Which cancer types (e.g., colorectal, glioblastoma) are being studied with ivermectin in trials in 2024–2025?

1. What human trials are actually registered or reported? — TNBC is the standout

The documents point to a Phase I/II clinical program combining ivermectin with PD‑1/PD‑1‑class immunotherapy in metastatic triple‑negative breast cancer: a Gateway for Cancer Research listing and an AACR abstract describe a balstilimab (anti‑PD‑1) + ivermectin study; ASCO/Journal of Clinical Oncology abstracts report the phase I/II study results or status into 2025 ^{[3] [4] [5]}. Coverage from news/advocacy outlets and later ASCO abstracts also reference this same TNBC program and report that a 2025 abstract showed little or no benefit from adding ivermectin to immunotherapy ^{[6] [7]}.

2. Preclinical breadth vs clinical scarcity — many cancers in lab studies, few human trials

Reviews and laboratory papers catalog ivermectin activity across a wide range of cancer cell lines and animal models — examples in the sources include lung adenocarcinoma, pancreatic, prostate, bladder, osteosarcoma, leukemia, glioblastoma and others — with reported antiproliferative, proapoptotic and resistance‑reversing effects in vitro and in vivo ^{[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]}. However, these same reviews stress that "clinical evidence in humans is limited" and that human clinical trial literature is scarce, signaling a large gap between lab work and proven patient benefit ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Which cancer types appear repeatedly in preclinical or small studies? — where interest is concentrated

The strongest recurring preclinical mentions in the provided materials include triple‑negative breast cancer (mechanistic synergy with checkpoint blockade), lung cancer (adenocarcinoma/non‑small cell models), pancreatic cancer (in vitro combination work), prostate and bladder cancer cell models, and various hematologic malignancy cell studies ^{[13] [12] [9] [14] [15]}. Reviews and older translational papers also point to activity in colon/colorectal models and glioma/glioblastoma in cell lines, but those are predominantly preclinical observations rather than controlled human trials ^{[2] [11] [16]}.

4. What the clinical abstracts and commentary actually report about efficacy and safety

The Phase I/II immunotherapy + ivermectin trial in metastatic TNBC reached conference abstract reporting in 2024–2025; commentary and reporting of ASCO abstracts state that the study showed "no real benefit" or "no real effect" from adding ivermectin to immunotherapy based on those preliminary results ^{[6] [7]}. Reviews caution that published human data are limited and call for rigorous trials, while others warn against patients foregoing proven therapies to pursue ivermectin ^{[1] [17]}.

5. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas in the coverage

Academic reviews and preclinical groups emphasize mechanistic rationale (e.g., ivermectin converting "cold" tumors "hot" and targeting PAK1/EGFR/Akt/mTOR pathways) and call for trials to test those mechanisms clinically ^{[13] [8] [12]}. Patient‑facing outlets and advocacy pieces amplify hopes but also report null or weak early human data and urge caution ^{[7] [6]}. Advocacy organizations or blogs that promote repurposing low‑cost drugs may frame ivermectin as an accessible alternative; clinical commentators stress the risk of misinformation and the ethical danger of patients foregoing standard care ^{[1] [18] [6]}.

6. What is not supported by the provided sources

Available sources do not mention large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating benefit of ivermectin in colorectal cancer, glioblastoma, or most other cancer types in 2024–2025 — the human trial evidence in the materials is limited to early‑phase TNBC combination studies and otherwise preclinical work ^{[1] [2]}. Claims that ivermectin is a proven cancer therapy in humans are not supported by the supplied reporting ^[1].

7. Takeaway for clinicians, patients, and journalists

The evidence base in 2024–2025 is predominantly preclinical across many cancer types, with the clearest human trial activity focused on combining ivermectin with immune‑checkpoint therapy in metastatic TNBC and preliminary reports suggesting little benefit so far; expert sources urge caution and rigorous clinical testing rather than off‑label use or replacing standard therapies ^{[13] [1] [6]}. Reporters and clinicians should disclose the strong preclinical interest while making explicit that robust human efficacy and safety data remain limited ^{[2] [1]}.