,
Wittchen
HU
, et al
Type 2 diabetes mellitus and medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with risk for and mortality from cancer in a German primary care cohort
.
Metabolism
2011
;
60
:
1363
71
.
66.
Magliano
DJ
,
Davis
WA
,
Shaw
JE
,
Bruce
DG
,
Davis
TM
. 
Incidence and predictors of all-cause and site-specific cancer in type 2 diabetes: the Fremantle Diabetes Study
.
Eur J Endocrinol
2012
;
167
:
589
99
.
67.
Chung
HH
,
Moon
JS
,
Yoon
JS
,
Lee
HW
,
Won
KC
. 
The relationship between metformin and cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Metab J
2013
;
37
:
125
31
.
68.
Bo
S
,
Ciccone
G
,
Rosato
R
,
Villois
P
,
Appendino
G
,
Ghigo
E
, et al
Cancer mortality reduction and metformin: a retrospective cohort study in type 2 diabetic patients
.
Diabetes Obes Metab
2012
;
14
:
23
9
.
69.
Bowker
SL
,
Majumdar
SR
,
Veugelers
P
,
Johnson
JA
. 
Increased cancer-related mortality for patients with type 2 diabetes who use sulfonylureas or insulin: response to Farooki and Schneider
.
Diabetes Care
2006
;
29
:
1990
1
.
70.
Landman
GW
,
Kleefstra
N
,
van Hateren
KJ
,
Groenier
KH
,
Gans
RO
,
Bilo
HJ
. 
Metformin associated with lower cancer mortality in type 2 diabetes: ZODIAC-16
.
Diabetes Care
2010
;
33
:
322
6
.
71.
Mellbin
LG
,
Malmberg
K
,
Norhammar
A
,
Wedel
H
,
Ryden
L
. 
Prognostic implications of glucose-lowering treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction and diabetes: experiences from an extended follow-up of the Diabetes Mellitus Insulin-Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (DIGAMI) 2 Study
.
Diabetologia
2011
;
54
:
1308
17
.
72.
Stevens
RJ
,
Ali
R
,
Bankhead
CR
,
Bethel
MA
,
Cairns
BJ
,
Camisasca
RP
, et al
Cancer outcomes and all-cause mortality in adults allocated to metformin: systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
.
Diabetologia
2012
;
55
:
2593
603
.
73.
Bodmer
M
,
Meier
C
,
Krahenbuhl
S
,
Jick
SS
,
Meier
CR
. 
Long-term metformin use is associated with decreased risk of breast cancer
.
Diabetes Care
2010
;
33
:
1304
8
.
74.
Bosco
JL
,
Antonsen
S
,
Sorensen
HT
,
Pedersen
L
,
Lash
TL
. 
Metformin and incident breast cancer among diabetic women: a population-based case-control study in Denmark
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2011
;
20
:
101
11
.
75.
Ferrara
A
,
Lewis
JD
,
Quesenberry
CP
 Jr.
,
Peng
T
,
Strom
BL
,
Van Den Eeden
SK
, et al
Cohort study of pioglitazone and cancer incidence in patients with diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2011
;
34
:
923
9
.
76.
Oliveria
SA
,
Koro
CE
,
Ulcickas Yood
M
,
Sowell
M
. 
Cancer incidence among patients treated with antidiabetic pharmacotherapy
.
Diabetes Metab Syndrome: Clin Res Rev
2008
;
2
:
47
57
.
77.
Azoulay
L
,
Dell'Aniello
S
,
Gagnon
B
,
Pollak
M
,
Suissa
S
. 
Metformin and the incidence of prostate cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2011
;
20
:
337
44
.
78.
Lehman
DM
,
Lorenzo
C
,
Hernandez
J
,
Wang
CP
. 
Statin use as a moderator of metformin effect on risk for prostate cancer among type 2 diabetic patients
.
Diabetes Care
2012
;
35
:
1002
7
.
79.
Wright
JL
,
Stanford
JL
. 
Metformin use and prostate cancer in Caucasian men: results from a population-based case-control study
.
Cancer Causes Control
2009
;
20
:
1617
22
.
80.
Donadon
V
,
Balbi
M
,
Ghersetti
M
,
Grazioli
S
,
Perciaccante
A
,
Della Valentina
G
, et al
Antidiabetic therapy and increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic liver disease
.
World J Gastroenterol
2009
;
15
:
2506
11
.
81.
Hassan
MM
,
Curley
SA
,
Li
D
,
Kaseb
A
,
Davila
M
,
Abdalla
EK
, et al
Association of diabetes duration and diabetes treatment with the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Cancer
2010
;
116
:
1938
46
.
82.
Bodmer
M
,
Becker
C
,
Meier
C
,
Jick
SS
,
Meier
CR
. 
Use of antidiabetic agents and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a case-control analysis
.
Am J Gastroenterol
2012
;
107
:
620
6
.
83.
Bodmer
M
,
Becker
C
,
Meier
C
,
Jick
SS
,
Meier
CR
. 
Use of metformin is not associated with a decreased risk of colorectal cancer: a case-control analysis
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2012
;
21
:
280
6
.
84.
Lai
SW
,
Liao
KF
,
Chen
PC
,
Tsai
PY
,
Hsieh
DP
,
Chen
CC
. 
Antidiabetes drugs correlate with decreased risk of lung cancer: a population-based observation in Taiwan
.
Clin Lung Cancer
2012
;
13
:
143
8
.
85.
Yang
YX
,
Hennessy
S
,
Lewis
JD
. 
