Introduction
Methods
Search strategy
Selection criteria
Quality assessment
Positive if with respect to | Number of studies that scored positive |
---|---|
Patient-reported outcomes |
N (%) |
1. Examining PROs was a primary objective of the study | 10 (100) |
2. A validated questionnaire to measure PROs was used | 10 (100) |
Study population | |
3. The patient sampling process is described | 10 (100) |
4. A (healthy) normative sample is included for comparison | 3 (30) |
5. Patients with both cancer and diabetes are compared to either patients with only cancer or only diabetes on at least two sociodemographic variables | 8 (80) |
6. A description is included of at least two clinical variables regarding cancer diagnosis (e.g., cancer stage, treatment, time since cancer diagnosis) | 8 (80) |
7. A description is included of at least two clinical variables regarding diabetes diagnosis or severity (e.g., HbA1c levels, treatment, time since diabetes diagnosis) | 3 (30) |
8. Inclusion and/or exclusion criteria are described | 9 (90) |
9. Participation rates for patient groups are described and these are >75 % | 4 (40) |
10. Information is given regarding differences in demographic and/or clinical characteristics of respondents vs non-respondents | 3 (30) |
Study design | |
11. The study sample includes at least 75 patients (arbitrarily chosen) | 8 (80) |
12. The process of data collection is described | 8 (80) |
13. The difference in the outcome variable between cancer patients with diabetes and patients with only cancer and/or only diabetes is assessed in multivariable models, including at least 2 covariates | 8 (80) |
Results | |
14. Mean, median, standard deviations, or percentages are reported and compared between cancer patients with diabetes and patients with only cancer and/or only diabetes for the most important outcome measures | 8 (80) |
Results
Description of the included studies
Study | Country | Design | Study sample | Instrument | Results | Quality score | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Health-related quality of life/self-perceived health/functioning | |||||||
Bowker et al. (2006) | Canada | Cross-sectional | 113,587 patients with or without cancer (any type) | CA + DM+: 207 | HUI3 | HUI3 score: | 10 |
CA + DM-: 1692 | CA + DM+ vs CA-DM-: b = −0.10 (95 % CI: −0.13 to −0.09), P value <0.0001 | ||||||
CA-DM+: 4394 | CA-DM+ vs CA-DM-: b = −0.04 (95 % CI: −0.05 to −0.04), P value <0.0001 | ||||||
CA-DM-: 107,295 | |||||||
CA + DM- vs CA-DM-: b = −0.04 (95 % CI: −0.05 to −0.03), P value <0.0001 | |||||||
Hershey et al. (2012a) | USA | Cross-sectional | 661 patients with cancer (any type) | CA + DM+: 76 | SF-36 | Physical functioning: | 9 |
CA + DM-: 585 | CA + DM- vs CA + DM+: b = 12 (95 % CI: 7–18), P value <0.0001 | ||||||
Latini et al. (2006) | USA | Longitudinal | 1248 prostate cancer patients | CA + DM+: 117 | UCLA-PCI | Urinary function at follow-up: | 10 |
CA + DM-: 1131 | CA + DM+ vs CA + DM-: 72 ± 24 vs 77 ± 22, P value = 0.01 | ||||||
Mols et al. (2008) | The Netherlands | Cross-sectional | 590 prostate cancer patients | CA + DM+: 65 | SF-36 | General health: | 13 |
CA + DM-: 525 | UCLA-EPCI | CA + DM+ vs CA + DM-: b = −0.13, P value <0.01 | |||||
Vitality: | |||||||
CA + DM+ vs CA + DM-: b = −0.12, P value <0.01 | |||||||
Onitilo et al. (2013) | Australia | Cross-sectional | 3466 diabetes patients either with or without a history of breast or prostate cancer | Breast cancer: | EQ-5D | In men with prostate cancer only: | 11 |
CA + DM+: 77 | ADDQoL | Problems with mobility: | |||||
CA-DM+: 1470 | CA + DM+ vs CA-DM+: 51 % vs 29 %, P value <0.001 | ||||||
Prostate cancer: | Problems in usual activities: | ||||||
CA + DM+: 81 | CA + DM+ vs CA-DM+: 35 % vs 25 %, P value = 0.035 | ||||||
CA-DM+: 1838 | |||||||
Thong et al. (2011) | USA | Longitudinal | 1811 prostate cancer patients | CA+ and incident DM: 215 | SF-36 | At baseline those with prevalent diabetes report significant lower HRQoL, but after adjustments in longitudinal analyses no differences in HRQoL between CA + DM+ and CA + DM- were observed. | 10 |
CA+ and prevalent DM: 239 | Individual items on BF and SF | ||||||
CA + DM-: 1357 | |||||||
Vissers et al. (2014) | The Netherlands | Cross-sectional | 2761 patients with or without colorectal cancer and/or diabetes | CA + DM+: 328 | EORTC-QLQ-C30 | Physical functioning | 12 |
CA + DM-: 1731 | CA + DM+ vs CA + DM-: beta = −3.8, P value <0.01 | ||||||
CA-DM+: 78 | Male sexual problems | ||||||
CA-DM-: 624 | CA + DM+ vs CA + DM-: beta = 9.4, P value <0.01 | ||||||
Vissers et al. (2015) | The Netherlands | Cross-sectional | 1193 colorectal cancer patients | CA + DM+: 218 | EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 | Neuropathic symptoms—tingling fingers or hands | 11 |
CA + DM-: 975 | CA + DM+ vs CA + DM-: OR = 1.40 (95 % CI: 1.00–1.94) | ||||||
Neuropathic symptoms—tingling toes or feet | |||||||
CA + DM+ vs CA + DM-: OR = 1.47 (95 % CI: 1.04–2.07) | |||||||
Neuropathic symptoms—numbness in toes or feet | |||||||
CA + DM+ vs CA + DM-: OR = 1.83 (95 % CI: 1.28–2.62) | |||||||
Neuropathic symptoms—males; erection problems | |||||||
CA + DM+ vs CA + DM-: OR = 1.83 (95 % CI: 1.11–3.03) | |||||||
Diabetes self-management | |||||||
Hershey et al. (2012b) | USA | Longitudinal | 43 patients with a solid tumor and type I or II DM | SIC, modified intrusiveness of illness inventory, SCI-R | Lower diabetes self-management after 8 weeks on chemotherapy as compared to baseline: 45.86 ± 2.65 vs. 50.84 ± 2.47 | 7 | |
Higher symptom burden after 8 weeks on chemotherapy as compared to baseline: 32.57 ± 4.49 vs. 25.43 ± 3.81 | |||||||
Overall impact on diabetes self-management was moderate (16.47 ± 8.43), highest impact on: exercise (4.35 ± 2.36), blood sugar monitoring (3.73 ± 2.38) and ability to eat and drink (3.56 ± 2.31) | |||||||
Positive correlation between impact of cancer on diabetes self-management and symptom burden at 8 weeks (r = 0.46, P = 0.004) | |||||||
Hershey et al. (2014) | USA | Longitudinal | 43 patients with a solid tumor and type I or II DM | SIC, DCI, CIDS, OE, HADS, SCI-R | Living arrangements, years with DM, total number of medications, baseline DM self-management, DM self-efficacy and baseline and 8-week symptom severity were significant predictors of diabetes self-management. | 7 |