Meta-analysis finds Type 2 diabetes linked to poorer survival in solid tumor patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors

Photo by isens usa / Unsplash

Frontiers in Medicine Published May 11, 2026 Medically reviewed May 11, 2026 DOI ↗ By Dr. Amelia Tan, PhD · Internal Medicine & Chronic Disease

Key Takeaway

Consider that Type 2 diabetes may be associated with poorer survival in solid tumor patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors, but evidence is preliminary.

This is a meta-analysis synthesizing evidence on Type 2 diabetes and outcomes in patients with solid tumors treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. The analysis included 1,225 participants. The primary finding was that patients with Type 2 diabetes had poorer overall survival compared to non-diabetic patients, with a pooled hazard ratio of 1.49 (95% CI: 1.25-1.77, P < 0.00001).

For progression-free survival, the results were subgroup-dependent. A worse outcome was reported for diabetic patients when sample sizes were less than 200 or when univariate analysis was applied, with a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% CI: 1.04-1.83, P = 0.03). However, no significant difference was found when sample sizes exceeded 200 or when multivariate analysis was performed.

The authors acknowledge several limitations, including a small number of included studies, limited sample size, inherent bias risks from the retrospective design, heterogeneity of tumor types, and instability of the progression-free survival results. Safety data were not reported.

The authors conclude the evidence is at a 'put forward hypothesis' level and is not sufficient to support clinical practice recommendations. They caution that the study suggests an association but cannot determine whether glycemic control can improve immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis

EvidenceLevel 1

PublishedMay 2026

View Original Abstract ↓

BackgroundTumor patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a more immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and weaker T-cell immune response to tumors within the tumor compared to non-T2DM patients when treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).In addition, high blood glucose levels may promote tumor immune escape. These factors may lead to a poor response to ICIs treatment in tumor patients with T2DM, affecting treatment prognosis. Although some studies have explored the association between tumor patients with T2DM and the prognosis of ICIs treatment, there is still controversy. Therefore, this study systematically evaluated the impact of T2DM on the prognosis of ICIs treatment in tumor patients through a meta-analysis, aiming to provide more accurate guidance for clinical practice and optimize the treatment strategy for tumor patients with T2DM.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang Database to collect studies published from the database establishment to January 2026 that investigated the association between tumor patients with T2DM and the prognosis of ICIs treatment. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to assess the association between tumor patients with T2DM and the prognosis of ICIs treatment. The primary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of six studies were included, involving 1,225 participants. The meta-analysis showed that patients with T2DM who received ICIs treatment had poorer OS (HR = 1.49, 95%CI:1.25-1.77, P < 0.00001) and PFS(HR = 1.38, 95%CI:1.04-1.83, P = 0.03).Subgroup analyses indicated that regardless of sample size (200) or type of survival analysis (univariate vs multivariate), patients with tumors and T2DM who received ICI treatment were consistently associated with poorer OS. Regarding PFS, a worse outcome was observed in T2DM patients when the sample size was less than 200 or when univariate analysis was applied. However, no significant statistical difference in PFS was found between non-T2DM and T2DM patients treated with ICIs when the sample size exceeded 200 or when multivariate analysis was performed.ConclusionsBased on the current limited evidence, this meta-analysis suggests that T2DM may be associated with poor OS in lung cancer patients treated with ICIs. However, due to the small number of included studies, limited sample size, inherent bias risks of the retrospective design, heterogeneity of tumor types, and the instability of PFS results. The conclusion of this study belongs to the ‘put forward hypothesis’ level and is not yet sufficient to support clinical practice recommendations. The current evidence cannot determine whether glycemic control can improve the efficacy of ICIs. Future studies need to verify this finding through large-sample, prospective cohort studies and clarify the independent impact of glycemic control levels on the efficacy of ICIs.