Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 481

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Angiotensin-receptor blockade and risk of cancer: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Open access
Sipahi, Ilke, Debanne, Sara M, Rowland, Douglas Y, Simon, Daniel I, Fang, James C·2010·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Summary Background Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) are a widely used drug class approved for treatment of hypertension, heart failure, diabetic nephropathy, and, recently, for cardiovascular risk reduction. Experimental studies implicate the renin-angiotensin system, particularly angiotensin II type-1 and type-2 receptors, in the regulation of cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and tumour progression. We assessed whether ARBs affect cancer occurrence with a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of these drugs. Methods We searched Medline, Scopus (including Embase), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the US Food and Drug Administration website for studies published before November, 2009, that included any of the seven currently available ARBs. Randomised controlled trials with an ARB given in at least one group, with a follow-up of at least 1 year, and that enrolled at least 100 patients were included. New-cancer data were available for 61 590 patients from five trials. Data on common types of solid organ cancers were available for 68 402 patients from five trials, and data on cancer deaths were available for 93 515 patients from eight trials. Findings Telmisartan was the study drug in 30 014 (85·7%) patients who received ARBs as part of the trials with new cancer data. Patients randomly assigned to receive ARBs had a significantly increased risk of new cancer occurrence compared with patients in control groups (7·2% vs 6·0%, risk ratio [RR] 1·08, 95% CI 1·01–1·15; p=0·016). When analysis was limited to trials where cancer was a prespecified endpoint, the RR was 1·11 (95% CI 1·04–1·18, p=0·001). Among specific solid organ cancers examined, only new lung-cancer occurrence was significantly higher in patients randomly assigned to receive ARBs than in those assigned to receive control (0·9% vs 0·7%, RR 1·25, 1·05–1·49; p=0·01). No statistically significant difference in cancer deaths was observed (1·8% vs1·6%, RR 1·07, 0·97–1·18; p=0·183). Interpretation This meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials suggests that ARBs are associated with a modestly increased risk of new cancer diagnosis. Given the limited data, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the exact risk of cancer associated with each particular drug. These findings warrant further investigation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70106-6

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 481

Metadata

Authors
Sipahi, I., Debanne, S. M., Rowland, D. Y., Simon, D. I., & Fang, J. C.
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-07
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
627-636
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2105473163
Cited by
481
References
45
FWCI
8.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Angiotensin-receptor blockade and risk of cancer: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70106-6
The paper
Sipahi, I., Debanne, S. M., Rowland, D. Y., Simon, D. I., & Fang, J. C. (2010). Angiotensin-receptor blockade and risk of cancer: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70106-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.