ArticleClinical epidemiology2025
Mortality Outcomes in People with Lung Cancer with and without Type2 Diabetes: A Cohort Study in England.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The impact of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on mortality following lung cancer diagnosis remains unclear, with conflicting evidence across studies. We aimed to assess differences in all-cause and cause-specific mortality between people with lung cancer with and without T2DM within a primary care population in England. Methods: The study population was 69,674 people with incident lung cancer within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum primary care database (2010-2022). The study exposure was T2DM at cancer diagnosis, and the outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality (cancer, cardio-vascular, respiratory). Cox models were fitted for each outcome adjusting for age, gender, smoking status, body mass index, calendar year and socioeconomic status (Index of Multiple Deprivation). Results: After adjusting for age and gender, there was no evidence for a difference in all-cause mortality in people with T2DM compared with people without T2DM (IRR 0.98 95% CI 0.96, 1.01). After fully-adjusting for measured confounders, there was a small positive effect (IRR 1.07 95% CI 1.04, 1.09). After adjusting for age and gender, people with T2DM had lower rates of cancer-specific mortality compared to people without T2DM (IRR 0.96 95% CI 0.94, 0.98). However, after adjustment for all measured confounders there was a small positive association (IRR 1.05 95% CI 1.02, 1.07). In both age and gender adjusted and fully adjusted models people with T2DM had higher cardiovascular (fully adjusted HR 1.30 95% CI 1.15, 1.47) and respiratory disease mortality (fully adjusted HR 1.30 95% CI 1.15, 1.47). Conclusion: There was robust evidence that people with T2DM had higher cardiovascular and respiratory disease mortality following lung cancer diagnosis. The relationships between T2DM and all-cause and cancer-specific mortality were highly sensitive to adjustment for confounding. Differences in studies on approaches to confounding and levels of missing data may contribute to the mixed findings on this association in the literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.