Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients with Gynecological Cancers: A Population-based Cohort Study

Yue Yang, Jun-Ping Yang, Bing-Shu Li, Li-Wei Cheng, Shu-Jian Wei, Yu-Guo Chen
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.13.24315340

ABSTRACT

Objective The survival rate of gynecological cancers (GCs) has improved significantly in recent decades. Patients with GCs did not necessarily succumb to the primary cancer. Cardiovascular health might be a critical determinant of long-term survival. This study aimed to investigate the mortality rate and risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) death in patients with GCs.

Methods A total of 399,399 cases of GCs diagnosed between 2000 and 2020 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were included in this study. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) for CVD mortality was estimated. Prognostic factors for CVD death were assessed using cause-specific hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals within a competing risk model, considering non-cardiovascular death as a competing risk.

Results Of the 399,399 patients with GCs, 117,551 (29%) died from GCs, and 16,371 (4.1%) died from CVD. Of the CVD deaths, 73.2% were attributed to heart disease. The SMR of CVD mortality was highest in survivors diagnosed before age 45 years, and the risk of CVD mortality remained elevated throughout the follow-up period compared to the general United States (US) population. In recent years, the SMRs for CVD mortality risk increased steadily in all subtypes of GCs, except for vulvar cancer. Older age, black race, localized stage, unmarried/single/divorced, vaginal and vulvar cancers, and radiation therapy were associated with a higher risk of CVD mortality. A nomogram was developed and validated using these variables to predict CVD death risk in patients with GCs.

Conclusions The risk of CVD mortality in patients with GCs was increased and was significantly higher compared with the general US population. A nomogram was constructed and validated to forecast the risk of CVD mortality in individuals with GCs. More attention should be paid to cardiovascular health during diagnosis to improve survival rates.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • ⇒ 29% of patients with gynecological cancers died from cancer, while 4.1% died from CVD, with 73.2% of CVD deaths attributed to heart disease.

  • ⇒ In recent years, SMRs for CVD mortality increased steadily across all GC subtypes, except vulvar cancer.

  • ⇒ Higher CVD mortality was linked to older age, black race, localized disease stage, unmarried/single/divorced status, and prior radiation therapy, especially in vaginal and vulvar cancers.

  • ⇒ We developed and validated a nomogram to predict CVD death risk in GC patients, aiding personalized patient management.

INTRODUCTION

Gynecologic cancers (GCs), including cancers of the cervix, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and uterus, accounted for approximately 11% of all cancers in women1. The overall incidence rate of GCs was second to breast cancer among women, posing a serious threat to their physical and mental health2. In the United States (US), the estimated number of new cases in 2022 was 65,950 for endometrial cancer, 19,880 for ovarian cancer, and 14,100 for cervical cancer3. In 2022, there were an estimated 12,810 deaths due to ovarian cancer and 32,830 deaths due to GCs in the US3.

The survival for advanced and recurrent GCs remained poor but advances in early detection, surgery, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies improved clinical outcomes4–8. However, the long-term survival of cancer patients has drawn attention to the impact of cardiovascular disease (CVD) as a significant contributor to mortality9–11. Cancer survivors were particularly vulnerable to CVD mortality due to the cardiotoxic effects of cancer treatments and common risk factors such as obesity, smoking, and alcohol consumption12–14. Cancer survivors had twice the risk of dying from CVD within the first year following a cancer diagnosis compared to the general US population11. This increased risk persisted throughout the survival period, highlighting the need for continued cardiovascular care in cancer survivors11, 15. In particular, survivors diagnosed with GCs faced an elevated risk of CVD mortality compared to the general US population9, 10, 16. Patients with endometrial or ovarian cancer were at a higher risk of dying from CVD than from the cancer itself, especially as time since diagnosis increased 9, 10, 17–20. Factors such as age, hypertension, and pre-existing heart conditions were associated with increased CVD death risk in patients with GCs11, 21–23.

Although CVD death was widely discussed for various malignancies, including breast cancer and lung cancer, the CVD mortality risk associated with GCs was not clearly described. To address this gap, we used the SEER data to determine the prevalence, trend, and risk factors for CVD death in patients with GCs.

METHODS

Data

This cohort study utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registry. The SEER, representing nearly 28% of the US population, was an authoritative source of high-quality cancer registries worldwide, relying on systematic, standardized, and regular data collection procedures to ensure quality and prevent surveillance bias24. Ethics committee approval was waived because de-identified data were used. This report adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for observational studies.

Study Population

The International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3) histology code was used to assign causes of death and cancer types. We defined CVD mortality due to cardiac disease, cerebrovascular disease, hypertension without cardiac disease, atherosclerosis, aortic aneurysm and dissection, and other diseases of the arteries, arterioles, and capillaries25. Data on patients diagnosed with GCs such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, cervical cancer, vaginal cancer, vulvar cancer, and others (malignant neoplasm of other and unspecified female genital organs, or malignant neoplasm of placenta) between 2000 and 2020 were extracted from the SEER database26. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) GCs were not the first malignancy; (2) patients were diagnosed only by autopsy or death certificate; (3) pediatric patients (age <18 years) were excluded from this study because diagnostic and therapeutic interventions might differ compared to adults; (4) causes of death were unknown.

Clinical variables of interest included age at diagnosis, race, year of diagnosis, stage, grade, marital status, cancer type, and initial treatment regimen. Age at diagnosis was divided into three categories: less than 45, 45 to 65, and 65 years and older. Race was recorded as White, Black, and Other. The calendar years at diagnosis were categorized as 2000 to 2005, 2005 to 2010, 2010 to 2015, and 2015 to 2020. Tumor stage was classified as localized, regional, and distant. Tumor grade was divided into grade I (well differentiated), grade II (moderately differentiated), grade III (poorly differentiated), and grade IV (undifferentiated). Marital status was categorized as “married” and “unmarried/single/divorced”. Patients were divided into the following treatment categories: surgery and not/unknown, chemotherapy and not/unknown, and radiotherapy and not/unknown.

