Weight-Loss Drugs May Lower Cancer Risk in Diabetic Patients, Study Finds
A new study suggests that popular weight-loss medications may do more than just help with diabetes and obesity—they could also modestly reduce the risk of developing certain cancers among adults with diabetes, according to
Potential Cancer Prevention
Researchers analyzed health records from more than 170,000 U.S. adults with both obesity and diabetes, focusing on those treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists—drugs known for managing blood sugar and, more recently, for aiding weight loss. The study compared these patients to a similar group taking dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, a class of diabetes drugs not associated with weight loss.
The study found that after four years, patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists showed a 7 percent lower risk of developing any of 14 obesity-related cancers and an 8 percent lower risk of death from any cause, compared to those taking DPP-4 inhibitors.
The lower cancer risk was more pronounced for colorectal cancers, with 16 percent fewer colon cancer cases and 28 percent fewer rectal cancer cases among the GLP-1 group.
Study Details and Methodology
The research, led by Lucas A. Mavromatis, a medical student at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine, used data from 43 U.S. health systems collected between 2013 and 2023.
Study participants included adults with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher and a diagnosis of diabetes. Each group—those on GLP-1 receptor agonists and those on DPP-4 inhibitors—consisted of 85,015 patients, matched with similar characteristics to reduce bias.
'This trial raises an intriguing hypothesis: that the increasingly popular GLP-1 medications used to treat diabetes and obesity might offer some benefit in reducing the risk of developing cancer,' said Dr. Robin Zon, president of ASCO. 'Though this trial does not establish causation, it hints that these drugs might have a preventative effect. Future research is needed to validate these findings, including in patients who do not have diabetes.'
Obesity, Diabetes, and Cancer Risk
Obesity is a common risk factor for at least 14 types of cancer, including cancers of the esophagus, colon, rectum, stomach, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, kidney, post-menopausal breast, ovary, endometrium, thyroid, as well as multiple myeloma and meningiomas, according to ASCO.
With the prevalence of obesity and diabetes rising, more people are being prescribed GLP-1 receptor agonists. Up to 12 percent of Americans are using such medications, according to the study and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Related Stories
2/21/2025
4/11/2025
GLP-1 receptor agonists work by mimicking hormones that regulate appetite and fullness, helping patients lose weight and control blood sugar. However, the medication can cause side effects such as nausea and stomach pain, and it does not work for everyone.
Gender Differences and Next Steps
The study found that the protective effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists was most evident in women, who experienced an 8 percent lower risk of obesity-related cancer and a 20 percent lower risk of death from any cause compared to women on DPP-4 inhibitors.
The difference was not statistically significant in men, however, and researchers said they could not explain the gender disparity.
Lead author Mavromatis highlighted a need for further research on GLP-1 receptor agonists.
'Our results suggest they may modestly cut the chance of developing certain cancers—especially cancers of the colon and rectum—and reduce rates of death due to all causes. These data are reassuring, but more studies are required to prove causation,' he said in the press release.
The research team plans to continue monitoring patients for longer periods and hopes to study the cancer risk for people who take such agonists but do not have diabetes.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health and will be presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago from May 30 to June 3.
