The impact of cancer on diabetes outcomes

High burden of diabetes and prediabetes among cancer patients at University of Gondar comprehensive specialized hospital, Northwest Ethiopia

Cancer and diabetes mellitus (DM) are diagnosed within the same individual more frequently and share common risk factors. Although diabetes among cancer patients may result in more aggressive clinical courses of cancer, there is limited evidence about its burden and associated factors. Hence, this study aimed to assess the burden of diabetes and prediabetes among cancer patients and its associated factors. Institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted at the University of Gondar comprehensive specialized hospital from 10 January to 10 March 2021. A systematic random sampling technique was used to select 423 cancer patients. The data was collected using a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire. Prediabetes and diabetes diagnosis was made based on World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Bi-variable and multivariable binary logistic regression models were fitted to identify factors associated with the outcome. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with a 95% confidence interval was estimated to show the direction and strength of associations. Variables with a p-value less than 0.05 in the multivariable model were considered significantly associated with the outcome. The final analysis was based on 384 patients with cancer. The proportion of prediabetes and diabetes was 56.8% (95% CI 51.7, 61.7) and 16.7% (95% CI 13.3, 20.8), respectively. Alcohol consumption was found to increase the odds of elevated blood sugar among cancer patients (AOR: 1.96; 95%CI: 1.11, 3.46). The burden of prediabetes and diabetes is alarmingly high among cancer patients. Besides, alcohol consumption was found to increase the odds of having elevated blood sugar among cancer patients. Hence, it is essential to recognize cancer patients are at high risk of having elevated blood sugar and design strategies to integrate diabetes and cancer care.

Influence of Diabetes Mellitus on Oncological Outcomes for Patients Living With Cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the association between preexisting diabetes in persons living with cancer on diabetes and oncology-related health outcomes. Understanding this association is of priority because the incidence of both cancer and diabetes mellitus is increasing worldwide.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted in collaboration with an expert health sciences librarian. Two authors independently conducted the screening, data collection, and extraction processes. The risk of bias was assessed using several tools, depending on the study design. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The alpha threshold was 0.05. All analyses were performed using R statistical software (Metaphor and Demeter packages).

RESULTS

A total of 45 studies met the selection criteria, but 23 were excluded from the synthesis because they did not have the ranked outcome or correct comparison (persons with and without diabetes), totaling 22 studies included in the meta-analysis. In comparison to participants without preexisting diabetes, participants with preexisting diabetes and cancer were found to have a significantly higher risk of infection and cardiovascular, neurological, gastrointestinal, hepatic, and renal complications. Concurrent preexisting diabetes and cancer were also associated with increased health care service utilization and length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this review highlight the importance of optimal concurrent management of both diseases by overcoming the compartmentalization of medical specializations through (1) integrated, multidisciplinary, shared, and coordinated clinical care pathways between oncology and diabetes health care providers/teams and (2) the continued development of evidence-based clinical guidelines.

New onset of type 2 diabetes after colorectal cancer diagnosis: Results from three prospective US cohort studies, systematic review, and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Limited data indicate that patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). We prospectively examined the risk of T2D between individuals with and without CRC in three large cohorts and conducted a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We assessed the diagnosis of CRC and T2D among 111,485 women from the Nurses' Health Study, 112,958 women from the Nurses' Health Study II, and 46,581 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. We used multivariable Cox regression with time-varying covariates to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) of T2D in relation to CRC diagnosis. We further performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

FINDINGS

Up to 36 years of follow-up (6.9 million person-years), we documented 3402 incident CRC cases and 26,469 T2D cases. Compared to non-CRC individuals, those with CRC were more likely to develop T2D (multivariable-adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05-1.38). The association was most evident for individuals with fewer risk factors for T2D. In the meta-analysis of seven cohort studies (1,061,744 participants), CRC was associated with higher T2D risk (meta-analysis HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.11-1.31, I² = 57.9%). By CRC duration, a statistically significant association was observed in the first 10 years but not after 10 years of CRC diagnosis (≤5 years, meta-analysis HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.27-1.36; 5.1-10 years, 1.14 [1.04-1.25]; >10 years, 1.14 [0.91-1.37]).

INTERPRETATION

CRC was associated with increased T2D risk, especially in the first ten years after CRC diagnosis. Our findings highlight the importance of T2D prevention for CRC survivorship care.

FUNDING

NHS cohort infrastructure grant (UM1 CA186107), NHS program project grant that funds cancer research (P01 CA87969), NHS II cohort infrastructure grant (U01 CA176726), HPFS cohort infrastructure grant (U01 CA167552) and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (2021-I2M-1-010).

Myocardial Protection and Current Cancer Therapy: Two Opposite Targets with Inevitable Cost

Myocardial protection against ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) is mediated by various ligands, activating different cellular signaling cascades. These include classical cytosolic mediators such as cyclic-GMP (c-GMP), various kinases such as Phosphatydilinositol-3- (PI3K), Protein Kinase B (Akt), Mitogen-Activated-Protein- (MAPK) and AMP-activated (AMPK) kinases, transcription factors such as signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) and bioactive molecules such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Most of the aforementioned signaling molecules constitute targets of anticancer therapy; as they are also involved in carcinogenesis, most of the current anti-neoplastic drugs lead to concomitant weakening or even complete abrogation of myocardial cell tolerance to ischemic or oxidative stress. Furthermore, many anti-neoplastic drugs may directly induce cardiotoxicity via their pharmacological effects, or indirectly via their cardiovascular side effects. The combination of direct drug cardiotoxicity, indirect cardiovascular side effects and neutralization of the cardioprotective defense mechanisms of the heart by prolonged cancer treatment may induce long-term ventricular dysfunction, or even clinically manifested heart failure. We present a narrative review of three therapeutic interventions, namely VEGF, proteasome and Immune Checkpoint inhibitors, having opposing effects on the same intracellular signal cascades thereby affecting the heart. Moreover, we herein comment on the current guidelines for managing cardiotoxicity in the clinical setting and on the role of cardiovascular confounders in cardiotoxicity.