Statistical Analysis

Categorical variables in baseline characteristics were assessed using the chi-square test. To further evaluate the interaction between GCs and CVD mortality, we calculated the standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) to quantify the risk of CVD death in GC patients. The SMR was calculated as the ratio of observed deaths to expected deaths27. Joinpoint regression was used to calculate average annual percentage changes (AAPC) for evaluating trends over time28.

CVD-specific mortality hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the relative association between individual risk and prognostic factors for CVD mortality using univariate and multivariate competing risk models (with non-cardiovascular death as a competing risk)29, 30. The classical proportional hazard model examined the effect of covariates on the cause-specific hazard function but ignored the competing nature of multiple causes for the same event, leading to inaccurate evaluation of variables in the marginal probability analysis for cause-specific events30. Fine and Gray developed a survival analysis method using the inverse probability censoring weighting technique with a time-dependent weight function to correctly estimate the marginal probability of an event in the presence of competing events31, 32. This competing risk model was used to determine whether baseline clinical characteristics and treatment strategies were associated with CVD death. Independent variables included age at diagnosis, race, tumor grade, stage, and initial treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation33.

Seventy percent of patients with GCs were randomly assigned to the discovery cohort and the remaining 30 percent to the validation cohort. A nomogram was created based on the multivariate analysis results34. The performances of the nomogram in the discovery and validation cohorts were evaluated as follows: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated to evaluate the discriminative ability of the nomogram 35. An AUC value above 0.7 was considered indicative of good predictive ability36. The concordance index (C-index) was used to evaluate the predictive performance of the nomogram37. A calibration plot was used to compare the actual and predicted values and assess the model’s consistency 38. Better model accuracy was indicated when the calibration curve aligned with the 45° reference line 39. The model’s clinical validity was evaluated through decision-curve analysis (DCA), where the ordinate represented threshold probability and the abscissa corresponded to net benefit40. A higher DCA curve indicated a greater net benefit for the model40.

The analysis was conducted using SEER*Stat 8.3.6 (National Cancer Institute, USA), Microsoft Excel 15.0.4 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA), GraphPad Prism 5 (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA, USA), Joinpoint Regression Program 5.0.2 (Variance Covariance Matrix Beta), and R 3.4.4 software (Vienna, Austria). Two-tailed hypothesis tests were performed, with statistical significance at P < 0.0541.

RESULTS

Patient Characteristics

From 2000 to 2020, a total of 399,399 patients with GCs were enrolled in the SEER database, including 94,563 patients (24%) with ovarian cancer, 210,664 patients (53%) with uterine cancer, 64,025 patients (16%) with cervical cancer, 16,370 patients (4.1%) with vulvar cancer, and 4,176 patients (1.0%) with vaginal cancer. Most tumors occurred in white patients (80%). A total of 202,153 patients with GCs (51%) had localized cancer, and 98,995 patients (25%) had distant cancer. The patients’ information was presented in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1. Participant Characteristics.

Abbreviations: CVD: cardiovascular disease. a malignant neoplasm of other and unspecified female genital organs, or malignant neoplasm of placenta.

CVD Death

The cumulative mortality for causes of death in patients with GCs was shown in Figure 1. The highest cumulative mortality was due to cancer-specific deaths (72.1%), followed by non-CVD causes (13.6%) and CVD causes (10.0%). Vaginal cancer patients (18.2%) had the highest risk of dying from CVD, followed by patients with uterine cancer (15.4%) and vulvar cancer (10.6%) (Figure 1). Among non-cancer deaths in patients with GCs, CVD mortality was the most common cause (41.1%). The majority (73.2%) of CVD deaths were due to heart disease (Figure 1). We observed that increasing age at diagnosis was associated with an increased percentage of cancer patients dying from index cancer and cardiovascular disease. The CVD death rate in patients younger than age 40 years was 1.1% at 20 years, compared with 14.0% in patients aged 65 years or older (Table S1). We also observed a trend indicating that a greater percentage of cancer patients who were recently diagnosed had a higher chance of developing cardiovascular disease and experiencing its consequent effects.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Distribution of the Most Common Causes of Death in Patients with Gynecological Cancers.

The SMR of CVD mortality was highest in survivors diagnosed under the age of 45 years compared to the general US population. The younger a cancer survivor was at diagnosis, the higher their risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. Survivors diagnosed with GCs before age 45 had a risk of CVD mortality more than 2.12 times higher than the general US population. The risk of CVD death among cancer survivors gradually decreased with increasing age at diagnosis (Figure 2 and Table 2). The risk of CVD mortality remained elevated throughout the follow-up period compared to the general US population (Figure 2). In recent years, the SMR of CVD death increased in survivors with ovarian cancer (AAPC = 0.0668, 95% CI = 0.0537 to 0.0798), uterine cancer (AAPC = 0.0229, 95% CI = 0.0184 to 0.0274), cervical cancer (AAPC = 0.0417, 95% CI = 0.027 to 0.0564), and vaginal cancer (AAPC = 0.1071, 95% CI = 0.0662 to 0.1479), except vulvar cancer (AAPC = -0.0239, 95% CI = -0.0413 to -0.0064) (Figure 2 and Table S2).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Standardized Mortality Ratios in Patients with Gynecological Cancers by (A) Age at Diagnosis, (B) Attained Age, and (C) Time After Diagnosis.
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Trends in CVD Death by Calendar Years (2010–2020) among Survivors Diagnosed with Gynecological Cancers by Cancer Types.

Abbreviations: CVD: cardiovascular disease; AAPC: average annual percentage change;

View this table:
Table 2. Standardized Mortality Ratios in Patients with Gynecological Cancers.

The SMRs were estimated as the ratios of observed to expected number of deaths. The observed values represented the number of CVD deaths in patients with gynecological cancers, and the expected values represented the number of individuals who died of CVD in the US general population, with a similar distribution of age, sex, race, and calendar year. Abbreviations: SMR: standardized mortality ratio; CI: confidence interval; a * suggested that the 95% confidence interval did not cross 1.0 and the SMR was significant. b Reference population: the general US population based on the 2000 US standard population, Patients with multiple primary tumors were excluded automatically.

