• Dec. 13, 2025, 6:54 AM ESTBy Doha MadaniWith…
  • Peter Greene, Known for 'Pulp Fiction' and 'The…
  • Suspect sought in acid attack on Georgia woman
  • Actor Peter Greene dead at age 60

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

 

Be That ! Menu   ≡ ╳
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics Politics
☰

Be that!

Dec. 8, 2025, 5:00 PM ESTBy Lindsey LeakeDespite previous excitement around a potential link between GLP-1 drugs and a reduced risk of cancer, new research suggests the popular medications “probably have little or no effect” on a person’s risk of developing one of the 13 obesity-related cancers.The findings, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, may seem counterintuitive, said co-author Dr. Cho-Han Chiang, who conducted the study earlier this year as an internal medicine resident at Mount Auburn Hospital, a Harvard Medical School teaching hospital in Cambridge, Massachusetts.“GLP-1 can make people lose weight, and so, if obesity increases the risk of cancer, then, hypothetically speaking, losing weight through GLP-1 may actually reduce the risk of developing cancer,” said Chiang, now a medical oncology fellow at the Northwell Health Cancer Institute in New York. “That was the excitement in this whole research of GLP-1 and cancer risk.”Accordingly, previous research had suggested the drugs — which include Ozempic and Zepbound — may help lower cancer risk. For example, a 2024 study published in the journal JAMA Network Open showed that people with Type 2 diabetes who took GLP-1s had significantly reduced risks of 10 obesity-related cancers. However, that study was observational, Chiang said, meaning it analyzed existing patient data rather than performed a clinical trial. The patients who took GLP-1s may have had access to better health care and a lower risk of cancer to begin with, he said.Chiang and his colleagues, on the other hand, reviewed 48 randomized controlled trials with a combined 94,245 patients who had Type 2 diabetes, overweight or obesity. Of those, more than 51,000 took a GLP-1 medication, while nearly 43,000 took a placebo. Patients were observed for a median follow-up period of 70 weeks.Researchers focused on the 13 types of obesity-related cancers identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group and their possible links to GLP-1 drugs, with varying levels of statistical certainty.Researchers found, with moderate certainty, that GLP-1 drugs had little or no effect on the risk of developing four types of obesity-related cancers: breast, kidney, thyroid and pancreatic cancers.World Health Organization recommends GLP-1 drugs for obesity02:43The findings were similar for eight other obesity-related cancers — liver, gallbladder, colorectal, ovarian, endometrial, esophageal, meningioma (a tumor of the brain lining) and multiple myeloma (blood cell cancer) — but with low certainty. The effect of GLP-1s on the risk of gastric cancer was “very uncertain,” the authors wrote.“It’s not that GLP-1 does not reduce the risk of cancer; I don’t think we can make that conclusion from our study,” Chiang said. “I would say GLP-1 [drugs] probably do not increase the risk of cancer. It’s a little different.”Longer-term studies neededThe new study has two major limitations, Chiang said. One is that none of the nearly 50 trials his team analyzed was designed to measure cancer outcomes.Dr. Kandace McGuire, chief of breast surgery at the Massey Comprehensive Cancer Center at Virginia Commonwealth University, said that might explain the counterintuitive nature of the findings.“When you take a bunch of studies that weren’t looking at cancer risk and you throw them together, sometimes you find things that are contrary to what you would hypothesize,” said McGuire, who wasn’t involved in the research. “Some of that may be just the makeup of the studies, rather than the actual data itself.”