ArticleCardio-oncology (London, England)2026
Coronary artery calcification burden in cancer vs. non-cancer populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Cardio-oncology (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) events contribute to morbidity in cancer survivors, yet it is unclear whether this reflects increased atherosclerotic burden. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring is a sensitive, non-invasive marker of atherosclerotic burden. This review aims to establish differences in the prevalence and severity of CAC between cancer survivors and non-cancer controls.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to January 2025 for studies comparing CAC between adult cancer patients and matched non-cancer controls. The primary outcome was CAC presence (Agatston score > 0) and the secondary outcome was CAC score. We recorded differences in demographic and cardiovascular risk profiles between cancer patients and controls. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled risk differences and Cohen’s d.
resultsTwelve studies (2,182 cancer patients [mean age 59.8 years, 49% female]; 16,524 controls [mean age 58.7 years, 54% female]) were included. Cancer patients and controls had overall comparable cardiovascular risk profiles. Cancer patients were older, more often male, and had more dyslipidaemia but less hypertension and diabetes. CAC prevalence did not differ between groups (risk difference 0.05; 95% CI: − 0.03 to 0.12; p = 0.22). A secondary analysis found modestly higher CAC severity in cancer patients (Cohen’s d = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.57; p = 0.04), though between-study heterogeneity was high. Female sex was a potential contributor to this increase.
conclusionsThere was no significant difference in CAC prevalence between cancer survivors and non-cancer controls. Further research could clarify whether the CAD mortality in this population reflects plaque vulnerability, thrombotic risk or other causes.
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.