SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
The impact of comorbid type 2 diabetes on survival outcomes in patients with solid tumors treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-analysis focusing on lung cancer.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tumor patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a more immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and weaker T-cell immune response to tumors within the tumor compared to non-T2DM patients when treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).In addition, high blood glucose levels may promote tumor immune escape. These factors may lead to a poor response to ICIs treatment in tumor patients with T2DM, affecting treatment prognosis. Although some studies have explored the association between tumor patients with T2DM and the prognosis of ICIs treatment, there is still controversy. Therefore, this study systematically evaluated the impact of T2DM on the prognosis of ICIs treatment in tumor patients through a meta-analysis, aiming to provide more accurate guidance for clinical practice and optimize the treatment strategy for tumor patients with T2DM. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang Database to collect studies published from the database establishment to January 2026 that investigated the association between tumor patients with T2DM and the prognosis of ICIs treatment. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to assess the association between tumor patients with T2DM and the prognosis of ICIs treatment. The primary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: A total of six studies were included, involving 1,225 participants. The meta-analysis showed that patients with T2DM who received ICIs treatment had poorer OS (HR = 1.49, 95%CI:1.25-1.77, P < 0.00001) and PFS(HR = 1.38, 95%CI:1.04-1.83, P = 0.03).Subgroup analyses indicated that regardless of sample size (<200 vs >200) or type of survival analysis (univariate vs multivariate), patients with tumors and T2DM who received ICI treatment were consistently associated with poorer OS. Regarding PFS, a worse outcome was observed in T2DM patients when the sample size was less than 200 or when univariate analysis was applied. However, no significant statistical difference in PFS was found between non-T2DM and T2DM patients treated with ICIs when the sample size exceeded 200 or when multivariate analysis was performed. Conclusions: Based on the current limited evidence, this meta-analysis suggests that T2DM may be associated with poor OS in lung cancer patients treated with ICIs. However, due to the small number of included studies, limited sample size, inherent bias risks of the retrospective design, heterogeneity of tumor types, and the instability of PFS results. The conclusion of this study belongs to the 'put forward hypothesis' level and is not yet sufficient to support clinical practice recommendations. The current evidence cannot determine whether glycemic control can improve the efficacy of ICIs. Future studies need to verify this finding through large-sample, prospective cohort studies and clarify the independent impact of glycemic control levels on the efficacy of ICIs.
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.