Skip to main content

NewsTrending topic

Do GLP-1 Drugs Like Ozempic Lower the Risk of Cancer Spreading? What the ASCO Study Does and Doesn't Show

An Instagram post says GLP-1 drugs cut the risk of cancer spreading by up to 50%, based on a study at the ASCO meeting. The numbers match the report, but it is an early, observational study that has not been shown to be peer reviewed.

By Cancer ExplainedPublished

Original commentary from the Cancer Explained editorial team.

A hand holding an orange and blue injection pen against the skin of an upper arm.
A person using a pen injector (an insulin pen). Pen injectors are also used for some other injected medicines.. Mr. Hyde, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

Please note: this page is educational only — it is not medical advice, and it does not speculate about anyone’s health beyond reliable public reporting. For questions about your own health, talk with your healthcare team.

Nothing has loaded from Instagram. We do not connect you to Meta unless you ask, because that would let them set cookies through this page. Open it on Instagram instead.

We quote the claim above so you can read it without loading anything from Instagram. We are not affiliated with this account and earn nothing from this.The percentages in the post match what was reported from the ASCO presentation. But the study was observational, compared GLP-1 users with users of a different diabetes drug, and was a conference presentation. A commenter was right that it was not shown to be peer reviewed.

An Instagram post from @lifespancode, dated October 10, 2026, says GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic may lower the risk of cancer spreading. It cites a study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting that followed about 12,000 people. It lists lower risk of metastasis of "50% lung, 43% breast, 31% colon, 38% liver." A commenter pointed out that this was a conference presentation and not peer reviewed.

View the original post

What's real

The study exists. It was presented at the 2026 ASCO Annual Meeting as abstract 3143. The lead author is Dr. Mark Orland of the Taussig Cancer Institute at the Cleveland Clinic. The post's percentages match the reported results. They come from hazard ratios of 0.50 (lung), 0.57 (breast), 0.69 (colorectal) and 0.62 (liver), which the post turned into "percent lower risk."

The commenter is also right. This was a conference presentation. We did not find a peer-reviewed journal paper, so we cannot say it has been through that review.

What's missing or wrong

  • "Risk of metastasis" is loose wording. The study looked at people who already had stage I to III cancer. It measured how many later progressed to stage IV (metastatic) disease. It did not look at whether the drugs prevent cancer in healthy people.
  • The comparison group matters. GLP-1 users were not compared with people taking nothing. They were compared with people taking DPP-4 inhibitors, another type of diabetes medicine. So the result is "GLP-1 vs. that drug," not "GLP-1 vs. no drug."
  • The numbers are not all-cancer. Four cancers reached statistical significance. Prostate and pancreatic cancers showed trends that were not statistically significant. Reports also list kidney cancer among the seven cancers studied, without a significant result.
  • "May lower" is the key phrase. The study cannot show that the drug caused the difference.
  • The "12,000" is a little muddled. Reports say 12,112 people were in the comparison group and 10,225 people started a GLP-1 drug. Sources describe the total a bit differently.

What the evidence says

This was an observational, propensity-matched analysis. Researchers used TriNetX, a database of de-identified health records, and matched GLP-1 users with DPP-4 inhibitor users after a stage I to III cancer diagnosis. They looked at progression to stage IV over about five years. The groups were matched on factors such as age, race, BMI, other health conditions and cancer treatments.

Reported rates of progression to stage IV, GLP-1 vs. DPP-4 inhibitors:

  • Non-small cell lung cancer: 10.0% vs. 22.3%
  • Breast cancer: 10.2% vs. 20.1%
  • Colorectal cancer: 13.4% vs. 22.2%
  • Liver cancer (hepatocellular): 18.9% vs. 28.4%

The limits are important:

  • Observational data cannot prove cause. People who get one drug and people who get another differ in ways records do not capture. A report quoting the study team notes it cannot tell whether the benefit comes from the drug or from patients being more engaged in their health overall.
  • Matching helps but is not randomization. Only a randomized trial can settle this. An independent oncologist quoted by The ASCO Post said data this large and consistent warrant a prospective randomized trial.
  • It is early. The lead author said there is much more work to do, by disease type, stage and other factors.
  • Funding. The ASCO Post reports no external funding. It also reports that the lead author disclosed relationships with several drug companies.
  • We could not open the ASCO press release or the abstract page. The ASCO press page returned an error, and Hematology Advisor was behind a paywall. We relied on The ASCO Post, Healio and Oncology Central coverage. We did not see the full abstract or confidence intervals.

