Cited by 882Metabolism, Diabetes, and CancerCancer Risks and FactorsDiabetes Management and Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 90 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 32 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Long-term All-Cause Mortality in Cancer Patients With Preexisting Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Barone, Bethany B.·2008·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Diabetes mellitus appears to be a risk factor for some cancers, but the effect of preexisting diabetes on all-cause mortality in newly diagnosed cancer patients is less clear. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing overall survival in cancer patients with and without preexisting diabetes. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE through May 15, 2008, including references of qualifying articles. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, original investigations in humans with at least 3 months of follow-up were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Of 7858 titles identified in our original search, 48 articles met our criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer performed a full abstraction and other reviewers verified accuracy. We contacted authors and obtained additional information for 3 articles with insufficient reported data. RESULTS: Studies reporting cumulative survival rates were summarized qualitatively. Studies reporting Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) or Poisson relative risks were combined in a meta-analysis. A random-effects model meta-analysis of 23 articles showed that diabetes was associated with an increased mortality HR of 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-1.55) compared with normoglycemic individuals across all cancer types. Subgroup analyses by type of cancer showed increased risk for cancers of the endometrium (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.34-2.31), breast (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.46-1.78), and colorectum (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with cancer who have preexisting diabetes are at increased risk for long-term, all-cause mortality compared with those without diabetes.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In cancer patients with preexisting diabetes, pooled long-term all-cause mortality was significantly higher than in normoglycemic patients (HR 1.41; 95% CI, 1.28-1.55) across 23 studies. Significant site-specific increases were found for endometrial, breast, and colorectal cancers.

Key findings

  • Meta-analysis of 23 studies found preexisting diabetes associated with increased all-cause mortality after cancer diagnosis: HR 1.41 (95% CI, 1.28-1.55).
  • Site-specific pooled estimates were significant for endometrium (HR 1.76; 95% CI, 1.34-2.31), breast (HR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.46-1.78), and colorectum (HR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24-1.41).
  • Nonsignificant increases were reported for prostate (HR 1.51; 95% CI, 0.94-2.43), gastric (HR 1.36; 95% CI, 0.92-2.01), hepatocellular (HR 1.30; 95% CI, 0.99-1.70), lung (HR 1.15; 95% CI, 0.99-1.34), and pancreatic cancer (HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.70-1.69).
  • Sensitivity analyses excluding univariate estimates gave HR 1.40 (95% CI, 1.29-1.52); excluding analyses not adjusting/restricting for age and disease severity gave HR 1.42 (95% CI, 1.28-1.56). No significant publication bias was observed by Begg test (P = .92) or Egger plot (P = .34).

Methods

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis searching MEDLINE and EMBASE through May 15, 2008; 7,858 titles identified, 48 articles met criteria for the systematic review of long-term all-cause mortality, and 23 studies met criteria for meta-analysis.
  • Included English-language human original investigations with at least 3 months follow-up; meta-analysis required risk estimates (HR/RR) and precision estimates, with authors contacted for additional data.
  • Random-effects meta-analysis using DerSimonian-Laird method; heterogeneity assessed with Cochran Q and I²; publication bias assessed with Begg funnel plot and Egger plot; sensitivity analyses and nonparametric sign test performed.

Limitations

  • The paper states substantial heterogeneity across studies in demographics, diabetes ascertainment, and confounder adjustment; heterogeneity was significant by Q statistic (205 on 24 df, P < .001) and I² (88.3%, P < .001).
  • The paper states studies spanned many decades (published 1969-2008), follow-up time was not always reported, and differences in follow-up may limit interpretation.
  • Evident from the text: 9 studies with regression models had insufficient reporting for meta-analysis, only 3 of 12 contacted authors provided additional information, and many studies did not adjust for age and cancer severity; power was low (<50%) for prostate, gastric, hepatocellular, lung, and pancreatic cancer estimates.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2008.824

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 32 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 35 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 19
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 17
31 of 31
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The association of preexisting diabetes in newly diagnosed cancer patients with long-term, all-cause mortality has not been systematically assessed.

    “However, the association of preexisting diabetes in newly diagnosed cancer patients with long-term, all-cause mortality has not been systematically assessed.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Age and disease severity at cancer diagnosis are particularly important potential confounders.

    “because we believe these are particularly important potential confounders.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the sign test, studies that did not report a direction of effect fell evenly in either category.

    “assumed studies that did not report a direction of effect fell evenly in either category (5 each side, P=.005)”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [24]Rosner B Fundamentals of Biostatistics Sixth Belmont, CA Duxbury Press 2006 361 366

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 882

Metadata

Authors
Barone, B. B.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Barone, Bethany B.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2008-12-17
Volume
300
Issue
23
Pages
2754
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1968234252
Cited by
881
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 60 · 2012: 57
FWCI
17.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p60dk079637-02)
  • U.S. Public Health Service (T32HP10025-14)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P60 DK-079637, K24-DK62222, K24DK062222, P30DK079637, T32DK062707)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025005)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Risks and Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, cancer, all-cause mortality, overall survival, endometrial cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, comorbidities, cancer risk factors
MeSH terms
Cause of Death, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Neoplasms, Risk Factors, Comorbidity, Survival Analysis

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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