Insulin therapy and colorectal cancer risk among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients
.
Gastroenterology
2004
;
127
:
1044
50
.
86.
Li
D
,
Yeung
SC
,
Hassan
MM
,
Konopleva
M
,
Abbruzzese
JL
. 
Antidiabetic therapies affect risk of pancreatic cancer
.
Gastroenterology
2009
;
137
:
482
8
.
87.
Smiechowski
BB
,
Azoulay
L
,
Yin
H
,
Pollak
MN
,
Suissa
S
. 
The use of metformin and the incidence of lung cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2012
;
36
:
124
9
.
88.
Bodmer
M
,
Becker
C
,
Jick
SS
,
Meier
CR
. 
Metformin does not alter the risk of lung cancer: a case-control analysis
.
Lung Cancer
2012
;
78
:
133
7
.
89.
Hsieh
MC
,
Lee
TC
,
Cheng
SM
,
Tu
ST
,
Yen
MH
,
Tseng
CH
. 
The influence of type 2 diabetes and glucose-lowering therapies on cancer risk in the Taiwanese
.
Exp Diabetes Res
2012
;
2012
:
413782
.
90.
Redaniel
MT
,
Jeffreys
M
,
May
MT
,
Ben-Shlomo
Y
,
Martin
RM
. 
Associations of type 2 diabetes and diabetes treatment with breast cancer risk and mortality: a population-based cohort study among British women
.
Cancer Causes Control
2012
;
23
:
1785
95
.
91.
Liao
KF
,
Lai
SW
,
Li
CI
,
Chen
WC
. 
Diabetes mellitus correlates with increased risk of pancreatic cancer: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan
.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2012
;
27
:
709
13
.
92.
Chen
HP
,
Shieh
JJ
,
Chang
CC
,
Chen
TT
,
Lin
JT
,
Wu
MS
, et al
Metformin decreases hepatocellular carcinoma risk in a dose-dependent manner: population-based and in vitro studies
.
Gut
2013
;
62
:
606
15
.
93.
Chaiteerakij
R
,
Yang
JD
,
Harmsen
WS
,
Slettedahl
SW
,
Mettler
TA
,
Fredericksen
ZS
, et al
Risk factors for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: association between metformin use and reduced cancer risk
.
Hepatology
2013
;
57
:
648
55
.
94.
Mazzone
PJ
,
Rai
H
,
Beukemann
M
,
Xu
M
,
Jain
A
,
Sasidhar
M
. 
The effect of metformin and thiazolidinedione use on lung cancer in diabetics
.
BMC Cancer
2012
;
12
:
410
.
95.
Chlebowski
RT
,
Aragaki
AK
,
McTiernan
A
. 
Reply to S. Gandini et al.
J Clin Oncol
2013
;
31
:
974
5
.
96.
Becker
C
,
Jick
SS
,
Meier
CR
,
Bodmer
M
. 
Metformin and the risk of endometrial cancer: a case-control analysis
.
Gynecol Oncol
2013
;
129
:
565
9
.
97.
Goodwin
PJ
,
Pritchard
KI
,
Ennis
M
,
Clemons
M
,
Graham
M
,
Fantus
IG
. 
Insulin-lowering effects of metformin in women with early breast cancer
.
Clin Breast Cancer
2008
;
8
:
501
5
.
98.
Handelsman
Y
,
Leroith
D
,
Bloomgarden
ZT
,
Dagogo-Jack
S
,
Einhorn
D
,
Garber
AJ
, et al
Diabetes and cancer-an AACE/ACE consensus statement
.
Endocr Pract
2013
;
19
:
675
93
.
99.
Morris
PG
,
Hudis
CA
,
Giri
D
,
Morrow
M
,
Falcone
DJ
,
Zhou
XK
, et al
Inflammation and increased aromatase expression occur in the breast tissue of obese women with breast cancer
.
Cancer Prev Res
2011
;
4
:
1021
9
.
100.
Saenz
A
,
Fernandez-Esteban
I
,
Mataix
A
,
Ausejo
M
,
Roque
M
,
Moher
D
. 
Metformin monotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2005
;
3
:
CD002966
.
101.
Tan
BX
,
Yao
WX
,
Ge
J
,
Peng
XC
,
Du
XB
,
Zhang
R
, et al
Prognostic influence of metformin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
Cancer
2011
;
117
:
5103
11
.
102.
Hirsch
HA
,
Iliopoulos
D
,
Tsichlis
PN
,
Struhl
K
. 
Metformin selectively targets cancer stem cells, and acts together with chemotherapy to block tumor growth and prolong remission
.
Cancer Res
2009
;
69
:
7507
11
.
103.
Goodwin
PJ
,
Thompson
AM
,
Stambolic
V
. 
Diabetes, metformin, and breast cancer: lilac time?
J Clin Oncol
2012
;
30
:
2812
4
.
104.
International Diabetes Federation
. 
Global Guideline for Type 2 Diabetes 2005
[cited 2012]. Available from
: http://www.idf.org/global-guideline-type-2-diabetes-2005.
105.
Park
MH
,
Kinra
S
,
Ward
KJ
,
White
B
,
Viner
RM
. 
Metformin for obesity in children and adolescents: a systematic review
.
Diabetes Care
2009
;
32
:
1743
5
.
106.
Calle
EE
,
Rodriguez
C
,
Walker-Thurmond
K
,
Thun
MJ
. 
Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. adults
.
N Engl J Med
2003
;
348
:
1625
38
.