ArticleBMJ open2019
Trends in the risk of cardiovascular disease in women with breast cancer in a Dutch nationwide cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardioprotective effects of exercise training on doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy: a systematic review with meta-analysis of preclinical studies.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Cardiovascular mortality trends and disparities in U.S. breast cancer patients, 1999-2020: a population-based retrospective study.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Impact of cancer diagnosis on distribution and trends of cardiovascular hospitalizations in the USA between 2004 and 2017.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2022Article
- Breast cancer and incident cardiovascular events: A systematic analysis at the nationwide level.European journal of clinical investigation · 2022Article
- Strategies to Prevent Cardiovascular Toxicity in Breast Cancer: Is It Ready for Primetime?Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate trends in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk following breast cancer using national registry data.
methodsA nationwide cohort study was conducted, comprising 163 881 women with in situ (7.6%) or invasive (92.4%) breast cancer and women of the general population, ranging from 3 661 141 in 1996 to 4 566 573 in 2010. CVD mortality rate in women with and without breast cancer and hospitalisation rate after breast cancer were calculated for the years 1996-2010. Age-adjusted CVD and breast cancer mortality within 5 years after breast cancer admission (1997-2010) were compared with 1996 calculated with a Cox proportional hazard analysis.
resultsThe absolute 10-year CVD mortality risk following breast cancer decreased from 56 per 1000 women in 1996 to 41 in 2005 (relative reduction=27.8%). In the general population, this decreased from 73 per 1000 women in 1996 to 55 in 2005 (-23.9%). The absolute risk of CVD hospitalisation within 1 year following breast cancer increased from 54 per 1000 women in 1996 to 67 in 2009 (+23.6%), which was largely explained by an increase in hospitalisation for hypertension, pulmonary embolism, rheumatoid heart/valve disease and heart failure. The 5-year CVD mortality risk was 42% lower (HR 0.58, 95% CI=0.48 to 0.70) for women admitted for breast cancer in 2010 compared with 1996.
conclusionsCVD mortality risk decreased in women with breast cancer and in women of the general population, with women with breast cancer having a lower risk of CVD mortality. By contrast, there was an increase in hospitalisation for CVD in women with breast cancer.
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.