“From a cancer prevention perspective, I think more data is needed,” Chiang said, noting that there’s also a lack of data on GLP-1 usage among patients who already have cancer.Another limitation of the research was its relatively brief follow-up period of under a year and a half.Patients prescribed GLP-1s should be monitored for far longer, particularly for slow-growing diseases like breast and thyroid cancers, McGuire said.“You really don’t know when in somebody’s lifetime they’re going to have a clinically significant cancer,” McGuire said. “While you may not effect a difference in the first two to three years, you may effect a difference five, 10 years down the road with continued use” of GLP-1s.Can GLP-1s increase risk of some cancers?The Food and Drug Administration cautions people with personal or family history of a rare form of thyroid cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, against taking certain GLP-1 medications. However, such boxed warnings stem from decade-old rodent research, Chiang said.“Once there’s an association with a drug, it’s hard to repel that,” he said.Findings in human studies have been mixed, according to Dr. Bassel El-Rayes, deputy director of the O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. One study, for instance, found an association between GLP-1s and increased risk of thyroid cancer, but only within the first year of medication use. El-Rayes said he finds the results of Chiang’s research promising.“This study gives us more reassurance about using these drugs in the treatment of things like obesity and Type 2 diabetes,” said El-Rayes, who wasn’t involved with the study. “There are questions left unanswered, like, Could it be protective against cancer? Could there be a small increase of risk that we’re not recognizing yet?”He added, “The patients who are using the drugs at this moment are safer than what we thought before this paper came out.”Still, El-Rayes cited tobacco-related cancers as an example of the need for longer-term GLP-1 research.“If you were to look at people who smoked for one year, you may not see a big impact of tobacco use,” he said. “You need to follow them up for a longer time to really see the effects of tobacco on cancer development.”“Of course,” he added, “we’re not saying that GLP-1 [drugs] are as risky as using tobacco. We’re not saying that at all.”Dr. Susan Wolver, a colleague of McGuire’s, directs the Medical Weight Loss Program at VCU Health. She said that when she counsels patients on the benefits and risks of GLP-1 drugs, cancer isn’t typically top of mind.“Nobody comes to me and says, ‘I’d like to go on some medication to reduce my cancer risk,’” said Wolver, who wasn’t involved in the research. “They’re going on these medications to lose weight, to improve their diabetes, their sleep apnea, their heart failure — all their obesity-related conditions, but not cancer.”Wolver praised the thoroughness of Chiang’s research, noting that it broke down analyses by factors such as GLP-1 type, including older versions of the drug that were approved more than a decade ago.Because GLP-1 drugs are relatively young — the FDA didn’t approve Wegovy and Zepbound for weight loss until 2021 and 2023, respectively — physicians and scientists have much to learn of their long-term effects on the body, Wolver said. Even so, the observed benefits of GLP-1s, such as improved blood pressure and reduced odds of heart failure, outweigh known risks, she said.“I am relieved with the findings of this study that there does not appear to be any increased cancer signals,” Wolver said, “but I am also not dismayed that there was no reduction in the development of cancer or metastases, because I think we just didn’t have a long enough time.”Lindsey LeakeLindsey Leake is an award-winning health journalist and contributor to NBC News. She holds an M.A. in science writing from Johns Hopkins University, an M.A. in journalism and digital storytelling from American University and a B.A. from Princeton University.

