Literature DB >> 35505651

The prognostic role of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the setting of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anna Mrzljak, Maja Cigrovski Berković1, Francesco Giovanardi, Quirino Lai.   

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the effect of diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2DM) on the outcomes after treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Databases were systematically searched. Three HCC clinical outcomes were explored: death, progressive disease after locoregional therapies, and recurrence. Sub-analysis was performed according to the use of potentially curative (resection, transplantation, termo-ablation) or non-curative therapies. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to compare the pooled data between T2DM and non-T2DM groups.
RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were analyzed. Overall, 85.2% of articles were from Asia. T2MD was associated with an increased risk of death (OR 3.60; 95%CI 2.18-5.95; P<0.001), irrespective of the treatment approach: curative (OR 1.30 95%CI 1.09-1.54; P=0.003) or non-curative (OR 1.05; 95%CI 1.00-1.10; P=0.045), increased HCC recurrence (OR 1.30; 95%CI 1.03-1.63; P=0.03), and increased disease progressiveness (OR 1.24; 95%CI 1.09-1.41; P=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Current data provide strong evidence that T2DM unfavorably affects HCC progression and recurrence, and patients' survival after treatment, irrespective of the approach used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35505651      PMCID: PMC9086813     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Croat Med J        ISSN: 0353-9504            Impact factor:   2.415


The prevalence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasing (1,2) as the result of the globally increased prevalence of NALFD, which is estimated to be about 25% (3). NAFLD patients have a two- to three-fold increase in the risk of developing diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2DM), and the risk is even higher in those with more severe hepatic disease and fibrosis (4-6). On the other hand, patients with T2DM have a higher prevalence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), liver fibrosis, and end-stage liver disease (7). Several studies have documented the relation between T2DM and the incidence of different cancer types, while the data on the relationship between T2DM and increased risk of incident HCC seem especially robust and clinically reliable (8-10). Observational studies suggest higher mortality of patients developing HCC in the presence of T2DM (11,12). On the other hand, data from meta-analyses suggest that both the risk and prognosis of patients with HCC and diabetes might be influenced by the type of anti-diabetic treatment, where metformin, unlike sulphonylurea, potentially protects against cancer and leads to better prognosis in case of cancer development (13,14). The underlying mechanisms linking T2DM and HCC are still under scientific scrutiny. However, the interconnections between metabolic derangements characteristic for T2DM, obesity, and NAFLD suggest that insulin resistance on the hepatic and systemic level and the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, vasoactive factors, and pro-oxidant molecules are potentially implicated in the development and progression of HCC. With the intent to gain a better insight into this issue, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of T2DM on poor outcomes after HCC treatment. To explore several different clinical settings, three outcomes of interest were investigated: death, progressive disease after locoregional therapies, and recurrence. Moreover, sub-analyses were performed according to the use of potentially curative (resection, transplantation, termo-ablation) or non-curative therapies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Search sources and study design

A systematic review of the published literature was undertaken focusing on the role of T2DM in the outcomes of HCC patients receiving any tumor therapy. The search strategy followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (15). In terms of inclusion criteria, data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analysis, we used the same methodological approach as in our previous article (16). The research question formulated in the present study included the following Patients, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome components: Patient: patients with HCC and T2DM; Intervention: any HCC therapy; Comparison: patients with HCC without T2DM treated with the same approach; Outcome: death, progressive disease, or recurrence. We searched the PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases using the following terms: (recurrence or death or survival) and (diabetes or T2DM) and (HCC or hepatocellular cancer or hepatocellular carcinoma or hepatoma). The search period was from 2000/01/01 to 2020/11/30. The systematic qualitative review included only studies in English that involved human patients. Reports were excluded based on several criteria: a) data on animal models; b) studies that lacked enough clinical details; c) studies that had non-primary source data (eg, review articles, non-clinical studies, letters to the editor, expert opinions, and conference summaries). In the case of studies originating from the same center, the possible overlapping of clinical cases was examined, and the most informative study was considered eligible.

Data extraction and definitions

After a full-text review of the eligible studies, two independent authors (QL and FG) extracted the data and crosschecked all outcomes. During article selection and data extraction, potential discrepancies were resolved by a consensus with a third reviewer (AM). Collected data included the first author of the publication, year of publication, country, and the number of treated and recurred patients according to the different therapies adopted.

