ArticleJACC. CardioOncology2024
Predictive Performance of Cardiovascular Risk Scores in Cancer Survivors From the UK Biobank.
Article in JACC. CardioOncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cardiovascular risk-prediction models in cancer survivors: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2026Pooled it
- Risk prediction models for cancer therapy related cardiac dysfunction in patients with cancer and cancer survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- Machine learning-enhanced baseline risk prediction models for cancer therapy related cardiac dysfunction: a systematic review and critical appraisal of methodological quality.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Risk-guided cardioprotection in cardio-oncology.Nature cardiovascular research · 2026Review
- Cerebrovascular Accident Risk in Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer: JACC CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review.JACC. CardioOncology · 2026Review
- Performance of Traditional Cardiovascular Risk Scores and Objective Optimization in Cancer Survivors.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular risk assessment characterized by proteomics in cancer survivors.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Multidimensional nomogram for prediction of cardiovascular disease risk in cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- The B-SCancers · 2025Article
- Evolving Cardioprotective Strategies in Cardio-Oncology: A Narrative Review.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Patients With Kidney Cancer: Time for New Survivorship Goals.JACC. CardioOncology · 2025Article
- A novel machine learning-based cancer-specific cardiovascular disease risk score among patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Atherosclerosis and the Bidirectional Relationship Between Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease: From Bench to Bedside, Part 2 Management.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Time to Rethink Using Cardiovascular Risk Scores for Cancer Survivors.JACC. CardioOncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular preventive strategies are guided by risk scores with unknown validity in cancer cohorts. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of 7 established cardiovascular risk scores in cancer survivors from the UK Biobank. Methods: The predictive performance of QRISK3, Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2)/Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation for Older Persons (SCORE-OP), Framingham Risk Score, Pooled Cohort equations to Prevent Heart Failure (PCP-HF), CHARGE-AF, QStroke, and CHA Results: The analysis included 31,534 cancer survivors and 126,136 covariate-matched controls. Risk score distributions were near identical in cases and controls. Participants with any cancer had a significantly higher incidence of all cardiovascular outcomes than matched controls. Performance metrics were significantly worse for all risk scores in cancer cases than in matched controls. The most notable differences were among participants with a history of hematologic malignancies who had significantly higher outcome rates and poorer risk score performance than their matched controls. The performance of risk scores for predicting stroke in participants with brain/central nervous system cancer was very poor, with predictive accuracy more than 30% lower than noncancer controls. Conclusions: Existing cardiovascular risk scores have significantly worse predictive accuracy in cancer survivors compared with noncancer comparators, leading to an underestimation of risk in this cohort.
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.