Several epidemiological studies have identified diabetes as a risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC). The potential pathophysiological mechanisms of this association include hyperinsulinemia, insulin-like growth factor (IGF) axis, hyperglycemia, inflammation induced by adipose tissue dysfunction, gastrointestinal motility disorder, and impaired immunological surveillance. Several studies have shown that underlying diabetes adversely affects the prognosis of patients with CRC. This review explores the novel anticancer agents targeting IGF-1R and receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE), both of which play a vital role in diabetes-induced colorectal tumorigenesis. Inhibitors of IGF-1R and RAGE are expected to become promising therapeutic choices, particularly for CRC patients with diabetes. Furthermore, hypoglycemic therapy is associated with the incidence of CRC. Selection of appropriate hypoglycemic agents, which can reduce the risk of CRC in diabetic patients, is an unmet issue. Therefore, this review mainly summarizes the current studies concerning the connections among diabetes, hypoglycemic therapy, and CRC as well as provides a synthesis of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Our synthesis provides a theoretical basis for rational use of hypoglycemic therapies and early diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related CRC.

No abstract

Aim We constructed a multicentre cohort in China to analyse the differences in clinical characteristics, treatment strategies and prognoses between breast neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. Methods All patients with early‐stage breast cancer who attended three hospitals in Beijing from 2000 to 2018 were included in the study. We used propensity score matching to make a 1:3 match between NEC and IDC. Results After propensity score matching, 153 patients with IDC and 51 patients with NEC were analysed. Multivariate Cox regression showed that compared to patients with IDC, patients with NEC had a worse disease‐free survival (HR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.69–5.12, p < 0.001). Conclusion NEC patients have a worse disease‐free survival than IDC patients.