ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2018
Interventional Cardio-Oncology: Adding a New Dimension to the Cardio-Oncology Field.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting treatment-related cardiovascular risks in breast cancer patients: development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients with Cancer.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Outcomes of patients with active cancer after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Mechanisms of Myocardial Ischemia in Cancer Patients: A State-of-the-Art Review of Obstructive Versus Non-Obstructive Causes.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Interventional Strategies in Cancer-induced Cardiovascular Disease.Current oncology reports · 2021Review
- Study on the Correlation Factors of Tumour Prognosis after Intravascular Interventional Therapy.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Machine Learning-Augmented Propensity Score Analysis of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Over 30 Million Cancer and Non-cancer Patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Differential predictive factors for cardiovascular events in patients with or without cancer history.Medicine · 2019Observational
- Article
- The Onco-cardiologist Dilemma: to Implant, to Defer, or to Avoid Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Cancer Patients with Aortic Stenosis?Current cardiology reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of cardiovascular disease in patients with active cancer presents a unique challenge in interventional cardiology. Cancer patients often suffer from significant comorbidities such as thrombocytopenia and coagulopathic and/or hypercoagulable states, which complicates invasive evaluation and can specifically be associated with an increased risk for vascular access complications. Furthermore, anticancer therapies cause injury to the vascular endothelium as well as the myocardium. Meanwhile, improvements in diagnosis and treatment of various cancers have contributed to an increase in overall survival rates in cancer patients. Proper management of this patient population is unclear, as cancer patients are largely excluded from randomized clinical trials on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and national PCI registries. In this review, we will discuss the role of different safety measures that can be applied prior to and during these invasive cardiovascular procedures as well as the role of intravascular imaging techniques in managing these high risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.