Factors Associated with CVD Mortality

We assessed factors associated with CVD mortality using a multivariable competing risk model (with non-cardiovascular death as a competing risk). In patients with GCs, the mortality was higher with increasing age (> 65 vs. < 40, hazard ratio [HR] 15.3, 95% CI 13.1–17.9; P < 0.001). Black women were more likely to die due to cardiovascular disease (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07-1.18; P < 0.001), as were unmarried/single/divorced individuals (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.52-1.62; P < 0.001). Patients treated with surgery (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.61-0.67; P < 0.001) or chemotherapy (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.56-0.62; P < 0.001) had lower CVD mortality. (Figure 4 and Table 3).

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Cumulative Mortality for CVD in Patients with Gynecological Cancers.

Cumulative mortality for CVD among gynecological cancer survivors, by age at diagnosis (A), race (B), stage (C), grade (D), marital status at diagnosis (E), cancer types (F), and initial treatment regimens, such as surgery (G), chemotherapy (H), and radiation (I). Abbreviations: CVD: cardiovascular disease.

View this table:
Table 3. Univariate and Multivariate Analysis for CVD Death in Patients with Gynecological Cancers.

Abbreviations: CVD: cardiovascular disease; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval. a malignant neoplasm of other and unspecified female genital organs, or malignant neoplasm of placenta.

Nomogram for CVD Mortality

Patients were randomly divided into the discovery cohort (N = 279,580) and the validation cohort (N = 119,819). The clinical characteristics of patients in the discovery and validation cohorts were summarized in Table S3. The nomogram was developed based on the final multivariate model and included the following variables: age at diagnosis, race, stage, grade, marital status, cancer type, and initial treatment regimens (Figure 5). The nomogram showed the value for each risk factor, with the total value representing the sum of all variable values. The risk of CVD death could be determined by drawing a line from the total score to the risk score.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. The Nomogram Prediction Model for CVD in Patients with Gynecological Cancers.

This nomogram could predict the risk of cardiovascular disease over 10, 15, and 20 years in gynecological cancer patients, using the Fine and Gray competing risk model. Abbreviations: CVD: cardiovascular disease.

In the discovery cohort, the nomogram achieved a C-index of 0.808 (95% CI: 0.784-0.832) for CVD mortality. After validation, the nomogram gained a C-index of 0.797 (95% CI: 0.758-0.837). As shown in the calibration curves, the nomogram achieved a significant agreement between the predicted and actual observations in both the discovery and validation cohorts, as the prediction curves closely aligned with the diagonal. The AUC values in the discovery cohort for 20-year CVD mortality were 74.9% (Figure S2). After validation, the nomogram achieved an AUC of 75.7% for 20-year CVD death (Figure S2). These results suggested a satisfactory potential clinical effect of this model for predicting CVD mortality risk in patients with GCs. To test the agreement between the real and ideal values of the model, the calibration plot was utilized to confirm the discrimination ability. The calibration plots for 10-, 15-, and 20-year CVD death probabilities closely aligned with the standard line, indicating a high level of calibration (Figure S3). A DCA curve was subsequently utilized to illustrate the clinical validity of the nomogram (Figure S4).

DISCUSSION

In recent years, survival rates for GCs have markedly improved 42–44. This study investigated CVD mortality risk in GC patients and found it higher than the general US population, particularly in younger patients. Factors such as age at diagnosis, ethnicity, cancer types, and treatment modalities were associated with the increased CVD death risk. A predictive model was developed to assess the CVD mortality risk in GC patients, emphasizing the importance of cardiovascular health in improving long-term survival rates.

Women encountered an elevated risk of both cardiovascular disease and cancer, especially as they aged 21, 45–48. Both CVD and specific types of cancer had common risk factors including smoking, physical inactivity, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia21, 49. Physical inactivity was associated with increased risks of both CVD and cancer, whereas highly active women exhibited a lower risk of endometrial cancer50–54. Notably, women with endometrial cancer exhibited an increased risk of CVD55. Obesity was correlated with elevated risks of endometrial and breast cancers, as well as increased cancer-related morbidity and mortality56–59. This research found that patients with GCs had a CVD mortality rate of 10.0%. Remarkably, younger cancer survivors, particularly those diagnosed before age 45, had a higher risk of mortality from CVD compared to the general US population. Among GC patients, older age and being unmarried, single, or divorced were linked to higher CVD death risk, whereas treatments involving surgery or chemotherapy were associated with lower risk. These findings underscored the importance of addressing common risk factors and delivering comprehensive care for women to confront both cancer and cardiovascular diseases.

GCs accounted for 11% of all cancers in women, encompassing endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancers1. Advances in detection and treatment had significantly improved outcomes for advanced and recurrent GC cases4–8, 42, 60. However, treatments were associated with risks such as therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity, a growing concern in oncology61, 62. The interplay between cardiovascular care and GC survivors was increasingly critical due to their elevated risk of CVD mortality from cancer treatments9, 11, 15, 49, 55, 63–66. Various treatments for GCs carried distinct CVD risks42, 67–71. Anthracyclines, including doxorubicin and its pegylated liposomal form, were crucial for treating advanced ovarian and endometrial cancers but exhibited dose-dependent cardiotoxicity72–74. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) had lower cardiotoxicity compared to doxorubicin and was utilized in the treatment of gynecologic malignancies and uterine sarcomas75. Platinum-based drugs, such as cisplatin, commonly used for cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers, increased the risk of thromboembolic events and cardiovascular complications76–79. Paclitaxel and docetaxel, frequently employed in the treatment of cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers, might induce arrhythmias80–84. Antimetabolites, such as fluorouracil (5-FU), commonly used for cervical and ovarian cancers, could precipitate heart problems, particularly in patients with pre-existing coronary artery disease85–87. Antiangiogenic drugs, including bevacizumab and pazopanib, used to treat cervical, epithelial, and mucinous ovarian cancers, as well as leiomyosarcoma, were linked to cardiovascular issues such as hypertension, heart failure, and arterial thromboembolic events88–91. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, approved for the treatment of uterine and cervical cancers, could cause rare but serious cardiac complications, including myocarditis and acute myocardial infarction 92–94. Tamoxifen, frequently used in the treatment of endometrial cancer, could exert estrogen-like effects on the heart, potentially leading to fatal long-term complications related to serious blood clots95, 96. Additionally, women with GCs might experience unique consequences of cancer treatment, such as premature menopause and reduced fertility97–99. Factors such as ovarian reserve, exposure to cancer treatments, and duration of therapy could influence the onset of early menopause 100, 101. These factors elevated the risk of coronary artery disease, worsened cancer patient outcomes, and heightened the likelihood of cardiovascular diseases, heart failure, and stroke, primarily due to the prolonged absence of estrogen affecting metabolic and vascular function101–103.

