Prospective Associations of Hemoglobin A1c and c-peptide with Risk of Diabetes-related Cancers in the Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-reported type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a risk factor for many cancers, suggesting its pathology relates to carcinogenesis. We conducted a case-cohort study to examine associations of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and c-peptide with cancers associated with self-reported T2DM. This study was drawn from a prospective cohort of 32,383 women and men who provided blood specimens at baseline: c-peptide and HbA1c were assessed in 3,000 randomly selected participants who were cancer-free-at-baseline and an additional 2,281 participants who were cancer-free-at-baseline and subsequently diagnosed with incident colorectal, liver, pancreatic, female breast, endometrial, ovarian, bladder, or kidney cancers. Weighted Cox regression models estimated HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for covariates. c-peptide was associated with higher risk of liver cancer [per SD HR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.32–2.46]. HbA1c was associated with higher risk of pancreatic cancer (per SD HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.05–1.40) and with some suggestion of higher risks for all-cancers-of-interest (per SD HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.99–1.11) and colorectal (per SD HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.98–1.20), ovarian (per SD HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.96–1.45) and bladder (per SD HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.96–1.21) cancers. Compared with no self-reported T2DM and HbA1c < 6.5% (reference group), self-reported T2DM and HbA1c < 6.5% (i.e., T2DM in good glycemic control) was not associated with risk of colorectal cancer, whereas it was associated with higher risks of all-cancers-of-interest combined (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.01–1.62), especially for breast and endometrial cancers. Additional large, prospective studies are needed to further explore the roles of hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia, and related metabolic traits with T2DM-associated cancers to better understand the mechanisms underlying the self-reported T2DM-cancer association and to identify persons at higher cancer risk. Significance: The results from this study suggest that HbA1c and c-peptide, markers of hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia respectively, are associated with certain cancers, though people with diabetes may be at increased risk of these cancers, perhaps other than colorectal, even when their glucose is well controlled.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".