Quality assessment

Selected studies were systematically reviewed with the intent to identify potential sources of bias. The articles' quality was assessed by using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool (17).

Statistical analysis

The results are expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with the Higgins statistic squared (I2). I2 values of 0%-25% were considered as an index of low heterogeneity between studies, 26%-50%: moderate heterogeneity, and ≥51%: high heterogeneity. The fixed-effects model was used when low or moderate (0%-50%) heterogeneity was detected between studies, while the random effects model was used when high heterogeneity was present. The value P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. The meta-analysis was performed by using OpenMetaAnalyst (http://www.cebm.brown.edu/openmeta/index.html).

RESULTS

Search results and study characteristics

The PRISMA flow diagram schematically depicts the article selection process (Figure 1). Among the 1497 articles screened, 27 were included in this review (18-44). Of these, 8 (29.6%) were published from 2001 to 2009, and 19 (70.4%) during the last decade. Twenty-three articles (85.2%) were from Asia, of which 8 (29.6%) were from Taiwan, while 2 studies (7.4%) were from Europe, 1 (3.7%) was from North America, and 1 (3.7%) from Oceania (Figure 2).
Figure 1

PRISMA diagram of the article selection process.

Figure 2

Geographical distribution of the selected studies.

PRISMA diagram of the article selection process. Geographical distribution of the selected studies.

Qualitative assessment of the included studies

All the 27 selected articles were retrospective analyses. As for the ROBINS-I tool quality assessment, all the studies had a low risk of bias.

Review of the eligible studies

Details of the selected articles are reported in Tables 1-3. A total of 23 (85.2%) studies investigated the risk of death after any HCC treatment (Table 1) (18-27,29-37,40-42,44). Tumor recurrence was investigated in 14 (51.9%) studies (Table 2) (19,21,22,24,27,28,30,31,35,37,39-41,43), while the risk of progressive disease was reported in 7 (25.9%) studies (Table 3) (18,26,37,38,41,42,44). Overall, 5 (18.5%) studies had sample sizes of more than 1000 patients (25,34,37,41,44).
Table 1

Characteristics of included studies that assessed the risk of death in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma*

Ref.First authorYearCityCountryStudy periodDesignNTherapyT2DMN eventsNo T2DMN events
17
Toyoda
2001
Ogaki
Japan
Jan 1990-Jun 1999
Retro
581
Mix
92
39
489
209
18
Poon
2002
Hong Kong
China
Jan 1989-Sep 1999
Retro
525
HR
62
29
463
229
19
Li
2003
Beijing
China
Jan 1998-Dec 2001
Retro
225
No surg
28
10
197
63
20
Huo
2004
Taipei
Taiwan
Apr 1996-March 2001
Retro
255
HR
41
23
214
85
312
No surg
79
39
233
85
21
Komura
2007
Ishikawa
Japan
Jun 1987-May 2004
Retro
90
HR
30
17
60
14
22
Sumie
2007
Fukuoka
Japan
Jan 1994-Dec 2000
Retro
118
Mix
39
22
79
34
23
Kawamura
2008
Tokyo
Japan
Jan 1980-Dec 2006
Retro
40
HR/RFA
18
6
22
7
24
Huo
2009
Taipei
Taiwan
Jan 2002-Dec 2008
Retro
1713
Mix
392
235
1321
674
25
Feng
2010
Tainan City
Taiwan
Aug 2007-Jun 2008
Retro
52
TACE
14
2
38
6
26
Chen
2011
Taichung
Taiwan
Jul 2003-Jun 2009
Retro
135
RFA
53
26
82
19
28
Shau
2012
Taipei
Taiwan
Jan 2003-Dec 2004
Retro
931
Mix
185
96
746
248
29
Ting
2012
Taipei
Taiwan
Jan 2000-Dec 2008
Retro
389
HR
117
59
272
106
30
Hosokawa
2013
Tokyo
Japan
Jan 1999-Dec 2007
Retro
344
RFA
159
19
185
12
31
Bhat
2014
Rochester
USA
Jan 2005-Jun 2011
Retro
701
NA
263
170
438
257
32
Masood
2014
Lahore
Pakistan
Jun 2006-Dec 2012
Retro
282
Mix
97
50
185
95
33
Tsai
2014
Taichung
Taiwan
Jan 2000- Dec 2010
Retro
5924
HR
2962
41
2962
35
34
Wang
2014
Nanning
China
Jun 2003-Feb 2011
Retro
505
HR
134
1
371
8
35
Zhang
2014
Wuhan
China
Mar2002-Aug 2012
Retro
138
TACE
34
34
104
102
36
Chan
2016
Taipei
Taiwan
Jan 1995-Dec 2011
Retro
26 267
HR
6663
3929
19 604
10 183
91 482
No surg
21 449
18 931
70 034
61 539
39
Yoshida
2017
Tokyo
Japan
Jan 2001-Dec 2013
Retro
224
HR
112
41
112
33
40
Li
2018
Hangzhou
China
Jan 2008-Dec 2015
Retro
11 048
LT
3136
760
7912
1730
41
Liu
2018
Beijing
China
Jan 2005-Dec 2012
Retro
308
RFA
64
34
244
172
43
Liu
2020
Shanghai
China
Apr 2011-Jan 2017
Retro
1052
TACE
289
161
763
379
Total ------144 566-36 68924 815107 87725 957

