Title: | Comparison of heart failure risk assessment tools among cancer survivors |
Journal: | Cardio-Oncology |
Published: | 11 Oct 2024 |
Pubmed: | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39394611/ |
DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40959-024-00267-5 |
Title: | Comparison of heart failure risk assessment tools among cancer survivors |
Journal: | Cardio-Oncology |
Published: | 11 Oct 2024 |
Pubmed: | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39394611/ |
DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40959-024-00267-5 |
WARNING: the interactive features of this website use CSS3, which your browser does not support. To use the full features of this website, please update your browser.
BackgroundCancer 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.MethodsIn 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).ResultsAfter 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.ConclusionsHFA-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>
Enabling scientific discoveries that improve human health