Our existing article on GLP-1 drugs and cancer risk covers a separate question, the thyroid tumor warning on these drugs. This study does not change that warning.

What to do with this

Treat this as an interesting early signal, not a reason to start a GLP-1 drug. These drugs are prescription medicines with their own risks and are used for diabetes and weight management. Whether one is right for you is a decision for you and your doctor.

If you have cancer, do not start, stop or change any medicine because of a social media post. Ask your care team about your own situation, including any weight or blood sugar concerns.

When you see a post citing a "study," check three things: was it a conference talk or a published paper, who was compared with whom, and whether it can show cause.

Sources

  • The ASCO Post, "GLP-1 RAs May Reduce Metastatic Progression in Certain Obesity-Related Cancers": ascopost.com
  • Healio, "GLP-1s demonstrate large, consistent protective effects against cancer metastases" (May 21, 2026): healio.com
  • Oncology Central, "ASCO 2026: GLP-1s could reduce the risk of some obesity-related cancers progressing": oncology-central.com
  • ASCO press release (did not open for us, listed for reference): asco.org
  • National Cancer Institute, "Obesity and Cancer": cancer.gov
  • National Cancer Institute, "Metastatic Cancer": cancer.gov

How this article was prepared

An AI-assisted editorial system helped prepare this page. It used trade-press coverage of the ASCO 2026 presentation and NCI information. It did not review the full abstract. No named medical reviewer has reviewed it unless one is listed.

Cancer Explained is published by the National Cancer Information Foundation. It is not medical advice and does not suggest a test or treatment.

See an error, old source, or unclear wording? Tell us.

Know someone who needs this?

Plenty of people are looking for something like this and do not know where to start. If this would help a friend or someone you love, send it on — we have written an opening line so you do not have to stare at an empty message. You can change every word of it.

Email itText itWhatsApp

Your message is written and sent in your own email or messaging app — we never see who you send it to, and nothing is added to any list.

Put the story in context

Prevention, possible warning signs, screening, and diagnosis

This story relates to general. The information below is general: it does not reveal anything else about a public person’s health, and not every point applies to every cancer. Personal advice depends on age, symptoms, family history, exposures, and medical history.

  • Prevention and risk reduction

    Not every cancer can be prevented. Avoiding tobacco, protecting skin from ultraviolet radiation, limiting alcohol, staying active, and receiving recommended HPV or hepatitis B vaccination can lower the risk of certain cancers. A risk factor is not a prediction or a cause in one individual.

    NCI prevention information ↗

  • Symptoms and possible early signs

    Possible signs vary and are often caused by conditions other than cancer. Changes worth discussing include a new lump, unexplained bleeding or weight loss, a persistent cough, lasting bowel or bladder changes, a changing skin spot, or symptoms that persist or worsen. Some early cancers cause no symptoms.

    NCI signs and symptoms ↗

  • Screening and early detection

    Screening looks for certain cancers before symptoms begin. Recommended tests exist only for some cancers and depend on age and risk. Screening can have benefits and harms; it is not the same as evaluating a new symptom, and there is no single routine scan or blood test that reliably screens for every cancer.

    NCI cancer screening information ↗

  • How cancer is diagnosed

    Diagnosis may involve a history and exam, imaging, laboratory tests, and often a biopsy. Pathology can identify the cancer type and may test biomarkers that guide treatment. Symptoms, screening results, tumor markers, or online stories alone cannot confirm cancer.

    NCI diagnosis information ↗

Learn about this story’s cancer topic

A public story may encourage questions, but it should not be used to estimate your risk or choose testing. Contact a healthcare professional about a persistent or concerning change. Seek urgent care for severe or rapidly worsening symptoms.