From
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
These Are the Best and Worst States for Aging in Place
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new report from Seniorly ranked the best and worst states for aging at home for seniors, and Florida surprisingly earned the lowest spot of all. "These findings reinforce what we already know," one expert told Newsweek, "aging well isn't just about personal health; it's also about where you live and what resources that place can provide." As millions of Americans turn 65 this year, more and more are hoping to continue living in their homes rather than move to assisted living facilities or retirement homes. In 2025, a record 4.2 million Americans will reach senior age, and 75 percent of older Americans said they wanted to stay living in their own homes in a recent AARP survey. Why It Matters Many Americans hope to stay at home to maintain their independence and remain in the communities where they've already built support systems. However, not all locations make this easiest for seniors, as cost of living, transportation, and access to high-quality health care all play a role in whether a senior is able to successfully live outside of a retirement home. Shirley Gooding, a physical Therapy Aid, helps William Rexroat, a WWII Navy veteran exercise during a physical therapy session at the Quincy Veterans Home February 17, 2005, in Quincy, Illinois. Shirley Gooding, a physical Therapy Aid, helps William Rexroat, a WWII Navy veteran exercise during a physical therapy session at the Quincy Veterans Home February 17, 2005, in Quincy, To Know Best States Utah took the best state spot for aging in place, as only 35 percent of seniors live alone. They also have relatively good weather, with just 10.1 inches of rain and snow each year on average. The state also had a significant level of smart home tech use at 37 percent. The top 10 state list for seniors was as follows: Utah North Dakota New Jersey Idaho Texas Nebraska California New Mexico Kansas Washington Seniorly's list was compiled using data on home health care quality and availability, emergency care services, housing costs, road safety, walkability, weather hazards and more. They also took into account the risk of isolation, as roughly 43 percent of U.S. seniors live alone. The top states generally had short ER wait times, with North Dakota coming in at second place, as well as a high level of meal deliveries for older Americans. Home care quality also mattered, with 31 percent of New Jersey's agencies earning a 4.5 or 5-star rating. Worst States Meanwhile, the worst states for aging in places were as follows: Florida Kentucky North Carolina Georgia Alabama Tennessee Mississippi Vermont Oklahoma Hawaii Many retirees may be surprised to find Florida ranked the lowest for aging in place. This is because of its limited access to home health aides, with 50 seniors per available aide. Floridians also deal with high housing costs, with 30.7 percent of older homeowners spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. The state also experiences high precipitation of 53 inches annually, which could heighten safety risks for seniors. The other Southern states ranked low struggled for different reasons. Kentucky had one of the highest rates of fatal car crashes involving seniors, at 28.2 deaths per 100,000 drivers. Meanwhile, seniors in North Carolina spent an average of 195 minutes in the emergency room, longer than nearly all other states. "What is definitely eye-opening is how many Southern states ranked near the bottom," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "These are states with historically high poverty rates and heavy reliance on social insurance programs." What People Are Saying Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek: "Utah ranks first and Florida ranks last. Does that mean we should always retire in Utah and never in Florida? Not really. The bottom line is aging in place requires a network, and aging seniors need to be located where their network is located. Aside from being financially prepared for longevity, access to both skilled and non-skilled assistance is the key and is most likely to come from family and close friends." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "There's a clear relationship between income and aging outcomes. The wealthier the state, the more likely it is to support aging in place through quality care, better roads, and stronger support systems. These findings reinforce what we already know: aging well isn't just about personal health, it's also about where you live and what resources that place can provide." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "What's most surprising about these rankings are how perceptions do not always equal reality with America's aging population. Florida has been for decades perceived as a haven for retirees; however, in the years following the pandemic, housing costs have risen dramatically and the state has been slow to adopt the home health measures other states have to better medically serve their communities." What Happens Next From 2025 to 2050, the number of people aged 65 and older is expected to skyrocket from 63.3 million to 82.1 million. "States like Utah benefit from more seniors being less alone and having more access to smart home features that assist in the aging process," Beene said. "At the end of the day, aging isn't just about saving some tax dollars. It's about the overall quality of life."
