ArticleCardio-oncology (London, England)2026
Heterogeneity in proportional cardiovascular co-listing on cancer death certificates in the United States: a national multiple cause-of-death analysis, 1999-2020.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer share common risk factors, and cancer survivors experience elevated long-term cardiotoxicity. Traditional risk-based metrics require person-time denominators that are unavailable in aggregate public health databases. This study introduces a proportional co-listing framework to detect population-level cardiovascular surveillance signals on death certificates across cancer types and demographic strata.
methodsWe conducted a national cross-sectional surveillance analysis using CDC WONDER Multiple Cause-of-Death data from 1999 to 2020 for decedents aged ≥ 15 years. Utilizing an "any-mention" framework, we calculated the Proportional Mortality Ratio (PMR), defined as the ratio of CVD co-listing on cancer-related death certificates to CVD listing on non-cancer certificates. Temporal trends were evaluated using joinpoint regression to estimate the average annual percent change (AAPC). Analyses were stratified by age, sex, race/ethnicity, geography, and index cancer subtypes (lung, colon, and leukaemia).
resultsOf 56,014,102 death certificates analyzed, 13,917,133 (24.8%) listed a malignant neoplasm, of which 3,997,238 (28.7%) co-listed CVD. Across the lifespan, the overall PMR followed a reverse J-shaped curve. Proportional co-listing was highest in the youngest cohort (ages 15-24: PMR 1.828, 95% CI: 1.778-1.879), declined to a nadir at ages 55-64 (PMR 0.336, 95% CI: 0.335-0.337), and rose modestly in older adulthood. From 1999 to 2020, PMRs increased significantly across all adult age groups, peaking at ages 55-64 (AAPC 1.69%, 95% CI: 1.52-1.83, p < 0.001). Young-adult PMR elevations were consistently higher in male, metropolitan, and Hispanic/Latino decedents. Among subtypes, leukaemia demonstrated the highest relative CVD co-listing in young adults (PMR 2.174), whereas colon cancer showed no statistically significant elevation (PMR 1.173, 95% CI: 0.951-1.447).
conclusionsCardiovascular co-listing on US cancer death certificates is highly patterned by age, demographics, and cancer subtype. While elevated PMRs in young adults are consistent with patterns previously reported in cardio-oncology literature, sub-unity PMRs in middle-aged and older adults may reflect under-documentation of cardiovascular comorbidities in oncology settings alongside denominator effects arising from frequent CVD listing on non-cancer certificates. Improving comorbidity documentation on death certificates may enhance the utility of national administrative data for cardio-oncology surveillance and research.
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.