Comparison of heart failure risk assessment tools among cancer survivors.

IF 3.2 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Cheng Hwee Soh, Thomas H Marwick
{"title":"Comparison of heart failure risk assessment tools among cancer survivors.","authors":"Cheng Hwee Soh, Thomas H Marwick","doi":"10.1186/s40959-024-00267-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cancer survivors have an increased risk of incident heart failure (HF) attributable to shared risk factors and cancer treatment-induced cardiac dysfunction. Selection for HF screening depends on risk assessment, but the optimal means of assessing risk is undefined. We undertook a comparison of HF risk calculators among survivors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study from the UK Biobank, cancer and HF diagnoses were determined based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code and non-cancer participants were included as controls. Participants' risk of incident HF was determined using the Heart Failure Association-International Cardio-oncology Society (HFA-ICOS), the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC-HF) and the Pooled Cohort Equations to Prevent Heart Failure (PCP-HF). The predictive performances of each were compared using the area under the curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After propensity matching with age and sex, 9,232 survivors from breast cancer or lymphoma (mean age 59.9 years, 87.8% female), and 23,800 survivors from other cancer types (mean age 59.1 years, 85.8% female) were included in the analysis. The discriminative value for HFA-ICOS (AUC 0.753 [95%CI: 0.739-0.766]) and ARIC-HF (0.757 [95%CI: 0.744-0.770]) were similar, and superior to PCP-HF (0.717 [95%CI: 0.702-0.732]). The overall performance for each risk score was better among participants in other cancer types than those with breast cancer and lymphoma.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HFA-ICOS and ARIC-HF outperformed the PCP-HF among cancer- and non-cancer cohort, although all showed modest discrimination for incident HF to be applied to clinical practice. A cancer-specific HF prediction tool could facilitate HF prevention among survivors.</p>","PeriodicalId":9804,"journal":{"name":"Cardio-oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11468191/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardio-oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40959-024-00267-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cancer survivors have an increased risk of incident heart failure (HF) attributable to shared risk factors and cancer treatment-induced cardiac dysfunction. Selection for HF screening depends on risk assessment, but the optimal means of assessing risk is undefined. We undertook a comparison of HF risk calculators among survivors.

Methods: In this study from the UK Biobank, cancer and HF diagnoses were determined based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code and non-cancer participants were included as controls. Participants' risk of incident HF was determined using the Heart Failure Association-International Cardio-oncology Society (HFA-ICOS), the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC-HF) and the Pooled Cohort Equations to Prevent Heart Failure (PCP-HF). The predictive performances of each were compared using the area under the curve (AUC).

Results: After propensity matching with age and sex, 9,232 survivors from breast cancer or lymphoma (mean age 59.9 years, 87.8% female), and 23,800 survivors from other cancer types (mean age 59.1 years, 85.8% female) were included in the analysis. The discriminative value for HFA-ICOS (AUC 0.753 [95%CI: 0.739-0.766]) and ARIC-HF (0.757 [95%CI: 0.744-0.770]) were similar, and superior to PCP-HF (0.717 [95%CI: 0.702-0.732]). The overall performance for each risk score was better among participants in other cancer types than those with breast cancer and lymphoma.

Conclusions: HFA-ICOS and ARIC-HF outperformed the PCP-HF among cancer- and non-cancer cohort, although all showed modest discrimination for incident HF to be applied to clinical practice. A cancer-specific HF prediction tool could facilitate HF prevention among survivors.

癌症幸存者心力衰竭风险评估工具的比较。
背景:癌症幸存者发生心力衰竭(HF)的风险增加,这归因于共同的风险因素和癌症治疗引起的心功能障碍。高血压筛查的选择取决于风险评估,但风险评估的最佳方法尚未确定。我们对幸存者中的高血压风险计算器进行了比较:在这项来自英国生物库的研究中,癌症和高血压诊断是根据国际疾病分类(ICD)-10 编码确定的,非癌症参与者被列为对照组。采用心力衰竭协会-国际心脏病-肿瘤协会(HFA-ICOS)、社区动脉粥样硬化风险(ARIC-HF)和预防心力衰竭队列汇总方程(PCP-HF)确定参与者发生心力衰竭的风险。结果:根据年龄和性别进行倾向匹配后,9232 名乳腺癌或淋巴瘤幸存者(平均年龄 59.9 岁,87.8% 为女性)和 23800 名其他类型癌症幸存者(平均年龄 59.1 岁,85.8% 为女性)被纳入分析。HFA-ICOS(AUC 0.753 [95%CI:0.739-0.766])和 ARIC-HF(0.757 [95%CI:0.744-0.770])的判别值相似,优于 PCP-HF(0.717 [95%CI:0.702-0.732])。与乳腺癌和淋巴瘤患者相比,其他癌症类型参与者的各风险评分的总体表现更好:结论:HFA-ICOS和ARIC-HF在癌症和非癌症队列中的表现优于PCP-HF,但它们对HF事件的区分度都不高,无法应用于临床实践。癌症特异性高血压预测工具有助于幸存者预防高血压。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cardio-oncology
Cardio-oncology Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
3.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信