Poor Preoperative Glycemic Control Is Associated with Dismal Prognosis after Radical Nephroureterectomy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Korean Multicenter Study

[Malnutrition management of hospitalized patients with diabetes/hyperglycemia and cancer cachexia]

Introduction

Diabetes is a frequent comorbidity in cancer patients, since they share common risk factors. In cancer, the concurrence of cachexia represents a poor prognostic factor, which is aggravated by poor nutritional status. Clinically, cancer cachexia manifests as a significant reduction in body weight, accompanied by changes in body composition and alterations in the balance of the biological system, and causes progressive dysfunction. This article describes the results of the expert consensus and the responses of the panelists on the nutritional management in routine clinical practice of patients with diabetes/hyperglycemia hospitalized (non-critically ill) with cancer cachexia.

Glycosylated haemoglobin and prognosis in 10,536 people with cancer and pre-existing diabetes: a meta-analysis with dose-response analysis

AIMS

To assess whether glycaemic control is associated with prognosis in people with cancer and pre-existing diabetes.

METHODS

In this pre-registered systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020223956), PubMed and Web of Science were searched on 25th Nov 2021 for studies investigating associations between glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and prognosis in people with diabetes and cancer. Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for associations between poorly controlled HbA1c or per 1-unit HbA1c increment and cancer outcomes were estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis. We also investigated the impact of potential small-study effects using the trim-and-fill method and potential sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Fifteen eligible observational studies, reporting data on 10,536 patients with cancer and pre-existing diabetes, were included. Random-effects meta-analyses indicated that HbA1c ≥ 7% (53 mmol/mol) was associated with increased risks of: all-cause mortality (14 studies; RR: 1.14 [95% CI: 1.03-1.27]; p-value: 0.012), cancer-specific mortality (5; 1.68 [1.13-2.49]; p-value: 0.011) and cancer recurrence (8; 1.68 [1.18-2.38; p-value: 0.004]), with moderate to high heterogeneity. Dose-response meta-analyses indicated that 1-unit increment of HbA1c (%) was associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality (13 studies; 1.04 [1.01-1.08]; p-value: 0.016) and cancer-specific mortality (4; 1.11 [1.04-1.20]; p-value: 0.003). All RRs were attenuated in trim-and-fill analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggested that glycaemic control might be a modifiable risk factor for mortality and cancer recurrence in people with cancer and pre-existing diabetes. High-quality studies with a larger sample size are warranted to confirm these findings due to heterogeneity and potential small-study effects. In the interim, it makes clinical sense to recommend continued optimal glycaemic control.

Identifying ways to improve diabetes management during cancer treatments (INDICATE): protocol for a qualitative interview study with patients and clinicians

INTRODUCTION

A large and growing number of patients with cancer have comorbid diabetes. Cancer and its treatment can adversely impact glycaemic management and control, and there is accumulating evidence that suboptimal glycaemic control during cancer treatment is a contributory driver of worse cancer-related outcomes in patients with comorbid diabetes. Little research has sought to understand, from the perspective of patients and clinicians, how and why different aspects of cancer care and diabetes care can complicate or facilitate each other, which is key to informing interventions to improve diabetes management during cancer treatments. This study aims to identify and elucidate barriers and enablers to effective diabetes management and control during cancer treatments, and potential intervention targets and strategies to address and harness these, respectively.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Qualitative interviews will be conducted with people with diabetes and comorbid cancer (n=30-40) and a range of clinicians (n=30-40) involved in caring for this patient group (eg, oncologists, diabetologists, specialist nurses, general practitioners). Semistructured interviews will examine participants' experiences of and perspectives on diabetes management and control during cancer treatments. Data will be analysed using framework analysis. Data collection and analysis will be informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, and related Theory and Techniques Tool and Behaviour Change Wheel, to facilitate examination of a comprehensive range of barriers and enablers and support identification of pertinent and feasible intervention approaches. Study dates: January 2021-January 2023.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has approval from National Health Service (NHS) West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be presented to lay, clinical, academic and NHS and charity service-provider audiences via dissemination of written summaries and presentations, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Findings will be used to inform development and implementation of clinical, health services and patient-management intervention strategies to optimise diabetes management and control during cancer treatments.

The Impact of Diabetes on the Prognosis of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma After Radical Nephroureterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Studies have reported that diabetes is related to the prognosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) after radical nephroureterectomy (RNU), but this conclusion is still controversial. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively explore the association between diabetes and UTUC prognosis.

Methods

In November 2020, we searched PubMed, Web of science and the Cochrane Library to find relevant studies that evaluated the effect of diabetes on the prognosis of UTUC. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the literature. Review Manager 5.3 was used to pool cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and intravesical recurrence (IVR).

