Background
Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is one of the most common biliary tract malignancies worldwide [
1]. By and large, poor prognosis seriously affects the mortality of patients with gallbladder cancer [
2]. Gallbladder cancer patients survive the mean survival rate of 6 months and a 5-year survival rate of 5% [
3]. Generally, women are two to six times more likely to be attacked by gallbladder cancer [
4]. The prognosis of patients with GBC is affected by a growing number of factors, including age, gender, smoking, ethnic, and menopause [
5‐
9]. Advancing age partly demonstrates the prevalence of gallbladder cancer [
10]. Finding an optimal prognostic indicator would be helpful to improve the survival rate of GBC.
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a costly chronic disease worldwide. The incremental increase in costs of this disease have laid economic burdens on both financial expenditure in most countries and patients themselves. In the United State, the newly diagnosed patients spent approximately $8941 more than subjects who were not diagnosed with DM over a period of 5 years [
11]. Approximately 415 million people suffered from diabetes in 2015 while 5 million patients died from diabetes [
12]. By 2040, the number of diabetes patients are predicted to ascend to 642 million. DM is always regarded as a pivotal risk factor linked to cancer at different sites, including lung [
13], liver [
14], esophagus [
15], stomach [
16], colorectum [
17], kidney [
18], breast [
19], leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma [
20], ovary [
21], and prostate [
22]. As several studies and meta-analyses have pointed out, DM was closely associated with the onset risk of gallbladder cancer [
23,
24]. However, rare study has focused on the relationship between DM and the mortality of gallbladder cancer. This meta-analysis aimed to figure out if DM patients had a higher risk of dying from GBC and if male and female patients had a different risk of die from GBC.
Methods
Search strategy
A comprehensive search has been made on the PubMed, Embase, web of science, and the Cochrane Library databases to find all the eligible studies up to July 13th 2019. The following text words were used in the PubMed: (“diabetes” OR “glucose intolerance” OR “insulin resistance” OR “hyperglycemia” OR “hyperinsulinemia” OR “metabolic syndrome”) AND (“gallbladder cancer” OR “gallbladder carcinoma” OR “gall bladder cancer” OR “gall bladder carcinoma”). Correlative key words were used in the Embase, web of secience, and the Cochrane Library. To comprehensively search eligible studies, we simultaneously searched the reference lists of relevant reviews or included publications for further studies.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The included literatures met the following criteria: (1) cohort design; (2) investigated gallbladder cancer outcomes; (3) assessed the gallbladder cancer mortality with or without DM; (4) reported the information of hazard ratios (HRs), relative risks (RRs), or standard mortality ratios (SMRs). The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) case-control or cross-sectional design; (2) unavailable data.
Two authors independently extracted all data from publications using the same criteria. The following data were included: the first author’s name, publication year, country, sample size, the number of male or female participants, mean age at baseline, average follow-up duration, diabetes assessment, and adjusted factors.
Statistical analysis
We used Reviewer Manager 5.3 in this meta-analysis to analyze the data. The pooled HRs with 95% CIs were calculated as the effect estimates for the relationship between DM and gallbladder cancer mortality. The fixed-model was used when the heterogeneity was low, while the random-model was used when the heterogeneity was high. Owing to the low gallbladder cancer mortality in general population, the RRs, SMR were considered the similar estimates of the HRs [
25]. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was assessed by the I
2 and Q statistics. Both I
2 > 50% and
P value< 0.1 were regarded as high heterogeneity. We conducted subgroup analysis to evaluate the potential sources of heterogeneity from country, follow-up duration, diabetes assessment, and adjusted factors (including BMI, smoking, and education). A sensitivity analysis was performed by removing each study from the overall analysis to investigate the influence of a single study. We used funnel plots, Begg and Egger tests to assess publication bias.
P value< 0.05 was viewed as a significant level. The statistical analyses were performed with Stata software (version 12.0).
Discussion
This meta-analysis of cohort studies provided comprehensive evidence that the diabetes mellitus had an impact on the survival of patients with gallbladder cancer. Our results suggested that diabetes patients had a higher mortality rate of gallbladder cancer compared with non-diabetes patients. And the results were independent of country, follow-up duration, diabetes assessment, BMI, smoking, or education. Though previous analysis had indicated that DM women were more likely to develop gallbladder cancer than DM men due to sex hormones [
36], we found no obvious differences between male and female diabetes patients in gallbladder cancer mortality. However, the results remained to be tested due to lack of eligible data.
Several physiological mechanisms might account for the increase of gallbladder cancer mortality in DM patients. A growing number of studies have found that overweight, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and insulin resistance were closely related to the increase of gallbladder disease [
37‐
39]. Hyperinsulinemia was also a phenomenon commonly existed in DM patients. Excess insulin directly or indirectly regulated the activity of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which was an important cytokine that influenced the development and progression of cancer [
40]. Both in vitro and in vivo researches have proved that up-regulation of IGF-1 contributed to the proliferation of bile duct cancer cells and the inhibition of apoptosis [
41,
42]. In addition, diabetes impaired the function of gallbladder emptying. The gallbladder smooth muscle cells of DM patients have reduced sensitivity to cholecystokinin. Meanwhile, the number of cholecystokinin receptors on the gallbladder wall in DM patients was also reduced [
43]. These physiological mechanisms were consistent with the increased risk of biliary tract cancer [
44].
To our knowledge, our meta-analysis was the first study focused on the impact of DM on the survival of patients with gallbladder cancer. Previous study has proved that diabetes might increase the risk of gallbladder diseases [
45]. One meta-analysis has proved the association between DM and the increased GBC risk [
24]. However, the meta-analysis included both case-control studies and cohort studies, which might somehow increase the overall heterogeneity. Furthermore, the majority of the included cohort studies focused on the gallbladder cancer incidence rather than mortality. Our analysis attempted to find an optimal prognostic indicator that would increase the GBC mortality. In addition, a subgroup analysis was conducted to see the difference of GBC mortality in male and female DM patients.
The present meta-analyses had some strengths, including prospective design of cohort studies, eligible data from large sample size, detailed subgroup analyses, and low heterogeneity. Our findings provided an important message for patients with comorbid DM and gallbladder cancer that preventing the progression of diabetes might increase the survival from gallbladder cancer.
There were several potential limitations in our study. First, residual confounding could not be ignored. Compared with non-DM participants, DM patients often had less healthy lifestyles, including higher rate of obesity, less physically activity, and more likely to smoke and drink. Though most of the included studies have adjusted these factors and our subgroup analysis showed no obvious heterogeneity between subgroups, we could not completely exclude the influence of these factors. Second, most studies did not tell the differences between type 1 and type 2 DM, though the majority of individuals were type 2 survivals. Older individuals were more likely to develop type 2 DM, while type 1 DM was a more common type in younger individuals. As a result of incomplete initial data on distinguishing this difference, some degree of inaccuracy of results was inevitable. Third, the number of eligible literatures remained low, which might have some influence on the final conclusion. The results of the difference of gallbladder cancer mortality between male and female patients remained open to question due to the lack of data and a high heterogeneity. Forth, the effect of medicine had not taken into account in the researches. Many studies have indicated that metformin, a commonly used diabetic medication, could retard the development of some cancers. None of the included researches have made adjustments for the use of diabetic medication. Last but not least, the multiplicity might exist in this analysis. The multiplicity attributed to a number of factors. On one hand, the subjects came from various backgrounds. Different rate, country, and age aggravated the multiplicity. On the other hand, the subjects from different studies might have an overlap.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.