*Abbreviations: Ref – reference; N – number; T2DM – type 2 diabetes mellitus; retro – retrospective; HR – hepatic resection; RFA – radiofrequency ablation; TACE – trans-arterial chemo-embolization; LT – liver transplantation.

Table 2

Characteristics of included studies that assessed the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence*

Ref.First authorYearCityCountryStudy periodDesignNTherapyT2DMN eventsNo T2DMN events
18
Poon
2002
Hong Kong
China
Jan 1989-Sep 1999
Retro
525
HR
62
35
463
275
20
Huo
2004
Taipei
Taiwan
Apr 1996-March 2001
Retro
255
HR
41
18
214
104
21
Komura
2007
Ishikawa
Japan
Jun 1987-May 2004
Retro
90
HR
30
22
60
27
23
Kawamura
2008
Tokyo
Japan
Jan 1980-Dec 2006
Retro
40
HR/RFA
18
15
22
7
26
Chen
2011
Taichung
Taiwan
Jul 2003-Jun 2009
Retro
53
RFA
53
30
82
19
27
Howell
2011
Melbourne
Australia
Jan 2000-Aug 2007
Retro
135
Mix
58
17
77
19
29
Ting
2012
Taipei
Taiwan
Jan 2000-Dec 2008
Retro
389
HR
117
63
272
116
30
Hosokawa
2013
Tokyo
Japan
Jan 1999-Dec 2007
Retro
344
RFA
159
116
185
138
34
Wang
2014
Nanning
China
Jun 2003-Feb 2011
Retro
505
HR
134
57
371
175
36
Chan
2016
Taipei
Taiwan
Jan 1995-Dec 2011
Retro
26 267
HR
6663
2851
19 604
8380
38
Choi
2017
Busan
Korea
Jan 2010-Sep 2014
Retro
58
HR
14
8
44
12
39
Yoshida
2017
Tokyo
Japan
Jan 2001-Dec 2013
Retro
224
HR
112
69
112
74
40
Li
2018
Hangzhou
China
Jan 2008-Dec 2015
Retro
11 048
LT
3136
282
7912
489
42
Billeter
2020
Heidelberg
Germany
Oct 2001-Dec 2017
Retro
88
HR
44
26
44
25
Total ------40 021-10 641360929 4629860

*Abbreviations: Ref – reference; N – number; T2DM – type 2 diabetes mellitus; retro – retrospective; HR – hepatic resection; RFA – radiofrequency ablation; LT – liver transplantation.

