ArticleBMC cancer2026
Association between non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio and mortality in cancer patients: a cohort study.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the improvement in long-term survival of cancer patients, cancer is increasingly being regarded as a chronic disease, whose long-term prognosis is influenced not only by the tumor itself but also significantly constrained by non-cancer factors. Dyslipidemia, especially the imbalance between non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), has been suggested to be associated with cancer prognosis. However, the specific association between the non-HDL-C to HDL-C ratio (NHHR) and mortality risk in cancer patients remains unclear. This study aims to investigate the relationship between NHHR and all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer-specific mortality in cancer patients, providing a scientific basis for clinical risk assessment and management.
methodsThis cohort study included 3524 cancer patients from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2018. Weighted multivariable Cox models were used to evaluate the associations between NHHR and mortality. Dose-response relationships were examined using restricted cubic splines and piecewise Cox models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were further conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.
resultsRestricted cubic splines revealed a U-shaped association between NHHR and both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, with the lowest risk observed at NHHR values of 3.33 and 3.02, respectively. Threshold effect analysis showed that when baseline NHHR was below the inflection points, NHHR was negatively associated with all-cause mortality (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.71-0.88) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.94). Conversely, when baseline NHHR exceeded the inflection points, NHHR was positively associated with all-cause mortality (HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.20-1.73) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.20-2.45). No significant associations were observed between NHHR and cancer-related mortality. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed consistent results, with no significant interactions.
conclusionIn cancer patients, NHHR exhibited a U-shaped association with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, with the respective inflection points at 3.33 and 3.02. No significant association was detected between NHHR and cancer-related mortality.
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.