Emerging evidence suggests that a whole food, plant-based diet may offer significant metabolic benefits for women with metastatic breast cancer supporting weight management and improving cardiometabolic markers during active treatment.

 

Transcript

Speaker 1: We often hear about the big battles in breast cancer—treatments, survival rates—but what’s another major struggle women face?

Speaker 2: Weight gain during treatment. It's really common, and it's not just a cosmetic issue—it can impact overall health and potentially interfere with how well treatment works.

Speaker 1: Why are these metabolic changes during treatment significant?

Speaker 2: Because they can have long-term consequences. They’re not just minor side effects—studies show they affect a large number of women and are linked to serious health problems.

Speaker 1: So what are we diving into today?

Speaker 2: We’re looking at new research—a randomized controlled trial exploring whether a whole food, plant-based (WFPB) diet could benefit women with metastatic breast cancer who are on stable therapy.

Speaker 1: Where was this study published?

Speaker 2: It was published in 2024 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. It’s a well-structured trial comparing randomly assigned groups.

Speaker 1: What’s the main purpose of discussing this study?

Speaker 2: To highlight key findings from the study and explain what they could mean—especially regarding the role of nutrition in managing metastatic breast cancer.

Speaker 1: How common is weight gain during treatment?

Speaker 2: Surprisingly common. An older review from 1997 reported 50% to 96% of women receiving chemo for early-stage breast cancer gained weight—sometimes up to 14 pounds. This trend also appears in advanced disease.

Speaker 1: Why is this concerning?

Speaker 2: Because obesity, whether present at diagnosis or developed later, is linked to poorer breast cancer outcomes—higher mortality, lower quality of life, and increased cardiometabolic complications like diabetes and heart disease.

Speaker 1: Is this concern shared by patients?

Speaker 2: Yes. In one survey, over 90% of overweight or obese breast cancer patients reported being concerned about their weight.

Speaker 1: What are the physiological links between excess weight and worse outcomes?

Speaker 2: Higher insulin, elevated cholesterol, changes in sex hormones, and increased levels of IGF-1—all of which can influence cancer risk and worsen cardiovascular health.

Speaker 1: Let’s talk about the diet tested in the study. What is a whole food, plant-based diet?

Speaker 2: It emphasizes whole, unrefined plant foods—fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds—and minimizes or excludes animal products, processed foods, added fats, and sugars.

Speaker 1: Was there any prior evidence supporting this diet for breast cancer?

Speaker 2: There’s growing evidence of WFPB benefits in the general population—weight loss, lower cholesterol and blood pressure, and improved insulin sensitivity. But not much research specifically targeted metastatic breast cancer during active treatment.

Speaker 1: Why is it important to study this group?

Speaker 2: Because people with metastatic disease are living longer, and understanding how diet affects their overall health is increasingly relevant. Plus, it may offer faster insights into treatment impacts.

Speaker 1: How was the study designed?

Speaker 2: It was an 8-week randomized controlled trial with two groups: 21 women in the WFPB intervention group and 11 in the control group, all diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer and on stable treatment.

Speaker 1: What did the WFPB intervention involve?

Speaker 2: Participants were provided with three meals and a side dish daily, weekly check-ins, education, coaching, and phone support. It was ad libitum—eat as much approved food as desired.

Speaker 1: And the control group?

Speaker 2: They continued their usual diets, received two check-in calls, and after the study, got two weeks of meals and educational materials as a thank-you.

Speaker 1: What metrics were tracked?

Speaker 2: Weight, BMI, blood pressure, and a wide range of blood markers—cholesterol, glucose, insulin, hormones (like testosterone, SHBG, IGF-1), and cancer markers (CA-15-3, CA-27.29, CEA).

Speaker 1: What were the main findings?

Speaker 2: The diet group lost 6.6% of their body weight (~1.5 lbs/week). They lost 9 pounds more than the control group, and BMI dropped by 1.7 points—both statistically significant.