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Oversight GOP shoots down Democratic attempt to subpoena Musk
Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee shot down an attempt by the panel's Democrats to subpoena Elon Musk, seeking answers about his short stint in the Trump administration. The surprise move from Democrats to compel Musk to testify before the panel sought to examine government service that, while brief, was impactful and marred by controversy. Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.), the acting top Democrat on the panel, shifted the tune of a hearing on artificial intelligence by bashing the former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head, saying President Trump created 'disaster and danger … by turning our government over to his biggest campaign donor.' 'We cannot sit here, however, and have the traditional bipartisan conversation about federal IT modernization without acknowledging the fact that the Trump administration, Elon Musk and DOGE are leading technology initiatives that threaten the privacy and security of all Americans and undermine our government and the vital services it provides to red states and blue states,' he said. 'Musk may say he has stepped away from his role in the federal government, but his recklessness will continue to have devastating consequences for America for years, possibly decades to come,' Lynch continued. Republicans, very few of whom were in the room when the hearing began, suspended the hearing to give GOP colleagues more time to arrive and vote down the measure, delaying the hearing for more than 20 minutes. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who was overseeing the hearing, mocked Democrats, telling them they 'looked good' for social media clips as her Democratic colleagues sat before blown up photos of Musk. Lynch and other Democrats pressed Mace to move forward with a vote as the wait stretched on. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) criticized the delay, noting that 'it has historically never taken this long for the clerk to call roll.' The Thursday push was the second time the panel's Democrats have pushed to subpoena Musk, though the first since the DOGE leader has left government following the end of his term as a special government employee. His departure also came amid reports about Musk's alleged drug use, which he has denied. Lynch said Musk was given 'free rein to terrorize our civil servants and drive more than 275,000 federal employees from their jobs serving the American people' and said he was among those in the Trump administration who are 'more interested in self enrichment than public service.' Musk officially announced his departure from the Trump administration last week, bringing to a close a tumultuous four months in government for the Tesla CEO. The tech billionaire's role leading DOGE has been highly controversial, prompting numerous lawsuits challenging Musk and his staffers' authority and creating headaches for his business empire. The move comes amid a four-way race to determine the next top Democrat on the panel, replacing the late Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.). Lynch has thrown his hat in the ring, as have Crockett and Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘I'm Treating Guys Who Would Never Be Caught Dead in a Casino'
Gambling has swallowed American sports culture whole. Until early 2018, sports betting was illegal under federal law; today, it's legal in 39 states and Washington, D.C. (and easy enough to access through backdoor channels even in the states where it isn't). During NFL games, gambling commercials air more often than ads for beer. Commentators analyze not just whether a team can win, but if they might win by at least the number of points by which they're favored on betting apps. Nearly half of men younger than 50 now have an account with an online sports book, and Americans spent about $150 billion on sports wagers last year. I regularly get ads on my phone offering me a complimentary $200 in sports bets, as long as I gamble $5 first. As betting has overrun American sports, other forms of gambling are also on the rise. According to industry data, American casinos are more popular now than at any point on record. The age of their average patron had been crawling upward for years, but since sports betting was legalized at the federal level, it has plummeted by nearly a decade, to approximately 42. Some signs point to gambling problems increasing, too. No centralized entity tracks gambling addiction, but if its scale comes even close to matching the new scale of sports betting, the United States is unequipped to deal with it. In its power to ruin and even end lives, gambling addiction is remarkably similar to drug dependency. Imaging studies show that pathological gamblers and people with substance addictions share patterns of brain activity. They are more likely to experience liver disease, heart disease, and sleep deprivation, whether it originates in the anxiety of concealing a gambling addiction or because someone is up wagering on contests, such as cricket and table tennis, that happen in faraway time zones. The best national survey available, which dates to well before the rise of sports betting, found that 2 million to 4 million Americans will experience a gambling disorder at some point in their life; one in six people with a gambling disorder attempts suicide. Even if their death certificate says differently, 'I've had several patients who died because of the emotional pain from their gambling disorder,' Timothy Fong, a psychiatrist specializing in addiction treatment and a co-director of UCLA's gambling-studies program, told me. Fong, like the other researchers I spoke with, said that rapid forms of gambling, especially those that allow you to place multiple bets at one time, tend to be especially addictive. For decades, sports betting mostly involved wagers on who'd win a match, by how much, and total points scored—outcomes resolved over the course of hours. Now apps offer endless in-game bets decided in seconds. Last year, I watched the Super Bowl with a friend who bet on the national anthem lasting less than 90.5 seconds—the smart money, according to the analysts. He lost when Reba McEntire belted the song's last words twice. The ability to place one bet after another encourages a hallmark behavior of problem gamblers—when deep in the red, instead of walking away, they bet bigger. 