ArticleCardio-oncology (London, England)2026
Clinical utility of the HFA-ICOS risk tool in real-world HER2-positive breast cancer patients receiving therapy.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe HFA-ICOS baseline cardiovascular risk stratification framework is widely recommended to guide surveillance in patients receiving potentially cardiotoxic cancer therapies, yet real-world evidence supporting its clinical risk separation remains limited.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective study of adults with HER2-positive breast cancer treated at tertiary centers from 2016 to 2023. Baseline cardiovascular risk was classified by the HFA-ICOS framework (low to very high). The primary outcome was composite cardiotoxicity, defined by a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), deterioration in global longitudinal strain (GLS), ECG/arrhythmia events, or elevated cardiac biomarkers. Cardiovascular risk rates and patterns were compared across categories. Discrimination and calibration were explored, with logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses performed.
resultsAmong 687 patients, 273 (39.7%) developed composite cardiotoxicity during follow-up. Cardiotoxicity occurred across all HFA-ICOS risk categories, with overlap in event rates and timing. Discrimination analyses showed modest performance for LVEF, GLS, ECG, and composite outcomes, with AUCs of 0.51-0.55. Sensitivity was low (0.28-0.37), while specificity was moderate (0.73-0.74). Calibration analyses indicated acceptable risk prediction. Multivariable models adjusted for age, comorbidities, baseline LVEF, prior anthracycline, and radiation therapy showed that baseline HFA-ICOS category was not independently associated with cardiotoxicity (aOR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.56-1.37). Kaplan-Meier curves showed overlapping event-free survival across risk groups.
conclusionsIn this real-world cohort of HER2-positive breast cancer patients, baseline HFA-ICOS stratification showed limited ability to clearly distinguish cardiotoxicity risk across categories. These findings suggest that baseline risk assessment alone may be insufficient for individualized prediction and should be complemented by dynamic, on-treatment surveillance strategies.
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.