admin - Latest News - December 9, 2025
admin
6 views 14 secs 0 Comments




Popular weight-loss drugs “probably have little or no effect” on a person’s risk of developing one of the 13 obesity-related cancers, new research suggests.



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
NASA astronaut returns to Earth after 245 days in space
NEXT
Dec. 9, 2025, 5:00 AM ESTBy Lawrence HurleyWASHINGTON — A high-stakes challenge to campaign finance restrictions being heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday has the potential to fizzle because of Vice President JD Vance’s reluctance to reveal whether he will run for office in 2028.That, at least, is what one of the lawyers will tell the justices during the oral argument, which concerns limits on how much party committees can spend in coordination with candidates.The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has long been skeptical of campaign finance restrictions on free speech grounds, and Republicans have often brought challenges against them.Vance, who was among those challenging the spending limits in the case before the court this week, has been equivocal about his plans in various public remarks, most recently in an interview with NBC News last week.Roman Martinez, whom the court appointed to defend the restrictions when the Trump administration announced it would not do so, says the case is moot, meaning it should be dismissed and the current restrictions should remain in place. One of Martinez’s key arguments, outlined in court papers, is that Vance, who originally challenged the regulations when he was a Senate candidate, no longer has a stake in the case because he is not currently a candidate, nor has he announced any intention to be one in the future.”Vice President’s Vance’s claim is now moot because he has repeatedly stated that he has no concrete plan in place to run for any particular office in 2028,” Martinez said in an email.Because the government switched sides and is now supporting the challengers, “no one had any incentive” to point out the problems he has raised, Martinez added.Martinez also argues that the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and former Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, all involved in the legal challenge, have no grounds to maintain the lawsuit, either.Vance is walking a delicate line as a presumptive heir to President Donald Trump, who faces a constitutional bar to seeking a third term, while also serving as his vice president.Asked in the recent NBC News interview under what scenario he would not run for president in 2028, Vance refused to take a firm position.Vance has said before that “the politics will sort themselves out” about a future run if the Trump administration does a good job.But he indicated it is too soon to make that call, saying “I don’t really think so” when he was asked whether the politics have, indeed, sorted themselves out.”I try to not wake up and ever think, ‘What does this mean for my future?’ I always try to think, ‘How can I do a good job right now,’ right?” he added. “And that’s one of the reasons why I’ve tried to steer away from the 2028 conversation, because, yeah, like, it’s out there, obviously. It’s something that could happen. It’s something that might not happen. But I never want the focus on the future to come at the expense of this job.”Noel Francisco, the lawyer arguing for the Republican challengers, who did not respond to a request for comment, addressed Martinez’s arguments in a brief filed last week.Francisco rejected the contention that Vance’s recent remarks mean the case is moot, saying Martinez would need to “prove Vance does not plan to campaign for federal office again.”Martinez “has come nowhere close to doing so,” he added.”To the contrary, all available evidence … indicates that Vance will again run for federal office,” Francisco wrote.A Vance spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment on the case.The restrictions at issue in the case were first enacted in 1971, but similar limits on rampant spending in elections have been undermined by subsequent court rulings, including the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which paved the way for unlimited independent expenditures by outside groups. Such spending by outside groups is not at issue in Tuesday’s case, which is focused on party committees.Under the current law, a party can make unlimited independent expenditures in support of a candidate, but there are limits on how much it can spend in coordination with a candidate. That can include hiring a venue or fundraising consultants or paying for a candidate’s travel.The current limit varies based on the voting-age population in specific House or Senate elections; it can be as much as almost $4 million for Senate races and $127,000 for at-large House seats.The parties in the case, including Vance and the GOP’s campaign committees supporting candidates for Congress, seek to eliminate those caps altogether.A ruling in favor of Republicans would be likely to benefit their candidates more because Democrats have typically fared better in fundraising than the average Republican, meaning GOP candidates rely more on coordinated party expenditures.As a result of the Trump administration’s change of position, the Federal Election Commission has sided with the challengers, saying it now agrees the restrictions violate the Constitution’s First Amendment.In addition to appointing Martinez, the court also allowed the Democratic National Committee to intervene in the case in defense of the restrictions.Lawrence HurleyLawrence Hurley is a senior Supreme Court reporter for NBC News. Henry J. Gomez and Ben Kamisar contributed.
Related Post
December 1, 2025
Police seek suspects in deadly birthday party shooting
October 15, 2025
Aid trucks arrive in southern Gaza
December 12, 2025