Results

A total of 10 studies with 11,303 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our pooled results showed that diabetes did not affect the survival outcome of UTUC, including CSS (HR: 1.33, 95% CI: 0.89-1.98; P = 0.16), OS (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.77-1.80; P = 0.45) and RFS (HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 0.91-2.05; P = 0.13). However, diabetes increased the risk of IVR of UTUC patients (HR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.11-1.43; P = 0.0004).

Conclusion

Although diabetes has no significant impact on the survival outcomes of UTUC after RNU, it increases the risk of IVR. Therefore, special attention should be paid to monitoring the IVR for UTUC patients with diabetes and the necessity of appropriate intravesical adjuvant treatment when needed.

The impact of preoperative glycated hemoglobin levels on outcomes in oral squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the association between preoperative glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and the treatment outcomes of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC).

METHODS

Three hundred and fifty-eight OSCC patients were consecutively enrolled between July 2004 and July 2016. Clinicopathological parameters and survival outcomes were analyzed following HbA1c stratification of 6.5% (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%: n = 74, 20.6%) and 7.0% (HbA1c ≥ 7.0%: n = 53, 14.8%).

RESULTS

Higher HbA1c levels were associated with elevated body mass index, lower albumin levels, wider surgical margins, and prolonged hospital stays (HbA1c 6.5%: p = .001, .048, .030, .009, respectively; HbA1c 7.0%: p = .092, .032, .009, .015, respectively). Survival rates stratified by HbA1c 6.5% were as follows: locoregional recurrence-free survival, p = .014; distant metastasis-free survival, p = .013; second primary cancer-free survival, p = .015; overall survival, p = .014; disease-specific survival, p = .002 and HbA1c 7.0%: locoregional recurrence-free survival, p = .013; distant metastasis-free survival, p = .013; second primary cancer-free survival, p = .014; overall survival, p = .015; disease-specific survival, p = .004. Multivariate analyses identified HbA1c as an independent prognostic factor for overall and disease-specific survival (HbA1c 6.5%: p = .014 and .002, respectively; HbA1c 7.0%: p = .036 and .013, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral squamous cell carcinoma patients with higher preoperative HbA1c levels had longer hospitalization and worse survival outcomes.

The Prognostic Value of Lymphovascular Invasion in Patients With Upper Tract Urinary Carcinoma After Surgery: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Purpose: Although the prognostic value of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) for upper tract urinary carcinoma (UTUC) has been reported, there is a lack of consensus regarding the prognostic factor of LVI in UTUC after radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the contemporary role of LVI using systematic review and meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods: Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we performed a systematic search of Web of Science, PubMed, and EMBASE for all reports published up to July 2019. Cumulative analyses of hazard ratios (HRs)/odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were conducted to assess the association between LVI and oncological outcomes and clinicopathological features.

Results: Our meta-analysis included 31 eligible studies containing 14,653 patients with UTUC (81–1,363 per study). Our results indicated a significant correlation of LVI with worse cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.59, p < 0.001), overall survival (HR = 1.55, p < 0.001), recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.46, p < 0.001), cancer-specific mortality (HR = 1.25, p = 0.047), and recurrence (HR = 1.23, p = 0.026). LVI was also correlated with advanced tumor stage (III/IV vs. I/II: OR = 7.63, p < 0.001), higher tumor grade (3 vs. 1/2: OR = 5.61, p < 0.001), lymph node metastasis (yes vs. no: OR = 4.95, p < 0.001), carcinoma in situ (yes vs. no: OR = 1.92, p < 0.001), and positive surgical margin (yes vs. no: OR = 4.38, p < 0.001), but not related to gender (male vs. female: OR = 0.98, p = 0.825), and multifocality (multifocal vs. unifocal: OR = 1.09, p = 0.555). The funnel plot test indicated no significant publication bias.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that LVI was associated with aggressive clinicopathological features. LVI may serve as a poor prognostic factor for patients with UTUC after RNU.

Predictive models and prognostic factors for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a comprehensive review of the literature

In the context of customized patient care for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), decision-making could be facilitated by risk assessment and prediction tools. The aim of this study was to provide a critical overview of existing predictive models and to review emerging promising prognostic factors for UTUC. A literature search of articles published in English from January 2000 to June 2016 was performed using PubMed. Studies on risk group stratification models and predictive tools in UTUC were selected, together with studies on predictive factors and biomarkers associated with advanced-stage UTUC and oncological outcomes after surgery. Various predictive tools have been described for advanced-stage UTUC assessment, disease recurrence and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Most of these models are based on well-established prognostic factors such as tumor stage, grade and lymph node (LN) metastasis, but some also integrate newly described prognostic factors and biomarkers. These new prediction tools seem to reach a high level of accuracy, but they lack external validation and decision-making analysis. The combinations of patient-, pathology- and surgery-related factors together with novel biomarkers have led to promising predictive tools for oncological outcomes in UTUC. However, external validation of these predictive models is a prerequisite before their introduction into daily practice. New models predicting response to therapy are urgently needed to allow accurate and safe individualized management in this heterogeneous disease.