Speaker 1: What about cholesterol?

Speaker 2: Total cholesterol dropped nearly 18%, and LDL cholesterol over 21% within the diet group. Compared to control, total cholesterol was 35 points lower, LDL 23 points lower—again, very significant.

Speaker 1: Any changes in insulin or glucose?

Speaker 2: Yes. Fasting insulin and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) dropped significantly in the WFPB group. Fasting glucose trended lower but wasn’t statistically significant (p = 0.11).

Speaker 1: Were there any hormone changes?

Speaker 2: SHBG increased significantly, potentially reducing active hormone levels. Free testosterone trended lower (p = 0.08). Estradiol levels were undetectable due to menopause or treatments.

Speaker 1: Any changes in IGF-1?

Speaker 2: IGF-1 dropped within the diet group, but the difference between groups wasn’t statistically significant.

Speaker 1: What about cancer markers?

Speaker 2: No significant differences in CA-15-3, CA-27.29, or CEA between the groups—likely because most levels were already in the normal range at baseline.

Speaker 1: Were there any side effects?

Speaker 2: Very few. Three women had mild hypotension, possibly due to weight loss. One control participant felt lightheaded after a blood draw. Dose reductions of cancer therapy were equal in both groups.

Speaker 1: Did dietary habits change?

Speaker 2: Yes. The intervention group consumed more food by volume but fewer calories, thanks to high-fiber, low-calorie-dense plant foods. This is consistent with WFPB principles.

Speaker 1: What conclusions can we draw?

Speaker 2: This study shows that a WFPB diet is feasible, safe, and can lead to significant improvements in weight, cholesterol, insulin sensitivity, and possibly hormones for women with metastatic breast cancer.

Speaker 1: What limitations did the authors note?

Speaker 2: Short duration (8 weeks), small sample size (especially in the control group), lack of racial diversity, and unbalanced contact with study staff. Also, effects on cancer outcomes weren't measurable.

Speaker 1: And the study’s strengths?

Speaker 2: Substantial dietary adherence, high retention rates, feasibility, and strong metabolic improvements—all indicate the intervention was well tolerated and potentially impactful.

Speaker 1: So what’s the key takeaway?

Speaker 2: Intentional dietary changes—especially toward a whole food, plant-based approach—may help manage weight and reduce health risks in women undergoing treatment for metastatic breast cancer. But more research is needed.

Speaker 1: Any final words of advice?

Speaker 2: Yes. Always consult your healthcare provider before making major dietary changes, especially during active cancer treatment. But this study shows that food could play a powerful supportive role.

Transcript has been edited for clarity.

A new meta-analysis of over 90,000 patients confirms what clinicians are beginning to see in practice: SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduce hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular mortality not just in diabetes, but also in heart failure and CKD populations.

 

Transcript

Speaker 1: You know, when you look at the big health challenges facing us globally, what stands out to you?

Speaker 2: It’s the rise of chronic metabolic diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart failure. It’s not just about getting these conditions—it’s their impact on people’s lives and longevity. With aging populations and lifestyle changes, this burden is only expected to grow.

Speaker 1: That’s definitely a concern. So what makes finding new management strategies for these conditions so important?

Speaker 2: Any new ways to understand and manage these conditions are crucial, which brings us to the topic today—SGLT2 inhibitors, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors.

Speaker 1: Right, originally developed for type 2 diabetes. But there’s more to their story now, isn’t there?

Speaker 2: Exactly. Initially, they worked by preventing the kidneys from reabsorbing glucose, lowering blood sugar by increasing glucose excretion in urine. But recent research is revealing broader benefits.

Speaker 1: What kind of benefits are we talking about beyond glucose control?

Speaker 2: There’s strong evidence these drugs help protect the heart and kidneys—not just in people with diabetes, but also in those with heart failure or chronic kidney disease.

Speaker 1: That’s a significant shift in how we view them. What kind of evidence supports this?

