Evidence Hub

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and gastrointestinal neoplasm risk in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Zhang YF, Xie JJ, Wu Q, Zhou XY, Zeng C, Zeng Y, He YM, Guo M et al.

Clinical and experimental medicine, 2026

49,054 participants

Abstract

Abstract Background The potential carcinogenic effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remain controversial, particularly regarding site-specific gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasms. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the relationship between SGLT2 inhibitors and the risk of GI neoplasms in patients with T2DM. Materials and methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science to March 17, 2025, for RCTs in T2DM comparing SGLT2 inhibitors with placebo or another active comparator. The primary outcome was GI neoplasms; secondary, prespecified site-specific neoplasms (esophageal, gastric, hepatic, pancreatic, colorectal, rectal, biliary). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in Stata 17.0, using fixed- or random-effects models according to the heterogeneity. Prespecified subgroups included agents, dose, exposure duration (≤ 52, 52–104, > 104 weeks), age, body mass index (BMI), and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Publication bias was evaluated with funnel plots and Egger’s test. Results In a pooled analysis of 49 RCTs (n = 49,054), SGLT2 inhibitors therapy was not associated with the overall risk of GI neoplasm (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.84–1.44; p = 0.46; I² = 0%). Site-specific analyses were likewise null for esophageal (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.37–3.45), gastric (1.20, 0.65–2.23), hepatic (0.62, 0.31–1.22), pancreatic (0.93, 0.52–1.66),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 49,054 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free