Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33081013›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020

Hypertensive Cardiotoxicity in Cancer Treatment-Systematic Analysis of Adjunct, Conventional Chemotherapy, and Novel Therapies-Epidemiology, Incidence, and Pathophysiology.

Robin Chung, Sara Tyebally, Daniel Chen, Vikas Kapil, J Malcolm Walker, Daniel Addison, Roohi Ismail-Khan, Avirup Guha, Arjun K Ghosh

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The intersection of heart failure and cancer in women: a review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Robin ChungCardio-Oncology Service, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
Sara TyeballyCardio-Oncology Service, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
Daniel ChenCardio-Oncology Service, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
Vikas KapilBarts Blood Pressure Centre of Excellence, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
J Malcolm WalkerCardio-Oncology Service, University College London Hospital, London WC1E 6HX, UK.
Daniel AddisonCardio-Oncology Program, Division of Cardiology, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Roohi Ismail-KhanCardio-Oncology Program, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL 33559, USA.
Avirup GuhaCardio-Oncology Program, Division of Cardiology, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Arjun K GhoshCardio-Oncology Service, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
University College Hospital · GBSt Bartholomew's Hospital · GBThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USMoffitt Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiotoxicity is the umbrella term for cardiovascular side effects of cancer therapies. The most widely recognized phenotype is left ventricular dysfunction, but cardiotoxicity can manifest as arrhythmogenic, vascular, myocarditic and hypertensive toxicities. Hypertension has long been regarded as one of the most prevalent and modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in the general population, but its relevance during the cancer treatment journey may be underestimated. Hypertensive cardiotoxicity occurs de novo in a substantial proportion of treated cancer patients. The pathology is incompletely characterized-natriuresis and renin angiotensin system interactions play a role particularly in conventional treatments, but in novel therapies endothelial dysfunction and the interaction between the cancer and cardiac kinome are implicated. There exists a treatment paradox in that a significant hypertensive response not only mandates anti-hypertensive treatment, but in fact, in certain cancer treatment scenarios, hypertension is a predictor of cancer treatment efficacy and response. In this comprehensive review of over 80,000 patients, we explored the epidemiology, incidence, and mechanistic pathophysiology of hypertensive cardiotoxicity in adjunct, conventional chemotherapy, and novel cancer treatments. Conventional chemotherapy, adjunct treatments, and novel targeted therapies collectively caused new onset hypertension in 33-68% of treated patients. The incidence of hypertensive cardiotoxicity across twenty common novel therapies for any grade hypertension ranged from 4% (imatinib) to 68% (lenvatinib), and high grade 3 or 4 hypertension in < 1% (imatinib) to 42% (lenvatinib). The weighted average effect was all-grade hypertension in 24% and grade 3 or 4 hypertension in 8%.

Indexed as

cancercardio-oncologycardiotoxicityhypertensiontyrosine kinase inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID33081013
PMCPMC7603211
OpenAlexW3093261179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.