Cardiometabolic Comorbidities in Cancer Survivors

There are nearly 17 million cancer survivors in the United States, including those who are currently receiving cancer therapy with curative intent and expected to be long-term survivors, as well as those with chronic cancers such as metastatic disease or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, who will receive cancer therapy for many years. Current clinical practice guidelines focus on lifestyle interventions, such as exercise and healthy eating habits, but generally do not address management strategies for clinicians or strategies to increase adherence to medications. We discuss 3 cardiometabolic comorbidities among cancer survivors and present the prevalence of comorbidities prior to a cancer diagnosis, treatment of comorbidities during cancer therapy, and management considerations of comorbidities in long-term cancer survivors or those on chronic cancer therapy. Approaches to support medication adherence and potential methods to enhance a team approach to optimize care of the individual with cancer across the continuum of disease are discussed.

•

Cancer survivors are at increased risk for several chronic conditions, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes.

•

Determining optimal management of comorbidities for patients with cancer is critical.

•

A multidisciplinary care approach is recommended throughout the continuum of active cancer treatment and survivorship.

•

Survivorship research should focus on medication adherence and coordination of care.

[Diabetes mellitus and cancer: a system of insulin-like growth factors]

Diabetes mellitus and malignant tumors are among the most common and complex diseases. Epidemiological studies have shown a strong relationship between these pathologies. The causality of this relationship has not yet been unambiguously established, but a number of probable biological mechanisms have been proposed to explain it through the effects of hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia on the process of oncogenesis. An important role in this is played by the axis of insulin-like growth factors, their receptors and binding proteins (IGF / IGFR / IGFBP). The review provides data on the structural elements of the insulin / IGF / IGFR / IGFBP signaling axis and their internal relationships in diabetes mellitus and in the development of malignant tumors. Significant changes in the axis that occur during the formation of the diabetic environment prepare the background, which, under certain conditions, can lead to the stimulation or inhibition of tumor development. The considered signaling system, playing a significant role in the physiology of normal cells, often functions as a decisive factor in the survival of tumor cells, providing fine context-dependent regulation of many cellular processes associated with oncogenesis. However, despite many years of in-depth studies of the pathogenesis of diabetes mellitus and malignant tumors, the molecular mechanisms of the relationship between these pathologies are still largely unclear, and the internal heterogeneity of pathologies complicates research and interpretation of the results, leaving many questions.

Eliciting primary care and oncology provider perspectives on diabetes management during active cancer treatment

PURPOSE

We sought to elicit the perspectives of primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists regarding their expectations on who should be responsible for diabetes management, as well as communication mode and frequency about diabetes care during cancer treatment.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with PCPs (physicians and nurse practitioners) and oncologists who treat cancer patients with type 2 diabetes. Interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze the qualitative data and identify key themes.

RESULTS

Ten PCPs and ten oncologists were interviewed between March and July 2019. Two broad themes emerged from our interviews with PCPs: (1) cancer patients pausing primary care during cancer treatments, and (2) patients with poorer prognoses and advanced cancer. The following theme emerged from our interviews with oncologists: (3) challenges in caring for cancer patients with uncontrolled diabetes. Three common themes emerged from our interviews with both PCPs and oncologists: (4) discomfort with providing care outside of respective specialty, (5) the need to individualize care plans, and (6) lack of communication across primary and oncology care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that substantial barriers to optimal diabetes management during cancer care exist at the provider level. Interventions prioritizing effective communication and educational resources among PCPs, oncologists, and additional members of the patients' care team should be prioritized to achieve optimal outcomes.

General practitioners' perspectives on chronic care consultations for patients with a history of cancer: a qualitative interview study

Background

General practitioners (GPs) are responsible for managing chronic care in the growing population of patients with comorbid chronic conditions and cancer. Studies have shown, however, that cancer patients are less likely to receive appropriate chronic care compared to patients without cancer. Patients say that how GPs engage in the care of comorbidities influences their own priority of these conditions. No studies have explored GPs’ attitudes to and prioritization of chronic care in patients who have completed primary cancer treatment. This study aims to explore GPs’ experiences, prioritization of, and perspectives on treatment and follow-up of patients with cancer and comorbidity.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted during 2016 with 13 GPs in Region Zealand in Denmark. We used Systematic Text Condensation in the analysis.

Results

All participating GPs said that chronic care in patients with a history of cancer was a high priority, and due to a clear structure in their practice, they experienced that few patients were lost to follow-up. Two different approaches to chronic care consultations were identified: one group of GPs described them as imitating outpatient clinics, where the GP sets the agenda and focuses on the chronic condition. The other group described an approach that was more attuned to the patient’s agenda, which could mean that chronic care consultations served as an “alibi” for the patients to disclose other matters of concern.

Both groups of GPs said that chronic care consultations for these patients supported normalcy, but in different ways. Some GPs said that offering future appointments in the chronic care process gave patients hope and a sense of normalcy. Other GPs strove for normalcy by focusing exclusively on the chronic condition and dealing with cancer as cured.

Conclusions

The participating GPs gave a high priority to chronic care in patients with a history of cancer. Some GPs, however, followed a rigorous agenda. GPs should be aware that a very focused and biomedical approach to chronic care might increase fragmentation of care and collide with a holistic and patient-centered approach. It could also affect GPs’ self-perception of their role and the core values of general practice.