Various strategies have been investigated to mitigate the risk of cardiotoxicity in patients undergoing treatment for GCs, emphasizing the customization of approaches based on individual cardiovascular risk factors104. These strategies included avoiding cardiotoxic treatments when feasible, considering alternative therapies, and consulting with a multidisciplinary team before initiating treatments 104, 105. For instance, in the case of doxorubicin treatment, potential strategies included adjusting infusion schedules, using dexrazoxane, or opting for liposomal formulations106,107. In ovarian cancer, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was commonly employed in cardioprotective regimens 108, 109. Additionally, dose reduction or modification of the infusion schedule could help alleviate cardiotoxicity associated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)110. The nomogram had been developed to predict the CVD mortality risk in patients with GCs, providing valuable guidance.

The study encountered several limitations. The primary concern was the potential introduction of bias due to the retrospective nature of the data derived from the SEER database. Inadequate information on cardiovascular complications, risk factors, disease history, and therapeutic methods hindered the assessment of their impact on CVD death risk. Additionally, the absence of crucial factors such as genetic markers, behavioral patterns, and other characteristics limited the study’s accuracy. To address these limitations, future cohort studies should prioritize identifying prognostic markers and incorporating a wider range of factors to enhance precision.

CONCLUSIONS

This research underscored the heightened risk of CVD mortality faced by individuals with GCs, particularly among younger survivors. Various factors including age, ethnicity, cancer type, and treatment approaches contributed to this risk. As a result, a predictive model was created to evaluate the likelihood of CVD mortality in patients with GCs, emphasizing the significance of prioritizing heart health to improve survival. These findings underscored the necessity for personalized interventions and proactive management of cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with GCs, with the ultimate goal of reducing the impact of cardiovascular disease.

Contributors

YY: conceptualization, methodology, software, formal analysis, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, guarantor. YJP: conceptualization, methodology, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, guarantor. LBS: methodology, formal analysis, writing – review and editing, supervision. CLW: conceptualization, methodology, writing – review and editing, supervision. WSJ: conceptualization, methodology, project administration, writing – review and editing, supervision. CYG: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, project administration, funding acquisition, writing – review and editing, supervision.

Funding

This work was supported by the State Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82030059), National Natural Science Foundation of China (82072141, 82072144, 82070388, 82172178, 82172127, 82272240, 82202376), National Key R&D Program of China (2020YFC1512700, 2020YFC1512705, 2020YFC1512703, 2022YFC0868600), Taishan Pandeng Scholar Program of Shandong Province (tspd20181220), Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2022QH225), and Clinical Research Foundation of Shandong University (2020SDUCRCC014).

Competing interests

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available.

Supplemental material

This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names, and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Acknowledgments

