Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33177117›Full record

ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2021

Endocrine therapy use and cardiovascular risk in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors.

Anthony A Matthews, Sharon Peacock Hinton, Susannah Stanway, Alexander Richard Lyon, Liam Smeeth, Jennifer L Lund, Krishnan Bhaskaran

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A disease of her own? Unique features of heart failure in women.Climacteric : the journal of the International Menopause Society · 2024
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Anthony A MatthewsInstitute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden anthony.matthews@ki.se.ORCID 0000-0002-1290-271X
Sharon Peacock HintonDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Susannah StanwayDepartmnet of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alexander Richard LyonNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8026-840X
Liam SmeethDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Jennifer L Lund *Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Krishnan Bhaskaran *Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBRoyal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 107731/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveExamine the effect of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) on the risk of 12 clinically relevant cardiovascular outcomes in postmenopausal female breast cancer survivors.

methodsWe carried out two prospective cohort studies among postmenopausal women with breast cancer in UK primary care and hospital data (2002-2016) and US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data (2008-2013). Using Cox adjusted proportional hazards models, we compared cardiovascular risks between AI and tamoxifen users; and in the USA, between users of both drug classes and women receiving no endocrine therapy.

results10 005 (UK) and 22 027 (USA) women with postmenopausal breast cancer were included. In both countries, there were higher coronary artery disease risks in AI compared with tamoxifen users (UK age-standardised incidence rate: 10.17 vs 7.51 per 1000 person-years, HR: 1.29, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.76; US age-standardised incidence rate: 36.82 vs 26.02 per 1000 person-years, HR: 1.29, 95% C I1.06 to 1.55). However, comparisons with those receiving no endocrine therapy (US data) showed no higher risk for either drug class and a lower risk in tamoxifen users (age-standardised incidence rate tamoxifen vs unexposed: 26.02 vs 35.19 per 1000 person-years, HR: 0.74, 95% 0.60 to 0.92; age-standardised incidence rate AI vs unexposed: 36.82 vs 35.19, HR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10). Similar patterns were seen for other cardiovascular outcomes (arrhythmia, heart failure and valvular heart disease). As expected, there was more venous thromboembolism in tamoxifen compared with both AI users and those unexposed.

conclusionsHigher risks of several cardiovascular outcomes among AI compared with tamoxifen users appeared to be driven by protective effects of tamoxifen, rather than cardiotoxic effects of AIs.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCardiovascular DiseasesVenous ThromboembolismAgedAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalAromatase InhibitorsCancer SurvivorsFemaleHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedPostmenopauseRisk AssessmentTamoxifenUnited KingdomAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalAromatase InhibitorsTamoxifencardiac risk factors and preventionepidemiology

Identifiers

PMID33177117
PMCPMC8327412
OpenAlexW3103019079

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.