'Viewing sports gambling as a way to make money is likely to end badly,' Joshua Grubbs, a gambling researcher at the University of New Mexico, told me. 'Gamblers that think that gambling is a way toward economic success or financial payouts almost always have far more problem-gambling symptoms.' And some apps actively blur the already hazy line between betting and other financial activities. For instance, the financial platform Robinhood, where millions of people trade meme stocks and manage their retirement accounts, began offering online sports 'events contracts' (a type of investment whose payout depends on traders' correctly predicting the outcome of a specified event) during March Madness this year through a partnership with the financial exchange Kalshi. (A Robinhood spokesperson told me this 'emergent asset class' differs significantly from sports betting because users, not the house, set the prices, and can more easily exit their positions. But the experience of 'investing' in an events contract is virtually indistinguishable from betting.) Financial markets have recently started offering services like this even in states where sports betting is illegal. State gambling regulators have called foul, but the federal government has so far made no move to stop the companies. As the courts sort out whether any of this is legal, Robinhood decided to let customers trade on the Indy 500 and the French Open. Several recent trends suggest that problem gambling might be on the rise in the U.S. Calls to state gambling helplines have increased. (This might be partly explained by advocacy groups marketing their helplines more aggressively than ever; gambling companies also tack the numbers onto their ubiquitous ads.) Fong said that he was recently invited to speak to a consortium of family lawyers, whose divorce clients have started asking, 'How do I protect my children from the damage of their father's gambling?' Researchers and counselors are especially worried about single young men who play in fantasy sports leagues, bet on sports, day trade, and consider gambling a good way to make money. Gamblers Anonymous is rolling out groups for young people. 'I'm treating guys who would never be caught dead in a casino,' James Whelan, a clinical psychologist who runs treatment clinics for gambling addiction in Tennessee, told me. [Read: How casinos enable gambling addicts] These imperfect proxy measures, along with incomplete data trickling out of a few states, are the best indicators that researchers have about the extent of gambling addiction. Experts are also unsure how long any increase in problem gambling might last: Some studies suggest that the prevalence of gambling problems tends to equalize after a spike, but those findings are usually limited to physical casinos and remain debated within the field. According to researchers I spoke with, no study has established the prevalence of gambling addiction in the U.S. since sports betting became widespread. Federal agencies dedicated to alcoholism and substance abuse allocate billions of research dollars to American universities every year. Yet for decades, the federal government—the largest funder of American research—has earmarked zero dollars for research on gambling activity or addiction specifically, despite collecting millions annually from gambling taxes. (The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which collects national data on behavioral health and funds research into it, declined to comment.) Gambling-addiction treatment is '50 years behind where we are with drugs or alcohol or any other substance,' Michael Sciandra, the executive director of the Nebraska Council on Problem Gambling, told me. Doctors and therapists, even those who specialize in treating addiction, rarely screen for issues with gambling, he said. Among the handful of dedicated gambling-addiction treatment providers around the country, many deploy cognitive behavioral therapy, which studies suggest can at least temporarily improve patients' quality of life and reduce the severity of their gambling problem. But discrepancies in treatment approaches and tiny trial sizes make it difficult to say exactly how many patients the therapy helps. Two medications used to treat alcoholism and opioid addiction have also been found to reduce the severity of gambling addiction across a handful of small clinical trials. But the evidence needed for FDA approval would require large and expensive clinical trials that no one seems eager to fund, Marc Potenza, the director of Yale's Center of Excellence in Gambling Research, told me. Because the federal government doesn't fund gambling-addiction treatment, each state decides what resources to make available. A Tennessee caller to the national helpline 1-800-GAMBLER might be put through to their state's helpline and then connected to the network of government-subsidized clinics Whelan runs across the state. But in states with bare-bones offerings, workers typically refer callers to peer-support groups such as Gamblers Anonymous, or to online resources on budgeting, says Cole Wogoman, a director at the National Council on Problem Gambling, which runs the helpline. Studies have found that each of these strategies is less effective than therapy. [Charles Fain Lehman: Legalizing sports gambling was a huge mistake] Texas could be an example of how unprepared the U.S. is to deal with any increase in problem gamblers. The state's gambling laws are among the strictest in the country, and yet it still sends the second-highest number of callers (behind California) to 1-800-GAMBLER. This November, Texans might vote on a constitutional amendment to allow sports betting. The state of more than 30 million has no funding for gambling treatment and only three certified gambling counselors, according to Carol Ann Maner, who is one of them. The state's official hub for gambling help, which Maner leads, was founded just this spring. Once they find the money, Maner and her colleagues plan to finally set up the state's own helpline. But first, they need to recruit and train more therapists for a job that, thanks to a lack of state and federal funding, might require turning away uninsured clients. That's a daunting task. Finding the apps Texans can use to get around gambling restrictions is easy. Article originally published at The Atlantic