Table 3

Characteristics of included studies that assessed the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma progressive disease*

Ref.NameYearCityCountryStudy periodDesignNTherapyT2DMN eventsNo T2DMN events
17
Toyoda
2001
Ogaki
Japan
Jan 1990-Jun 1999
Retro
581
Mix
92
12
489
55
25
Feng
2010
Tainan City
Taiwan
Aug 2007-Jun 2008
Retro
52
TACE
14
6
38
6
36
Chan
2016
Taipei
Taiwan
Jan 1995-Dec 2011
Retro
91 482
No surg
21 449
5314
70 033
14 685
37
Di Costanzo
2016
Naples
Italy
Oct 2008-Jun 2014
Retro
313
Sorafenib
80
9
233
41
40
Li
2018
Hangzhou
China
Jan 2008-Dec 2015
Retro
15 776
Wait list
4450
674
11 326
1557
41
Liu
2018
Beijing
China
Jan 2005-Dec 2012
Retro
308
RFA
64
54
244
169
43
Liu
2020
Shanghai
China
Apr 2011-Jan 2017
Retro
1052
TACE
289
201
763
463
Total ------109 564-26 438627083 12616 976

*Abbreviations: Ref – reference; N – number; T2DM – type 2 diabetes mellitus; retro – retrospective; TACE – trans-arterial chemo-embolization; RFA – radiofrequency ablation.

Characteristics of included studies that assessed the risk of death in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma* *Abbreviations: Ref – reference; N – number; T2DM – type 2 diabetes mellitus; retro – retrospective; HR – hepatic resection; RFA – radiofrequency ablation; TACE – trans-arterial chemo-embolization; LT – liver transplantation. Characteristics of included studies that assessed the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence* *Abbreviations: Ref – reference; N – number; T2DM – type 2 diabetes mellitus; retro – retrospective; HR – hepatic resection; RFA – radiofrequency ablation; LT – liver transplantation. Characteristics of included studies that assessed the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma progressive disease* *Abbreviations: Ref – reference; N – number; T2DM – type 2 diabetes mellitus; retro – retrospective; TACE – trans-arterial chemo-embolization; RFA – radiofrequency ablation.

Death in HCC patients with vs without T2DM

Twenty-three studies reported post-treatment death rates in HCC patients with vs without T2DM (Table 1). Two studies contextually reported both data on post-hepatic resection and post-non- curative approach cases (21,37). A total of 144 566 patients were considered, with 50 772 (35.1%) deaths. In detail, 24 815/36 689 (67.6%) and 25 957/107 877 (24.1%) deaths were observed in the T2DM and no-T2DM group, respectively. The selected studies showed great heterogeneity, with an I2 = 99.3% (P < 0.001). Most of the studies showed a lower risk of death in T2DM absence (Figure 3). The summary OR showed an increased risk of death in T2DM patients, being 3.60 (95%CI 2.18-5.95; P < 0.001).
Figure 3

Forest plot and meta-analysis of a disease recurrence after any hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) vs no-T2DM patients.

Forest plot and meta-analysis of a disease recurrence after any hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) vs no-T2DM patients.

Recurrence in HCC patients with vs without T2DM

Fourteen studies reported post-treatment recurrence rates in HCC patients with vs without T2DM (Table 2). A total of 40 021 patients were considered, with 13 469 (33.7%) recurrences. In detail, 3609/10 641 (33.9%) and 9860/29 462 (33.5%) recurrences were observed in the T2DM and no-T2DM group, respectively. The selected studies showed great heterogeneity, with an I2 = 79.1% (P < 0.001). Most of the studies showed a lower risk of recurrence in T2DM absence (Figure 4). The summary OR showed an increased risk of recurrence in T2DM patients, being 1.30 (95%CI 1.03-1.63; P = 0.03).
Figure 4

Forest plot and meta-analysis of death after any hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) vs no-T2DM patients.

Forest plot and meta-analysis of death after any hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) vs no-T2DM patients.

Progressive disease in HCC patients with vs without T2DM

Seven studies reported post-treatment progressive disease rates in HCC patients with vs without T2DM (Table 3). A total of 109 564 patients were considered, with 23 246 (21.2%) progressive diseases. In detail, 6270/26 438 (23.7%) and 16 979/83 126 (20.4%) progressive diseases were observed in the T2DM and no-T2DM group, respectively. The selected studies showed heterogeneity, with an I2 = 59.6% (P = 0.02). Most of the studies showed a lower risk of progressive disease in T2DM absence (Figure 5). The summary OR showed an increased risk of progressive disease in T2DM patients, being 1.24 (95%CI = 1.09-1.41; P = 0.001).
Figure 5

Forest plot and meta-analysis of progressive disease after any hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) vs no-T2DM patients.

Forest plot and meta-analysis of progressive disease after any hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) vs no-T2DM patients.

