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

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. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science through March 17, 2025, for RCTs in T2DM comparing SGLT2 inhibitors with placebo or active comparators. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was GI neoplasms reported in publications, supplementary materials, or trial registries, usually as adverse events rather than centrally adjudicated cancer endpoints. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in Stata 17.0. In 48 RCTs (n = 48,765), SGLT2 inhibitor therapy was not associated with overall GI neoplasm risk (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.84-1.44; p = 0.46; I² = 0%). Site-specific analyses showed no statistically significant association 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 (0.91, 0.51-1.64), colonic (1.28, 0.78-2.08), colorectal (0.76, 0.27-2.17), and rectal neoplasms (0.98, 0.49-1.97), with all p-values > 0.05. Subgroup analyses by agents (e.g., canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin), baseline age, body mass index (BMI), HbA1c, treatment duration, and dose were also non-significant (all p > 0.05). Approximately half of the trials had follow-up of one year or less, limiting our ability to evaluate long-term risk. Available RCT evidence does not show a clear increase in GI neoplasm risk with SGLT2 inhibitors in T2DM. However, limited follow-up, low event counts, and non-cancer-specific outcome ascertainment, the findings should be interpreted as reassuring but not definitive evidence of long-term oncologic safety.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO No. CRD42024619019.