The data used in this study was from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registry database.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Wilson, E. M.; Eskander, R. N.; Binder, P. S., Recent Therapeutic Advances in Gynecologic Oncology: A Review. Cancers 2024, 16 (4).
  2. 2.↵
    Chokoeva, A. A.; Tchernev, G.; Cardoso, J. C.; Patterson, J. W.; Dechev, I.; Valkanov, S.; Zanardelli, M.; Lotti, T.; Wollina, U., Vulvar sarcomas: Short guideline for histopathological recognition and clinical management. Part 1. International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology 2015, 28 (2), 168–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Siegel, R. L.; Miller, K. D.; Fuchs, H. E.; Jemal, A., Cancer statistics, 2022. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2022, 72 (1), 7–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Zhang, C.; Sheng, Y.; Sun, X.; Wang, Y., New insights for gynecological cancer therapies: from molecular mechanisms and clinical evidence to future directions. Cancer metastasis reviews 2023, 42 (3), 891–925.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.
    Small, W., Jr.; Bacon, M. A.; Bajaj, A.; Chuang, L. T.; Fisher, B. J.; Harkenrider, M. M.; Jhingran, A.; Kitchener, H. C.; Mileshkin, L. R.; Viswanathan, A. N.; Gaffney, D. K., Cervical cancer: A global health crisis. Cancer 2017, 123 (13), 2404–2412.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    Moufarrij, S.; Dandapani, M.; Arthofer, E.; Gomez, S.; Srivastava, A.; Lopez-Acevedo, M.; Villagra, A.; Chiappinelli, K. B., Epigenetic therapy for ovarian cancer: promise and progress. Clinical epigenetics 2019, 11 (1), 7.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.
    Berek, J. S.; Renz, M.; Kehoe, S.; Kumar, L.; Friedlander, M., Cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: 2021 update. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2021, 155 Suppl 1 (Suppl 1), 61–85.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    Erickson, B. K.; Slomovitz, B.; Powell, M.; Eskander, R. N., Top advances of the year: Uterine cancer. Cancer 2024, 130 (14), 2409–2412.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Al-Badawi, I. A.; Alomar, O.; Alsehaimi, S. O.; Jamjoom, M. Z.; Abdulmalik, N. A.; Bukhari, I. A.; Alyousef, A.; Alabdrabalamir, S.; Baradwan, S.; Sayasneh, A.; Alqarni, S. M. S.; Abu-Zaid, A., Cardiovascular Mortality in Ovarian Cancer Patients: An Analysis of Patient Characteristics Using the SEER Database. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) 2023, 59 (8).
  10. 10.↵
    Felix, A. S.; Bower, J. K.; Pfeiffer, R. M.; Raman, S. V.; Cohn, D. E.; Sherman, M. E., High cardiovascular disease mortality after endometrial cancer diagnosis: Results from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database. International journal of cancer 2017, 140 (3), 555–564.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Muhandiramge, J.; Zalcberg, J. R.; van Londen, G. J.; Warner, E. T.; Carr, P. R.; Haydon, A.; Orchard, S. G., Cardiovascular Disease in Adult Cancer Survivors: a Review of Current Evidence, Strategies for Prevention and Management, and Future Directions for Cardio-oncology. Current oncology reports 2022, 24 (11), 1579–1592.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Karlstaedt, A.; Moslehi, J.; de Boer, R. A., Cardio-onco-metabolism: metabolic remodelling in cardiovascular disease and cancer. Nature reviews. Cardiology 2022, 19 (6), 414–425.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.
    Lyon, A. R.; Yousaf, N.; Battisti, N. M. L.; Moslehi, J.; Larkin, J., Immune checkpoint inhibitors and cardiovascular toxicity. The Lancet. Oncology 2018, 19 (9), e447–e458.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Zhang, Y. B.; Pan, X. F.; Chen, J.; Cao, A.; Xia, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Li, H.; Liu, G.; Pan, A., Combined lifestyle factors, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Journal of epidemiology and community health 2021, 75 (1), 92–99.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Gilchrist, S. C.; Barac, A.; Ades, P. A.; Alfano, C. M.; Franklin, B. A.; Jones, L. W.; La Gerche, A.; Ligibel, J. A.; Lopez, G.; Madan, K.; Oeffinger, K. C.; Salamone, J.; Scott, J. M.; Squires, R. W.; Thomas, R. J.; Treat-Jacobson, D. J.; Wright, J. S., Cardio-Oncology Rehabilitation to Manage Cardiovascular Outcomes in Cancer Patients and Survivors: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2019, 139 (21), e997–e1012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Maduro, J. H.; den Dekker, H. A.; Pras, E.; de Vries, E. G.; van der Zee, A. G.; Klokman, W. J.; Reyners, A. K.; van Leeuwen, F. E.; Langendijk, J. A.; de Bock, G. H.; Gietema, J. A., Cardiovascular morbidity after radiotherapy or chemoradiation in patients with cervical cancer. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 2010, 78 (5), 1337–44.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Sturgeon, K. M.; Deng, L.; Bluethmann, S. M.; Zhou, S.; Trifiletti, D. M.; Jiang, C.; Kelly, S. P.; Zaorsky, N. G., A population-based study of cardiovascular disease mortality risk in US cancer patients. European heart journal 2019, 40 (48), 3889–3897.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.
    Simon, M. S.; Hastert, T. A.; Barac, A.; Banack, H. R.; Caan, B. J.; Chlebowski, R. T.; Foraker, R.; Hovsepyan, G.; Liu, S.; Luo, J.; Manson, J. E.; Neuhouser, M. L.; Okwuosa, T. M.; Pan, K.; Qi, L.; Ruterbusch, J. J.; Shadyab, A. H.; Thomson, C. A.; Wactawski-Wende, J.; Waheed, N.; Beebe-Dimmer, J. L., Cardiometabolic risk factors and survival after cancer in the Women’s Health Initiative. Cancer 2021, 127 (4), 598–608.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.
    Coviello, J. S., Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk: The Role of Cardio-oncology. Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology 2018, 9 (2), 160–176.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Hu, Z. L.; Yuan, Y. X.; Xia, M. Y.; Li, Y.; Yang, Y.; Wang, S. N.; Meng, X. Z.; Sun, M. Y.; Wang, N., Cardiovascular mortality risk in patients with ovarian cancer: a population-based study. Journal of ovarian research 2024, 17 (1), 88.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Wilcox, N. S.; Amit, U.; Reibel, J. B.; Berlin, E.; Howell, K.; Ky, B., Cardiovascular disease and cancer: shared risk factors and mechanisms. Nature reviews. Cardiology 2024, 21 (9), 617–631.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.