Death in HCC patients with vs without T2DM after curative or non-curative treatments

Thirteen studies reported death rates in HCC patients with vs without T2DM after a curative treatment, namely radiofrequency ablation, hepatic resection, and transplantation (Table 1). A total of 46 054 patients were considered, with 17 618 (38.3%) deaths. In detail, 4985/13 551 (36.8%) and 12 633/32 503 (38.9%) deaths were observed in the T2DM and no-T2DM group, respectively. The selected studies showed great heterogeneity, with an I2 = 68.6% (P < 0.001). Most of the studies showed a lower risk of death in T2DM absence (Figure 6A). The summary OR showed an increased risk of death in T2DM patients after curative approach, being 1.30 (95%CI 1.09-1.54; P = 0.003).
Figure 6

Forest plot and meta-analysis of death after (A) curative hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatments and (B) non-curative HCC treatments: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) vs no-T2DM patients.

Forest plot and meta-analysis of death after (A) curative hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatments and (B) non-curative HCC treatments: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) vs no-T2DM patients. Six studies reported death rates in HCC patients with vs without T2DM after a non-curative treatment, namely any therapy other than radiofrequency ablation, hepatic resection, and transplantation. A total of 93 262 patients were considered, with 81 351 (87.2%) deaths. In detail, 19 177/21 893 (87.6%) and 62 174/71 369 (87.1%) deaths were observed in the T2DM and no-T2DM group, respectively. The selected studies showed great homogeneity, with an I2 = 13% (P = 0.33). Most of the studies showed a lower risk of death in T2DM absence (Figure 6B). The summary OR showed an increased risk of death in T2DM patients after non-curative approach, being 1.05 (95%CI 1.00-1.10; P = 0.045).

Discussion

Our study found strong evidence that T2DM unfavorably affects HCC patients' outcomes in terms of progression and recurrence of the disease and patients' survival after treatment, irrespective of the approach used. HCC is a common malignancy with still unfavorable prognosis (45). Among the growing risk factors for its development are metabolic derangements associated with NASH and T2DM, with insulin resistance as a common denominator (46). In addition, NAFLD-related HCC occurs both in tandem and in the absence of underlying cirrhosis, substantiating NAFLD’s tumorigenic effects (47,48). According to epidemiologic studies, T2DM can increase the incidence of HCC and unfavorably alter the prognosis of patients with HCC (49). In reference to its multisystemic effects, T2DM, in some centers, is considered a relative or absolute contraindication for curative treatments such as liver transplantation due to poor outcomes and higher incidence of complications (50). Nevertheless, a recent meta-analysis showed that NAFLD-HCC patients could enjoy long-term survival benefits when treated with aggressive curative approaches (resection, transplantation, or thermo-ablation) with no difference in overall survival compared with non-NAFLD HCC patients (51). On the other hand, this meta-analysis provided solid evidence that T2DM patients compared with non-T2DM patients have an increased risk of death after curative HCC treatments, irrespective of the approach. Most out of 13 studies included in this meta-analysis showed a lower risk of death in T2DM absence. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the same T2DM impact on survival could also be expected after non-curative HCC approaches. Most studies (85.2%) included in this meta-analysis were from Asia, where hepatitis B infection is still the leading cause of HCC. The incidence of alcohol- and HCV-related HCC in Asian countries is relatively stable and low, while NASH has become a growing epidemic with the prevalence of approximately 10%-20% (52,53). NASH is mainly accompanied by T2DM, dyslipidemia, and obesity, common factors leading to cardiovascular events. NASH is the fastest-growing cause of HCC in US liver transplant candidates (54), and the same is expected to occur in Asia due to changes in eating habits and sedentary lifestyles. NASH is strongly associated with HCC and liver-related mortality, yet the death in NAFLD is due mainly to cardiovascular diseases (55,56). In addition, this meta-analysis shows that diabetes is inevitably associated with a greater risk of HCC progression. Only a study by Di Costanzo et al (38) showed longer time-to-progression (10 months vs 9 months) in 80 diabetic HCC patients treated with sorafenib compared with 233 non-diabetic HCC patients (38). Other six studies reporting data on HCC progression (17,25,36,40,41,43) showed an increased diabetes-associated risk (26 358 patients with vs 82 893 without diabetes) on HCC progression. Overall, 14 included studies reported data on HCC recurrence (19,21,22,24,27,28,30,31,35,37,39-41,43). Robust evidence confirmed that diabetes increased HCC recurrence risk, irrespective of treatment. In the case of 508 out of 10 641 diabetic HCC patients included in the analysis, the risk of recurrence did not differ from that observed for non-diabetic HCC patients (19,21,31,35,40). Of note, the cause of HCC in the mentioned studies was mostly hepatitis virus-related. In light of the observed results, it would be prudent to improve the prevention of T2DM by promoting a healthy diet and incorporating structured physical activity into everyday life (57). Moreover, an important role in the prevention of HCC can be played by interventions that lead to T2DM remission, such as those with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (liraglutide and semaglutide) and bariatric surgery, which significantly reduce (>10%) and help maintain weight (58-61). The potential chemo-preventive effect of antidiabetic drugs such as metformin in HCC patients requires further clarification (62). The present study has some limitations. First, a large part of the investigated population is from Asian countries. Therefore, the reported results should present some geographical peculiarities precluding their generalizability in Western populations. Further larger studies coming from North America and Europe are required. Another limitation relates to the great heterogeneity reported among different studies. Unfortunately, different aims and different approaches were reported in the examined studies, increasing the difficulty to obtain definitive results. We tried to minimize the heterogeneous effect by performing sub-analyses focused on specific classes of patients (ie, treated with curative vs non-curative therapies). Further studies are required to better clarify the effect of T2DM in larger Western series and investigate the effect of anti-diabetic drugs in protecting against the risk of tumor evolution in HCC patients receiving curative or non-curative therapies.
  61 in total

