ReviewJACC. CardioOncology2025
Cardiovascular Safety in Oncology Clinical Trials: JACC: CardioOncology Primer.
Review in JACC. CardioOncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Regulatory challenges and current policy for cardiotoxicity detection in oncology drug development.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Review
- Clinical spectrum and mechanistic insights into cardiotoxicity from cancer therapies.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Review
- Ivabradine as a Cardio-Protective Agent Against Anthracycline-Induced Cardiotoxicity: A Narrative Review.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Review
- Electrocardiographic changes in immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated cardiac injury: a narrative review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in cancer patients and survivors. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC and the ESC Council of Cardio-Oncology.European journal of heart failure · 2025Article
- Mismatch Between Preclinical Cardio-Oncology and Clinical Oncology Research.JACC. CardioOncology · 2025Article
- Cardiac biomarkers for risk stratification in newly diagnosed high-risk multiple myeloma in the GMMG-CONCEPT trial.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular Care After Cancer: Is It Time to Emphasize Event-Free Survival Rather Than Cardiovascular Risk?JACC. CardioOncology · 2025Article
- Risk analysis of cardiovascular mortality after gastric cancer diagnosis: a large population-based study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of novel treatments has improved cancer outcomes but may result in cardiovascular toxicities. Traditional approaches to clinical trial safety evaluation have limitations in their ability to detect signals of cardiovascular risk. Mechanisms to increase power and specificity to clarify cardiovascular safety are required. However, implications include increased costs and slower development. The Cardiovascular Safety Research Consortium facilitated stakeholder discussions with representation from academia, industry, and regulators. A think tank was assembled with the aim of providing recommendations for improved collection and reporting of cardiovascular safety signals in oncology trials. Two working groups were formed. The first focuses on incorporation of consensus definitions of cardiovascular disease into the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events used in oncology trial reporting. The second group considers methods for ascertainment and adjudication of cardiovascular events in cancer trials. The overarching aim of this primer is to improve understanding of the potential cardiovascular toxicities of cancer therapies.
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.