Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40524799›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

Risk of cardiovascular disease among cancer survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Qian Li, Guofu Zhang, Xiating Li, Shangzhi Xu, Huafang Wang, Jun Deng, Zhipeng Cheng, Fengjuan Fan, Shi Chen, Meng Yang and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  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

12 authors.

Qian LiInstitute of Haematology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Guofu ZhangSchool of Public Health, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, Henan, China.
Xiating LiHubei Key Laboratory of Food Nutrition and Safety, MOE Key Laboratory of Environment and Health, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Shangzhi XuDepartment of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang, China.
Huafang WangInstitute of Haematology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Jun DengInstitute of Haematology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Zhipeng ChengInstitute of Haematology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Fengjuan FanInstitute of Haematology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Shi ChenDepartment of Biobank, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Meng YangInstitute of Maternal and Child Health, Wuhan Children's Hospital (Wuhan Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital), Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Liang V TangInstitute of Haematology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Yu HuInstitute of Haematology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There have been conflicting studies on the associations between cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. The hypothesis of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether cancer survivors had an increased risk of CVD compared to those without cancer based on population-based cohort studies. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective cohort studies. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus published in any language from January 1, 1990 to February 24, 2025. We included cancer survivors and non-cancer controls. The primary outcome was the risk of CVD. The secondary outcomes included 17 CVD subtypes (e.g., ischemic heart, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular disease). Effect estimates (hazards ratios, HRs) with 95% CIs were pooled. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were performed to explore the stability of the results and the sources of heterogeneity. The protocol of this review was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42024559349. Findings: A total of 160 population-based cohort studies involving 49,395,865 participants (9,092,869 cancer survivors vs. 40,302,996 non-cancer controls) were identified. Overall, the HR for CVD in cancer survivors was 1.47 [95% CI, 1.33-1.62] compared with that in non-cancer controls. Cancer increased the risk of all 17 CVD subtypes, with cancer having the greatest effect on venous embolism, thrombosis or thrombophlebitis (HR, 3.07 [2.03-4.65]) and the least on ischemic heart disease (HR, 1.13 [1.03-1.24]). The increased risk of CVD was consistently shown in cancer survivors of brain, hematological, respiratory, male genital, and breast cancers, whereas no significant higher CVD risk was observed for other cancer types. Elevated risk of CVD was consistently shown in subgroup analyses of study design, age at cancer diagnosis, sex, location, follow-up duration, control, disease diagnosis, and therapy. Male and younger cancer survivors had elevated risk of CVD than female and older cancer survivors. Interpretation: This meta-analysis provides an up-to-date comprehensive global overview that cancer survivors had increased risk of CVD and 17 CVD subtypes than non-cancer controls. CVD risk evaluation and management need to be prioritized in cancer survivors, particularly among male, younger, and specific cancer survivors (brain, hematological, respiratory, male genital, and breast). This study provides supporting evidence that may inform future updates to guidelines for CVD prevention in cancer survivors, highlighting its public health relevance. Funding: The National Key R&D Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by CAST.

Indexed as

CancerCardiovascular diseaseCerebrovascular diseaseHeart failureMyocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID40524799
PMCPMC12169785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.