Dec. 11, 2025, 6:00 PM ESTBy Kaitlin SullivanWhen Chase Johnson was 31, her dog began acting strange. He was anxious, wouldn’t leave her side and, one day, pushed his nose into the side of her breast. Johnson felt a hard lump. “I wasn’t someone who was good at doing self-exams, I don’t think I would have found it otherwise,” Johnson, now 36, of Cary, North Carolina, said. “I had no family history of breast cancer.”Johnson was diagnosed in February 2021 with triple-negative breast cancer, an aggressive type of the disease that tends to grow quickly and spread to other parts of the body. Breast cancer treatment is determined in part by whether certain proteins are present on the tumor cells, including estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors, as well as a protein called HER2. Treatments can target these three proteins. Breast cancers with neither receptor and which produce little to no HER2 are deemed triple-negative, making them more difficult to treat.Johnson underwent four months of intravenous chemotherapy and surgery to remove her tumor and lymph nodes. After that, she had another six months of oral chemo and 24 rounds of radiation. Her treatment was considered successful, and afterward she began looking for ways to prevent the cancer from coming back. About 40% of women with triple-negative breast cancer have a recurrence within the five years of treatment, and in about 30% of those women, the cancer recurs in the brain. It can also re-emerge in the lungs, liver and lymph nodes. In December 2022, Johnson enrolled in an early-stage clinical trial at the Cleveland Clinic that is testing a novel vaccine that researchers hope could stop triple-negative breast cancer recurrences and, in some women, stop the cancer from developing in the first place. Johnson joined Cleveland Clinic’s Phase 1 clinical trial studying a vaccine for triple-negative breast cancer.Courtesy of Chase Johnson“I am literally doing anything possible to make sure this doesn’t come back,” Johnson said. “For triple negative, the resources are so limited; if the traditional treatment methods don’t work, you’re just kind of out of luck.”The vaccine targets a protein called α-lactalbumin, which is present in about 70% of triple-negative breast cancers and found on the surface of tumor cells. If successful, the vaccine would teach the immune system to make T-cells that attack and destroy cells with the protein. The latest findings of the Phase 1 clinical trial, which included 35 women, were presented Thursday at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in Texas. The trial looked at whether the vaccine was safe and if it triggered an immune response in three groups of patients. (It did not look at how the vaccine affected outcomes.) The first group, which included Johnson, was women who had recovered from early stage triple-negative breast cancer and were tumor-free but at high risk for recurrence. The second was women who had undergone treatment for early-stage disease and had remaining tumor cells. The third group had not yet been diagnosed with breast cancer, but carried a genetic predisposition, such as the BRCA gene, that put them at high risk for triple-negative cancer.The researchers found that 74% of the women developed an immune response to the vaccine — though what that result means for reducing recurrence or preventing disease is still unknown. “Whether this immune response will translate into reducing the risk of recurrence or preventing breast cancer, we don’t know that yet,” said trial leader Dr. G. Thomas Budd, a breast cancer medical oncologist at Cleveland Clinic’s Cancer Institute. The vaccine also appeared to be safe: Women reported redness or a lump at the injection site, but no serious adverse events were seen.One concern was whether the vaccine would trigger an autoimmune response, where the immune system mistakenly attacks the body. Women naturally produce α-lactalbumin when lactating, which the vaccine could train the body to attack. Because of this, Budd said he doesn’t recommend that women who want to breastfeed enroll in the trial. The Phase 1 results, while promising, only represent an early step in determining whether the vaccine will prove successful.A Phase 2 trial is expected to begin late next year. That trial will be the first to look at whether the vaccine can reduce the risk of a triple-negative breast cancer recurrence. If that goes well, future trials will test prevention in patients with a genetic risk, Budd said. Justin Balko, co-leader of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, said the most promising use for the vaccine would be to prevent a first cancer occurrence or a recurrence, rather than target lingering cancer cells.That’s because over time, tumor cells can learn how to hide target proteins from the immune system, Balko said. New cancer cells are less likely to develop this ability, he added.Vaccine exploration for triple-negative breast cancer is a welcome task, said Dr. Larry Norton, founding medical director of the Evelyn H. Lauder Breast Center at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The most effective targeted breast cancer treatments need estrogen or HER2 receptors to be present in tumors. “Triple-negative doesn’t have either, so we are left only with chemotherapy,” Norton said. Even if the α-lactalbumin-targeting vaccine is not effective in a Phase 2 trial, Norton said scientists are getting better at identifying the abnormal molecules found on different tumor cells. Those abnormalities serve as targets for novel therapies. “There was a time when we would say HER2 is the worst type of breast cancer you can have, then along came HER2-targeting therapies and now all of the sudden one of the worst prognosis markers becomes one of the best,” Norton said. “This could be the story of triple-negative breast cancer if we find a target for it.”Kaitlin SullivanKaitlin Sullivan is a contributor for NBCNews.com who has worked with NBC News Investigations. She reports on health, science and the environment and is a graduate of the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at City University of New York.
October 20, 2025
Louvre Closed After Brazen Daylight Jewelry Heist: What We Know
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved