Cancer and Diabetes Mellitus (DM) are leading causes of death worldwide and the prevalence of both is escalating. People with co-morbid cancer and DM have increased morbidity and premature mortality compared with cancer patients with no DM. The reasons for this are likely to be multifaceted but will include the impact of hypo/hyperglycaemia and diabetes therapies on cancer treatment and disease progression. A useful step toward addressing this disparity in treatment outcomes is to establish the impact of cancer treatment on diabetes control.
The aim of this review is to identify and analyse current evidence reporting glycaemic control (HbA1c) during and after cancer treatment.
Systematic searches of published quantitative research relating to comorbid cancer and type 2 diabetes mellitus were conducted using databases, including Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science (February 2017). Full text publications were eligible for inclusion if they: were quantitative, published in English language, investigated the effects of cancer treatment on glycaemic control, reported HbA1c (%/mmols/mol) and included adult populations with diabetes. Means, standard deviations and sample sizes were extracted from each paper; missing standard deviations were imputed. The completed datasets were analysed using a random effects model. A mixed-effects analysis was undertaken to calculate mean HbA1c (%/mmols/mol) change over three time periods compared to baseline.
The available literature exploring glycaemic control post-diagnosis was mixed. There was increased risk of poor glycaemic control during this time if studies of surgical treatment for gastric cancer are excluded, with significant differences between baseline and 12 months (p < 0.001) and baseline and 24 months (p = 0.002).
We found some evidence to support the contention that glycaemic control during and/or after non-surgical cancer treatment is worsened, and the reasons are not well defined in individual studies. Future studies should consider the reasons why this is the case.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2018.
All research outputs
#20,290,138
of 32,125,052 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#121,810
of 215,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,062
of 344,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,371
of 4,621 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,125,052 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 215,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,621 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
