ArticleCardio-oncology (London, England)2024
Comparison of heart failure risk assessment tools among cancer survivors.
Article in Cardio-oncology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cardiovascular risk-prediction models in cancer survivors: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Integrated Model for Predicting Cancer Therapy-Related Cardiac Dysfunction in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Development of an Electronic Medical Record-Based Score for Heart Failure Prediction in Cancer Survivors.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- The Role of Frailty in Cardio-oncology and its Challenges.European cardiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer survivors have an increased risk of incident heart failure (HF) attributable to shared risk factors and cancer treatment-induced cardiac dysfunction. Selection for HF screening depends on risk assessment, but the optimal means of assessing risk is undefined. We undertook a comparison of HF risk calculators among survivors.
methodsIn this study from the UK Biobank, cancer and HF diagnoses were determined based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code and non-cancer participants were included as controls. Participants' risk of incident HF was determined using the Heart Failure Association-International Cardio-oncology Society (HFA-ICOS), the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC-HF) and the Pooled Cohort Equations to Prevent Heart Failure (PCP-HF). The predictive performances of each were compared using the area under the curve (AUC).
resultsAfter propensity matching with age and sex, 9,232 survivors from breast cancer or lymphoma (mean age 59.9 years, 87.8% female), and 23,800 survivors from other cancer types (mean age 59.1 years, 85.8% female) were included in the analysis. The discriminative value for HFA-ICOS (AUC 0.753 [95%CI: 0.739-0.766]) and ARIC-HF (0.757 [95%CI: 0.744-0.770]) were similar, and superior to PCP-HF (0.717 [95%CI: 0.702-0.732]). The overall performance for each risk score was better among participants in other cancer types than those with breast cancer and lymphoma.
conclusionsHFA-ICOS and ARIC-HF outperformed the PCP-HF among cancer- and non-cancer cohort, although all showed modest discrimination for incident HF to be applied to clinical practice. A cancer-specific HF prediction tool could facilitate HF prevention among survivors.
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.