4.7 Review

From obesity to diabetes and cancer: epidemiological links and role of therapies

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 114, 期 7, 页码 716-722

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2016.37

关键词

diabetes; obesity; cancer; antidiabetic treatment; antineoplastic therapy; insulin

类别

资金

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (FIS) [PI12/01201, PI13/01150]
  2. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos-Banco de Santander (Excellence group QUINANOAP)
  3. EMBO [ALTF 800-2013]
  4. Marie Curie FP7-PEOPLE-IEF [PIEF-GA-2013-626098]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing evidence suggests a complex relationship between obesity, diabetes and cancer. Here we review the evidence for the association between obesity and diabetes and a wide range of cancer types. In many cases the evidence for a positive association is strong, but for other cancer types a more complex picture emerges with some site-specific cancers associated with obesity but not to diabetes, and some associated with type I but not type II diabetes. The evidence therefore suggests the existence of cumulative common and differential mechanisms influencing the relationship between these diseases. Importantly, we highlight the influence of antidiabetics on cancer and antineoplastic agents on diabetes and in particular that antineoplastic targeting of insulin/IGF-1 signalling induces hyperglycaemia that often evolves to overt diabetes. Overall, a coincidence of diabetes and cancer worsens outcome and increases mortality. Future epidemiology should consider dose and time of exposure to both disease and treatment, and should classify cancers by their molecular signatures. Well-controlled studies on the development of diabetes upon cancer treatment are necessary and should identify the underlying mechanisms responsible for these reciprocal interactions. Given the global epidemic of diabetes, preventing both cancer occurrence in diabetics and the onset of diabetes in cancer patients will translate into a substantial socioeconomic benefit.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据