Ali‐Osman, Francis

Abstract Background: There have been few studies of sufficient size to address the relationship between glioma risk and the use of aspirin or NSAIDs, and results have been conflicting. The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between glioma and aspirin/NSAID use, and to aggregate these findings with prior published studies using meta-analysis. Methods: The Glioma International Case-Control Study (GICC) consists of 4,533 glioma cases and 4,171 controls recruited from 2010 to 2013. Interviews were conducted using a standardized questionnaire to obtain information on aspirin/NSAID use. We examined history of regular use for ≥6 months and duration-response. Restricted maximum likelihood meta-regression models were used to aggregate site-specific estimates, and to combine GICC estimates with previously published studies. Results: A history of daily aspirin use for ≥6 months was associated with a 38% lower glioma risk, compared with not having a history of daily use [adjusted meta-OR = 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.54–0.70]. There was a significant duration-response trend (P = 1.67 × 10−17), with lower ORs for increasing duration of aspirin use. Duration-response trends were not observed for NSAID use. In the meta-analysis aggregating GICC data with five previous studies, there was a marginally significant association between use of aspirin and glioma (mOR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70–1.02), but no association for NSAID use. Conclusions: Our study suggests that aspirin may be associated with a reduced risk of glioma. Impact: These results imply that aspirin use may be associated with decreased glioma risk. Further research examining the association between aspirin use and glioma risk is warranted.

Abstract Background: Numerous epidemiologic studies have examined the association between aspirin (ASA), non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the development of glioma, but the results have been inconsistent. The goal of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the intake of these drugs and glioma risk in a large, international case-control study. Methods: Between 2010 and 2015, the Glioma International Case-Control Study (GICC) recruited newly diagnosed glioma cases and matched controls in 14 different sites across five countries. Each subject was interviewed using a standardized questionnaire to obtain NSAIDs and ASA use. We examined the associations between ever use (at least > 6 months), duration of drug use and glioma histology. Ever use data on 4533 glioma cases and 4171 controls was combined using maximum likelihood estimation/restricted maximum likelihood meta-analysis methods. Furthermore, based on a priori hypotheses, we performed subgroup analyses based on gender and glioma histological grades. Results: Use of ASA for > 6 months was associated with a 33% lower glioma risk compared to those who never took it (adjusted Meta-OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.83). Duration of intake showed a significant trend test (p < 0.0001), with ORs became lower for increasing number of years of ASA use. In subgroup analyses, intake of ASA was significantly associated with glioma risk in both men and women (adjusted Meta-OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.84 for men; adjusted Meta-OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.93 for women). ASA intake was protective for grade IV glioma (glioblastoma) and grade II/III glioma (adjusted meta-OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.5-0.8 for glioblastoma; adjusted meta-OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 - 0.89 for grade II/III glioma). For NSAIDs intake, ever use > 6 months was not associated with glioma risk (adjusted meta-OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.07). However, NSAIDs use was protective for women (adjusted meta-OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.93) in subgroup analyses but not for men (adjusted meta-OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.86-1.23). The interaction between gender, NSAIDs and glioma risk was significant (p-value 0.0076).. Sensitivity analyses excluding those who took ASA or NSAIDs within the past 12 months for headache, and the removal of proxy respondents did not change our results. Conclusion: ASA was associated with a significant protective effect for glioma, but NSAIDs were only associated with reduced glioma risk in women. Given the possibility of recall bias in case-control studies of brain tumors, we may verify dosage and duration of drug intake in those countries with electronic pharmacy records within the GICC. Citation Format: Rose K. Lai, Renke Zhou, E. Susan Amirian, Christoffer Johansen, Michael E. Scheurer, Georgina N. Armstrong, Ching C. Lau, Elizabeth B. Claus, Jill S. Barnholtz-Sloan, Dora Il’yasova, Joellen Schildkraut, Francis Ali-Osman, Siegal Sadetzki, Richard Houlston, Robert B. Jenkins, Daniel Lachance, Sara H. Olson, Jonine L. Bernstein, Ryan T. Merrell, Margaret R. Wrensch, Faith G. Davis, Sanjay Shete, Christopher I. Amos, Beatrice S. Melin, Melissa Bondy. Aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the risk of glioma: Results from the Glioma International Case Control Study. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 3446.

AbstractVaricella zoster virus (VZV) is a neurotropic α‐herpesvirus that causes chickenpox and establishes life‐long latency in the cranial nerve and dorsal root ganglia of the host. To date, VZV is the only virus consistently reported to have an inverse association with glioma. The Glioma International Case‐Control Study (GICC) is a large, multisite consortium with data on 4533 cases and 4171 controls collected across five countries. Here, we utilized the GICC data to confirm the previously reported associations between history of chickenpox and glioma risk in one of the largest studies to date on this topic. Using two‐stage random‐effects restricted maximum likelihood modeling, we found that a positive history of chickenpox was associated with a 21% lower glioma risk, adjusting for age and sex (95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.65–0.96). Furthermore, the protective effect of chickenpox was stronger for high‐grade gliomas. Our study provides additional evidence that the observed protective effect of chickenpox against glioma is unlikely to be coincidental. Future studies, including meta‐analyses of the literature and investigations of the potential biological mechanism, are warranted.

Abstract Background: Several previous studies have found inverse associations between glioma susceptibility and a history of allergies or other atopic conditions. Some evidence indicates that respiratory allergies are likely to be particularly relevant with regard to glioma risk. Using data from the Glioma International Case-Control Study (GICC), we examined the effects of respiratory allergies and other atopic conditions on glioma risk. Methods: The GICC contains detailed information on history of atopic conditions for 4,533 cases and 4,171 controls, recruited from 14 study sites across five countries. Using two-stage random-effects restricted maximum likelihood modeling to calculate meta-analysis ORs, we examined the associations between glioma and allergy status, respiratory allergy status, asthma, and eczema. Results: Having a history of respiratory allergies was associated with an approximately 30% lower glioma risk, compared with not having respiratory allergies (mOR, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58–0.90). This association was similar when restricting to high-grade glioma cases. Asthma and eczema were also significantly protective against glioma. Conclusion: A substantial amount of data on the inverse association between atopic conditions and glioma has accumulated, and findings from the GICC study further strengthen the existing evidence that the relationship between atopy and glioma is unlikely to be coincidental. Impact: As the literature approaches a consensus on the impact of allergies in glioma risk, future research can begin to shift focus to what the underlying biologic mechanism behind this association may be, which could, in turn, yield new opportunities for immunotherapy or cancer prevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(2); 282–90. ©2016 AACR.