    Mohammed, T.; Singh, M.; Tiu, J. G.; Kim, A. S., Etiology and management of hypertension in patients with cancer. Cardio-oncology (London, England) 2021, 7 (1), 14.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Soisson, S.; Ganz, P. A.; Gaffney, D.; Rowe, K.; Snyder, J.; Wan, Y.; Deshmukh, V.; Newman, M.; Fraser, A.; Smith, K.; Herget, K.; Hanson, H. A.; Wu, Y. P.; Stanford, J.; Al-Sarray, A.; Werner, T. L.; Setiawan, V. W.; Hashibe, M., Long-term Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Endometrial Cancer Survivors in a Large, Population-Based Cohort Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2018, 110 (12), 1342–1351.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Kuo, T. M.; Mobley, L. R., How generalizable are the SEER registries to the cancer populations of the USA? Cancer causes & control : CCC 2016, 27 (9), 1117–26.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Amini, M.; Zayeri, F.; Salehi, M., Trend analysis of cardiovascular disease mortality, incidence, and mortality-to-incidence ratio: results from global burden of disease study 2017. BMC public health 2021, 21 (1), 401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Dwivedi, S. K. D.; Rao, G.; Dey, A.; Mukherjee, P.; Wren, J. D.; Bhattacharya, R., Small Non-Coding-RNA in Gynecological Malignancies. Cancers 2021, 13 (5).
  27. 27.↵
    Richardson, D. B.; Keil, A. P.; Cole, S. R.; MacLehose, R. F., Observed and Expected Mortality in Cohort Studies. American journal of epidemiology 2017, 185 (6), 479–486.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Cao, F.; Liu, Y. C.; Ni, Q. Y.; Chen, Y.; Wan, C. H.; Liu, S. Y.; Tao, L. M.; Jiang, Z. X.; Ni, J.; Pan, H. F., Temporal trends in the prevalence of autoimmune diseases from 1990 to 2019. Autoimmunity reviews 2023, 22 (8), 103359.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    Sun, J. Y.; Zhang, Z. Y.; Qu, Q.; Wang, N.; Zhang, Y. M.; Miao, L. F.; Wang, J.; Wu, L. D.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, C. Y.; Wang, R. X., Cardiovascular disease-specific mortality in 270,618 patients with non-small cell lung cancer. International journal of cardiology 2021, 330, 186–193.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Austin, P. C.; Lee, D. S.; Fine, J. P., Introduction to the Analysis of Survival Data in the Presence of Competing Risks. Circulation 2016, 133 (6), 601–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    Austin, P. C.; Fine, J. P., Practical recommendations for reporting Fine-Gray model analyses for competing risk data. Statistics in medicine 2017, 36 (27), 4391–4400.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Coemans, M.; Verbeke, G.; Döhler, B.; Süsal, C.; Naesens, M., Bias by censoring for competing events in survival analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2022, 378, e071349.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    Chi, K.; Luo, Z.; Zhao, H.; Li, Y.; Liang, Y.; Xiao, Z.; He, Y.; Zhang, H.; Ma, Z.; Zeng, L.; Zhou, R.; Feng, M.; Li, W.; Rao, H.; Yi, M., The impact of tumor characteristics on cardiovascular disease death in breast cancer patients with CT or RT: a population-based study. Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 2023, 10, 1149633.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Huang, C.; Zeng, Y.; Liu, Y.; Du, J., Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting survival of pulmonary invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma based on surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database. BMC cancer 2021, 21 (1), 148.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Zhang, W.; Ji, L.; Wang, X.; Zhu, S.; Luo, J.; Zhang, Y.; Tong, Y.; Feng, F.; Kang, Y.; Bi, Q., Nomogram Predicts Risk and Prognostic Factors for Bone Metastasis of Pancreatic Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis. Frontiers in endocrinology 2021, 12, 752176.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    White, N.; Parsons, R.; Collins, G.; Barnett, A., Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models. BMC medicine 2023, 21 (1), 339.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Wu, J.; Zhang, H.; Li, L.; Hu, M.; Chen, L.; Xu, B.; Song, Q., A nomogram for predicting overall survival in patients with low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma: A population-based analysis. Cancer communications (London, England) 2020, 40 (7), 301–312.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    Xie, W.; Li, Y.; Meng, X.; Zhao, M., Machine learning prediction models and nomogram to predict the risk of in-hospital death for severe DKA: A clinical study based on MIMIC-IV, eICU databases, and a college hospital ICU. International journal of medical informatics 2023, 174, 105049.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    Zhang, K.; Liu, C.; Sha, X.; Yao, S.; Li, Z.; Yu, Y.; Lou, J.; Fu, Q.; Liu, Y.; Cao, J.; Zhang, J.; Yang, Y.; Mi, W.; Li, H., Development and validation of a prediction model to predict major adverse cardiovascular events in elderly patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: A retrospective cohort study. Atherosclerosis 2023, 376, 71–79.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Vickers, A. J.; Holland, F., Decision curve analysis to evaluate the clinical benefit of prediction models. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society 2021, 21 (10), 1643–1648.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Ludbrook, J., Should we use one-sided or two-sided P values in tests of significance? Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology 2013, 40 (6), 357–61.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Bodriagova, O.; Previs, R. A.; Gaba, L.; Shankar, A.; Vidal, L.; Saini, K. S., Recent Advances in Gynecological Malignancies: Focus on ASCO 2023. Oncology and therapy 2023, 11 (4), 397–409.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.
    Bejar, F. G.; Oaknin, A.; Williamson, C.; Mayadev, J.; Peters, P. N.; Secord, A. A.; Wield, A. M.; Coffman, L. G., Novel Therapies in Gynecologic Cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting 2022, 42, 1–17.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Annunziata, C. M.; Kohn, E. C., Clinical trials in gynecologic oncology: Past, present, and future. Gynecologic oncology 2018, 148 (2), 393–402.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Ji, H.; Kim, A.; Ebinger, J. E.; Niiranen, T. J.; Claggett, B. L.; Bairey Merz, C. N.; Cheng, S., Sex Differences in Blood Pressure Trajectories Over the Life Course. JAMA Cardiol 2020, 5 (3), 19–26.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.
    Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R. L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F., Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2021, 71 (3), 209–249.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.
    Schwartz, S. M., Epidemiology of Cancer. Clinical chemistry 2024, 70 (1), 140–149.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    DeGregori, J., Challenging the axiom: does the occurrence of oncogenic mutations truly limit cancer development with age? Oncogene 2013, 32 (15), 1869–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Ge, C.; Jiang, Z.; Long, B.; Lu, Q.; He, Y., Associations between cardiovascular diseases and cancer mortality: insights from a retrospective cohort analysis of NHANES data. BMC public health 2024, 24 (1), 1049.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    McTiernan, A.; Friedenreich, C. M.; Katzmarzyk, P. T.; Powell, K. E.; Macko, R.; Buchner, D.; Pescatello, L. S.; Bloodgood, B.; Tennant, B.; Vaux-Bjerke, A.; George, S. M.; Troiano, R. P.; Piercy, K. L., Physical Activity in Cancer Prevention and Survival: A Systematic Review. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 2019, 51 (6), 1252–1261.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.
    Patel, A. V.; Friedenreich, C. M.; Moore, S. C.; Hayes, S. C.; Silver, J. K.; Campbell, K. L.; Winters-Stone, K.; Gerber, L. H.; George, S. M.; Fulton, J. E.; Denlinger, C.; Morris, G. S.; Hue, T.; Schmitz, K. H.; Matthews, C. E., American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable Report on Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Cancer Prevention and Control. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 2019, 51 (11), 2391–2402.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.
    Raglan, O.; Kalliala, I.; Markozannes, G.; Cividini, S.; Gunter, M. J.; Nautiyal, J.; Gabra, H.; Paraskevaidis, E.; Martin-Hirsch, P.; Tsilidis, K. K.; Kyrgiou, M., Risk factors for endometrial cancer: An umbrella review of the literature. International journal of cancer 2019, 145 (7), 1719–1730.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.
    Schmid, D.; Behrens, G.; Keimling, M.; Jochem, C.; Ricci, C.; Leitzmann, M., A systematic review and meta-analysis of physical activity and endometrial cancer risk. European journal of epidemiology 2015, 30 (5), 397–412.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    Elagizi, A.; Kachur, S.; Carbone, S.; Lavie, C. J.; Blair, S. N., A Review of Obesity, Physical Activity, and Cardiovascular Disease. Current obesity reports 2020, 9 (4), 571–581.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Anderson, C.; Olshan, A. F.; Bae-Jump, V. L.; Brewster, W. R.; Lund, J. L.; Nichols, H. B., Cardiovascular disease diagnoses among older women with endometrial cancer. Gynecologic oncology 2022, 167 (1), 51–57.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Dehesh, T.; Fadaghi, S.; Seyedi, M.; Abolhadi, E.; Ilaghi, M.; Shams, P.; Ajam, F.; Mosleh-Shirazi, M. A.; Dehesh, P., The relation between obesity and breast cancer risk in women by considering menstruation status and geographical variations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC women’s health 2023, 23 (1), 392.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.
    Onstad, M. A.; Schmandt, R. E.; Lu, K. H., Addressing the Role of Obesity in Endometrial Cancer Risk, Prevention, and Treatment. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2016, 34 (35), 4225–4230.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.
    Crosbie, E. J.; Kitson, S. J.; McAlpine, J. N.; Mukhopadhyay, A.; Powell, M. E.; Singh, N., Endometrial cancer. Lancet (London, England) 2022, 399 (10333), 1412–1428.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Colditz, G. A.; Peterson, L. L., Obesity and Cancer: Evidence, Impact, and Future Directions. Clinical chemistry 2018, 64 (1), 154–162.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    Galicia-Carmona, T.; Arango-Bravo, E. A.; Coronel-Martínez, J. A.; Cetina-Pérez, L.; Vanoye-Carlo, E. G.; Villalobos-Valencia, R.; García-Pacheco, J. A.; Cortés-Esteban, P., Advanced, recurrent, and persistent cervical cancer management: in the era of immunotherapy. Front Oncol 2024, 14, 1392639.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    Manhas, A.; Tripathi, D.; Thomas, D.; Sayed, N., Cardiovascular Toxicity in Cancer Therapy: Protecting the Heart while Combating Cancer. Current cardiology reports 2024.
  62. 62.↵
    Morelli, M. B.; Bongiovanni, C.; Da Pra, S.; Miano, C.; Sacchi, F.; Lauriola, M.; D’Uva, G., Cardiotoxicity of Anticancer Drugs: Molecular Mechanisms and Strategies for Cardioprotection. Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 2022, 9, 847012.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    Shelburne, N.; Adhikari, B.; Brell, J.; Davis, M.; Desvigne-Nickens, P.; Freedman, A.; Minasian, L.; Force, T.; Remick, S. C., Cancer treatment-related cardiotoxicity: current state of knowledge and future research priorities. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2014, 106 (9).
  64. 64.
    Nathan, P. C.; Amir, E.; Abdel-Qadir, H., Cardiac Outcomes in Survivors of Pediatric and Adult Cancers. The Canadian journal of cardiology 2016, 32 (7), 871–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. 65.
    Ogilvie, L. M.; Coyle-Asbil, B.; Brunt, K. R.; Petrik, J.; Simpson, J. A., Therapy-naïve malignancy causes cardiovascular disease: a state-of-the-art cardio-oncology perspective. American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology 2024, 326 (6), H1515–h1537.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    Kassaian, S. E.; Gandhi, B.; Barac, A., Cardio-oncology: Implications for Clinical Practice for Women. Current cardiology reports 2022, 24 (11), 1685–1698.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    Wang, Q.; Peng, H.; Qi, X.; Wu, M.; Zhao, X., Targeted therapies in gynecological cancers: a comprehensive review of clinical evidence. Signal Transduct Target Ther 2020, 5 (1), 137.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.
    Yang, M. X.; Li, Q. L.; Wang, D. Q.; Ye, L.; Li, K. M.; Lin, X. J.; Li, X. S.; Fu, C.; Ma, X. M.; Guo, Y. K.; Yin, R. T.; Yang, Z. G., Myocardial microvascular function assessed by CMR first-pass perfusion in patients treated with chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies. European radiology 2022, 32 (10), 6850–6858.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.
