ArticleBMJ public health2025
Cardiovascular disease risk in cancer survivors: a population-based cohort study from the UK Biobank, and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Risk of incident cardiovascular disease events among older Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander colorectal cancer survivors in the United States: a cohort study.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Long-term TSH suppression in metabolically unhealthy survivors of differentiated thyroid cancer: a cardiovascular perspective.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In addition to the well-recognised cardiotoxicity of cancer treatment, possible aetiological links between cancer diagnosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD) have gained growing research interests. We aimed to estimate the CVD burden among cancer survivors and illustrate population-level associations between these two conditions. Methods: We first conducted a prospective cohort study in the UK Biobank and a meta-analysis of previous population-based cohorts. HRs were estimated in the cohort study to evaluate the effect of cancer diagnosis on the subsequent risk of CVD compared with that of non-cancer individuals. We then systematically searched Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library to retrieve previous cohorts. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to pool relative risk estimates. A combination of multiple statistical metrics was employed to appraise the evidence. Results: A total of 39 755 811 participants (5 898 597 cancer survivors vs 33 857 214 cancer-free controls) were identified in our study. In the cohort study, a 51% higher hazard of CVD risk was found among cancer survivors (95% CI 1.48 to 1.55, p<0.001). The hazard decreased to 29% after adjusting competing risk. The meta-analysis identified 104 published cohorts. We found a 1.34-fold increased CVD risk among patients with cancer (95% CI 1.22 to 1.47, p<0.001). The association remains significant among multiple cancer sites and multiple CVD subtypes. This association was consistent, irrespective of chemo or radiotherapy use. Evidence appraisal identified one convincing association between hematologic/lymphatic malignancies and ischaemic heart disease, along with 29 highly suggestive associations. Conclusions: Our study provided comprehensive estimates of CVD incidence in cancer survivors and identified a significantly elevated CVD risk among patients with cancer, regardless of chemotherapy or radiotherapy. These findings underscore the need for routine assessment of CVD risk factors at cancer diagnosis to enhance the well-being and survival of patients with cancer.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022307056.
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.