1.  Significance of glucose intolerance and SHIP2 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with HCV infection.

Authors:  Shuji Sumie; Takumi Kawaguchi; Mina Komuta; Ryoko Kuromatsu; Satoshi Itano; Koji Okuda; Eitaro Taniguchi; Eiji Ando; Akio Takata; Nobuyoshi Fukushima; Hironori Koga; Takuji Torimura; Masamichi Kojiro; Michio Sata
Journal:  Oncol Rep       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.906

Review 2.  The global epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma: present and future.

Authors:  Katherine A McGlynn; W Thomas London
Journal:  Clin Liver Dis       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 6.126

Review 3.  Type 2 diabetes and cancer: umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies.

Authors:  Konstantinos K Tsilidis; John C Kasimis; David S Lopez; Evangelia E Ntzani; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-01-02

4.  Intention-to-treat analysis of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: The impact of pre-existing diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Zhiwei Li; Zhenzhen Gao; Jie Xiang; Jie Zhou; Sheng Yan; Zhenhua Hu
Journal:  Liver Int       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 5.828

5.  Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Is the Fastest Growing Cause of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Liver Transplant Candidates.

Authors:  Zobair Younossi; Maria Stepanova; Janus P Ong; Ira M Jacobson; Elisabetta Bugianesi; Ajay Duseja; Yuichiro Eguchi; Vincent W Wong; Francesco Negro; Yusuf Yilmaz; Manuel Romero-Gomez; Jacob George; Aijaz Ahmed; Robert Wong; Issah Younossi; Mariam Ziayee; Arian Afendy
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 11.382

6.  Is diabetes mellitus a poor prognostic factor for hepatocellular carcinoma?

Authors:  Muhammed Adnan Masood; Waleed Zafar; Muhammed Aasim Yusuf
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2014-12

Review 7.  Cancer, obesity, diabetes, and antidiabetic drugs: is the fog clearing?

Authors:  Adi J Klil-Drori; Laurent Azoulay; Michael N Pollak
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 8.  Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes.

Authors:  Zobair M Younossi; Aaron B Koenig; Dinan Abdelatif; Yousef Fazel; Linda Henry; Mark Wymer
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 17.425

9.  Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.

Authors:  Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

Authors:  Brian Hutton; Georgia Salanti; Deborah M Caldwell; Anna Chaimani; Christopher H Schmid; Chris Cameron; John P A Ioannidis; Sharon Straus; Kristian Thorlund; Jeroen P Jansen; Cynthia Mulrow; Ferrán Catalá-López; Peter C Gøtzsche; Kay Dickersin; Isabelle Boutron; Douglas G Altman; David Moher
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.