Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41856447›Full record

SynthesisAmerican heart journal2026

American Heart Association cardiovascular health metrics and cancer outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jocelyn Torres, Suzanne Navarro, Hua Gao, Ting Xiong, Mackenzie R Wehner, Ernest T Hawk, Nicholas J Leeper, Kevin T Nead

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American heart journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Jocelyn TorresDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Suzanne NavarroDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford, CA.
Hua GaoDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford, CA.
Ting XiongDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford, CA.
Mackenzie R WehnerDepartment of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Department of Dermatology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Ernest T HawkDivision of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Nicholas J LeeperDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford, CA.
Kevin T NeadDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: ktnead@mdanderson.org.

Funding

Impact of clonal hematopoiesis mutations on toxicity and outcomes following oncologic therapyK08CA263313 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI NEAD, KEVIN THOMAS · 2021 to 2025
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA263313
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiovascular disease and cancer have numerous shared risk factors. Our objective is to determine whether American Heart Association (AHA) cardiovascular health (CVH) metrics are associated with cancer outcomes.

methodsWe searched PubMed and Scopus (inception to July 15, 2025). We included cohort studies examining the association of AHA CVH metrics with cancer risk and cancer mortality. We conducted meta-analyses to generate summary risk ratios (RRs), hazard ratios (HRs), and standard errors for outcomes with at least 3 contributing studies reporting associations with low (worse), moderate, and high (best) CVH score groups. We utilized meta regression to examine dose-response relationships of CVH score groups.

resultsOur systematic review included 26 studies. Moderate (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.91, P < .001) and high (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.81, P < .001) CVH scores were associated with decreased overall cancer risk with evidence of a dose-response effect for more favorable groups (coefficient, -0.09; standard error [SE], 0.02; P < .001). High CVH scores were associated with statistically significantly decreased risk of breast (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90), colorectal (RR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.57-0.74), and lung cancer (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.70). We found evidence for lower cancer mortality in the moderate (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68, P < .001) and high (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41-0.53, P < .001) CVH score groups. Meta regression demonstrated a dose-response effect on all cancer mortality (coefficient, -0.33; SE, 0.05; P < .001).

conclusionsWe provide evidence for a dose response association of better CVH scores with decreased cancer incidence and cancer mortality. Optimizing CVH may improve cancer outcomes.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesNeoplasmsAmerican Heart AssociationHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsUnited StatesVascular Health

Identifiers

PMID41856447
PMCPMC13480866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.