Back

Site-Specific Cancer Incidence among Clinical Subtypes of Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes in the United States

Li, Z.; Liu, C.; Weber, M. B.; Ali, M. K.; Hofmeister, C. C.; Varghese, J. S.

2026-08-18 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.08.17.26360595 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with elevated rates of several cancers and is increasingly recognized as a heterogeneous disease, but whether its clinically distinct subtypes carry different cancer risks is unknown. Methods: In this matched retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data from the Epic Cosmos Research Platform (2012-2025), adults with newly diagnosed T2D were classified into severe insulin-deficient (SIDD, 21.6%), mild obesity-related (MOD, 23.5%), mild age-related (MARD, 40.7%), or mixed (14.1%) subtypes using validated algorithms and matched to adults without diabetes on age, sex, and body mass index. Cause-specific Cox models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for seven site-specific cancers, accounting for competing risks. Cancer screening uptake was assessed as a secondary outcome. Results: Among 575,139 adults with T2D and 689,719 without diabetes (median follow-up, 3.8 years), MARD had the highest cancer incidence (17.3 per 1,000 person-years). Relative to adults without diabetes, rates of colorectal, pancreatic, liver, endometrial, and ovarian cancer were elevated across subtypes, with the highest hazards in SIDD (HR=3.87, 95% CI=3.51 to 4.27) and mixed phenotypes. Prostate cancer rates were lower in all subtypes, most markedly in MOD (HR=0.60, 95% CI=0.55 to 0.64). Rates of breast cancer were higher among mixed (HR=1.12, 95% CI=1.05 to 1.19) and lower among MOD (HR=0.85, 95% CI=0.80 to 0.90). Mammography and prostate-specific antigen screening were lower across subtypes. Conclusions: Site-specific cancer incidence and screening uptake differed across clinically defined subtypes of T2D. Subtype classification from routine clinical data may inform targeted cancer surveillance, though further study is needed before clinical use.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.