Speaker 2: A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis in Medicino pooled data from 13 randomized controlled trials involving over 90,000 participants. It included studies published between September 2021 and May 2023, giving us a very current picture.

Speaker 1: Let’s start with type 2 diabetes. What did the review show?

Speaker 2: Seven RCTs showed SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction by 12% (HR 0.88, CI 0.78–0.98), heart failure hospitalization by 33% (HR 0.67, CI 0.62–0.74), and cardiac death by 15% (HR 0.85, CI 0.75–0.95).

Speaker 1: Were there any areas where the benefit was less clear?

Speaker 2: Yes, the reduction in non-fatal stroke wasn’t statistically significant (HR 0.95, CI 0.80–1.13).

Speaker 1: What about safety for type 2 diabetes patients?

Speaker 2: Overall adverse events showed a slight, nearly significant reduction (RR 0.98, CI 0.96–1.00). Hypoglycemia wasn’t significantly increased (RR 0.92, CI 0.83–1.02), but there was an 8% increase in urinary tract infections (RR 1.08, CI 1.01–1.16). Importantly, acute kidney injury risk was reduced by 22% (RR 0.78, CI 0.67–0.89).

Speaker 1: How did these drugs perform in people already diagnosed with heart failure?

Speaker 2: Five RCTs showed a 28% reduction in heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.72, CI 0.66–0.77) and a 12% drop in cardiac death (HR 0.88, CI 0.80–0.96). No significant increase in adverse events, hypoglycemia (RR 1.01, CI 0.80–1.29), UTIs (RR 1.13, CI 0.99–1.29), or acute kidney injury (RR 0.94, CI 0.83–1.06) was observed.

Speaker 1: And for patients with chronic kidney disease?

Speaker 2: Four RCTs showed a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.65, CI 0.55–0.76), and a 16% reduction in cardiac death (HR 0.84, CI 0.73–0.96). Overall adverse events were reduced by 5% (RR 0.95, CI 0.91–0.99), hypoglycemia risk wasn’t significantly increased (RR 0.94, CI 0.82–1.07), and no significant increase in UTIs (RR 1.06, CI 0.97–1.16). AKI risk was reduced by 19% (RR 0.81, CI 0.69–0.97).

Speaker 1: Did the analysis explore differences based on kidney function?

Speaker 2: Yes, they looked at patients with EGFR above vs. below 45. SGLT2 inhibitors appeared more effective at reducing adverse events in those with better baseline kidney function (EGFR > 45).

Speaker 1: This clearly shows benefits beyond glucose lowering. What are the proposed mechanisms?

Speaker 2: In heart failure, mechanisms may include improved cardiac energy use via ketone metabolism, anti-inflammatory effects, reduced fibrosis, and mild diuretic actions. In CKD, changes in kidney blood flow via tubular-glomerular feedback lower intraglomerular pressure and may reduce inflammation and fibrosis, improving oxygenation and fluid balance.

Speaker 1: What about the earlier concerns over acute kidney injury?

Speaker 2: Initially, dips in EGFR were seen as harmful. But now, larger data suggest these changes reflect protective hemodynamic shifts, not injury. Kidney oxygenation and metabolic changes might also help prevent AKI.

Speaker 1: Let’s talk study limitations.

Speaker 2: Participants were mainly Caucasian or Asian, average age 66, so generalizability could be limited. Trials varied in design, drugs, and dosages, and as a meta-analysis of published data, it’s limited to reported information.

Speaker 1: And the strengths?

Speaker 2: Comprehensive search, robust statistics, large and diverse population, and low bias in included RCTs make this a strong evidence base. They accounted for study differences appropriately.

Speaker 1: Final thoughts—what are the key takeaways?

Speaker 2: SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduce cardiovascular and kidney risks in T2DM, HF, and CKD. They’re generally safe, with the main caution being a slight UTI increase in T2DM. Overall, they’re emerging as vital tools in managing cardio-renal-metabolic health—not just diabetes.

Transcript has been edited for clarity.