Cited by 206Diabetes Treatment and ManagementMetabolism, Diabetes, and CancerPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research

SGLT2 inhibitors and risk of cancer in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Open access
Tang, Huilin, Dai, Qi, Shi, Weilong, Zhai, Suodi, Song, Yiqing, Han, Jiali·2017·Diabetologia

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis The association between sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and the risk of cancer in individuals with type 2 diabetes remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of cancer associated with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment of type 2 diabetes.Methods We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 15 February 2017 to identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that report cancer events in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with SGLT2 inhibitors for at least 24 weeks. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses as well as a cumulative meta-analysis to calculate ORs and 95% CIs.Results In total, 580 incidences of cancer among 34,569 individuals were identified from 46 independent RCTs with a mean trial duration of 61 weeks. When compared with comparators (placebo or other active glucose-lowering treatments), SGLT2 inhibitors were not significantly associated with an increased risk of overall cancer (OR 1.14 [95% CI 0.96, 1.36]). For pre-specified cancer types, the risk of bladder cancer might be increased with SGLT2 inhibitors (OR 3.87 [95% CI 1.48, 10.08]), especially empagliflozin (OR 4.49 [95% CI 1.21, 16.73]). Interestingly, canagliflozin might be protective against gastrointestinal cancers (OR 0.15 [95% CI 0.04, 0.60]).Conclusions/interpretation Current evidence from short-term RCTs did not indicate a significantly increased risk of overall cancer among individuals with type 2 diabetes using SGLT2 inhibitors. Given the short-term trial durations and uncertainty of evidence, future long-term prospective studies and post-marketing surveillance studies are warranted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-017-4370-8

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Modest survival benefits with metformin have been reported for breast, ovarian, endometrial, prostate, lung, kidney, liver, and earlier stage pancreatic cancers.

    “Modest survival benefits also have been reported for breast, ovarian, endometrial, prostate, lung, kidney, liver, and earlier stage pancreatic cancers.1791–1800”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [1797]

    The Discussion and Results passages examine SGLT2 inhibitors and cancer incidence, not survival after cancer diagnosis. Searches for metformin survival benefits and pancreatic cancer survival found no passage reporting the claimed benefits for the listed cancers; the metformin mentions concern background diabetes treatment. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [18]18. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne AC (2011) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0. [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from http://handbook.Cochrane.org/chapter_8/8_assessing_risk_ of_bias_in_included_studies.htm. Accessed 25 Aug 2016

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, H., Dai, Q., Shi, W., Zhai, S., Song, Y., & Han, J.
Affiliations
  • Peking University Third Hospital (CN)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
Corresponding author
  • Song, Yiqing
  • Han, Jiali
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2017-07-19
Volume
60
Issue
10
Pages
1862-1872
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2739126694
Cited by
206
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Indiana University Health–Indiana University School of Medicine Strategic Research Initiative
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Keywords
SGLT2 inhibitors, type 2 diabetes, cancer risk, bladder cancer, empagliflozin, canagliflozin, gastrointestinal cancer, drug safety, glucose-lowering agents
MeSH terms
Canagliflozin, Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors, Benzhydryl Compounds, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glucosides, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Neoplasms, Risk Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review