    Curigliano, G.; Cardinale, D.; Suter, T.; Plataniotis, G.; de Azambuja, E.; Sandri, M. T.; Criscitiello, C.; Goldhirsch, A.; Cipolla, C.; Roila, F., Cardiovascular toxicity induced by chemotherapy, targeted agents and radiotherapy: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 2012, 23 Suppl 7, vii155-66.
  70. 70.
    Liu, E.; Guan, X.; Wei, R.; Jiang, Z.; Liu, Z.; Wang, G.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X., Association Between Radiotherapy and Death From Cardiovascular Disease Among Patients With Cancer: A Large Population-Based Cohort Study. Journal of the American Heart Association 2022, 11 (6), e023802.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    Swift, B. E.; Maeda, A.; Bouchard-Fortier, G., Low incidence of venous thromboembolism after gynecologic oncology surgery: Who is at greatest risk? Gynecologic oncology 2022, 164 (2), 311–317.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    Qiu, Y.; Jiang, P.; Huang, Y., Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity: mechanisms, monitoring, and prevention. Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 2023, 10, 1242596.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.
    Saleh, Y.; Abdelkarim, O.; Herzallah, K.; Abela, G. S., Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity: mechanisms of action, incidence, risk factors, prevention, and treatment. Heart failure reviews 2021, 26 (5), 1159–1173.
    OpenUrl
  74. 74.↵
    Mohsenizadeh, S. A.; Rajaeinejad, M.; Khoshfetrat, M.; Arefizadeh, R.; Mousavi, S. H.; Mosaed, R.; Kazemi-Galougahi, M. H.; Jalaeikhoo, H.; Faridfar, A.; Nikandish, M.; Alavi-Moghadam, S.; Arjmand, B., Anthracycline-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Cancer Survivors: Management and Long-Term Implications. Advances in experimental medicine and biology 2024.
  75. 75.↵
    Tahover, E.; Patil, Y. P.; Gabizon, A. A., Emerging delivery systems to reduce doxorubicin cardiotoxicity and improve therapeutic index: focus on liposomes. Anti-cancer drugs 2015, 26 (3), 241–58.
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.↵
    Iwai, C.; Jo, T.; Konishi, T.; Fujita, A.; Michihata, N.; Matsui, H.; Fushimi, K.; Yasunaga, H., Thrombotic risk of platinum combination chemotherapy with and without immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a nationwide inpatient database study. Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII 2023, 72 (11), 3581–3591.
    OpenUrl
  77. 77.
    Herrmann, J.; Yang, E. H.; Iliescu, C. A.; Cilingiroglu, M.; Charitakis, K.; Hakeem, A.; Toutouzas, K.; Leesar, M. A.; Grines, C. L.; Marmagkiolis, K., Vascular Toxicities of Cancer Therapies: The Old and the New--An Evolving Avenue. Circulation 2016, 133 (13), 1272–89.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. 78.
    Moore, R. A.; Adel, N.; Riedel, E.; Bhutani, M.; Feldman, D. R.; Tabbara, N. E.; Soff, G.; Parameswaran, R.; Hassoun, H., High incidence of thromboembolic events in patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a large retrospective analysis. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2011, 29 (25), 3466–73.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    Dilruba, S.; Kalayda, G. V., Platinum-based drugs: past, present and future. Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology 2016, 77 (6), 1103–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    Guglin, M.; Aljayeh, M.; Saiyad, S.; Ali, R.; Curtis, A. B., Introducing a new entity: chemotherapy-induced arrhythmia. Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology 2009, 11 (12), 1579–86.
    OpenUrl
  81. 81.
    Koshiyama, M.; Kinezaki, M.; Uchida, T.; Sumitomo, M., Chemosensitivity testing of paclitaxel versus docetaxel in human gynecological carcinomas: a comparison with carboplatin. Anticancer Res 2006, 26 (5b), 3655–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. 82.
    Della Corte, L.; Barra, F.; Foreste, V.; Giampaolino, P.; Evangelisti, G.; Ferrero, S.; Bifulco, G., Advances in paclitaxel combinations for treating cervical cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2020, 21 (6), 663–677.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.
    Chan, J. K.; Brady, M. F.; Penson, R. T.; Huang, H.; Birrer, M. J.; Walker, J. L.; DiSilvestro, P. A.; Rubin, S. C.; Martin, L. P.; Davidson, S. A.; Huh, W. K.; O’Malley, D. M.; Boente, M. P.; Michael, H.; Monk, B. J., Weekly vs. Every-3-Week Paclitaxel and Carboplatin for Ovarian Cancer. The New England journal of medicine 2016, 374 (8), 738–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    Montisci, A.; Palmieri, V.; Liu, J. E.; Vietri, M. T.; Cirri, S.; Donatelli, F.; Napoli, C., Severe Cardiac Toxicity Induced by Cancer Therapies Requiring Intensive Care Unit Admission. Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 2021, 8, 713694.
    OpenUrl
  85. 85.↵
    Shiga, T.; Hiraide, M., Cardiotoxicities of 5-Fluorouracil and Other Fluoropyrimidines. Current treatment options in oncology 2020, 21 (4), 27.
    OpenUrl
  86. 86.
    Deac, A. L.; Burz, C. C.; Bocsan, I. C.; Buzoianu, A. D., Fluoropyrimidine-induced cardiotoxicity. World journal of clinical oncology 2020, 11 (12), 1008–1017.
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.↵
    Almomen, A.; Alhowyan, A., A Comprehensive Study on Folate-Targeted Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles Loaded with 5-Fluorouracil for the Enhanced Treatment of Gynecological Cancers. Journal of functional biomaterials 2024, 15 (3).
  88. 88.↵
    des Guetz, G.; Uzzan, B.; Chouahnia, K.; Morère, J. F., Cardiovascular toxicity of anti-angiogenic drugs. Targeted oncology 2011, 6 (4), 197–202.
    OpenUrl
  89. 89.
    Neves, K. B.; Montezano, A. C.; Lang, N. N.; Touyz, R. M., Vascular toxicity associated with anti-angiogenic drugs. Clinical science (London, England : 1979) 2020, 134 (18), 2503–2520.
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.
    Luvero, D.; Plotti, F.; Lopez, S.; Scaletta, G.; Capriglione, S.; Montera, R.; Antonelli, G.; Ciuffreda, S.; Carassiti, R.; Oliveti, A.; Angioli, R., Antiangiogenics and immunotherapies in cervical cancer: an update and future’s view. Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) 2017, 34 (6), 115.
    OpenUrl
  91. 91.↵
    Wang, L.; Liu, W. Q.; Broussy, S.; Han, B.; Fang, H., Recent advances of anti-angiogenic inhibitors targeting VEGF/VEGFR axis. Front Pharmacol 2023, 14, 1307860.
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.↵
    Xie, Y.; Kong, W.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, H.; Luo, D.; Chen, S., Immune checkpoint inhibitors in cervical cancer: Current status and research progress. Front Oncol 2022, 12, 984896.
    OpenUrl
  93. 93.
    Lehmann, L. H.; Cautela, J.; Palaskas, N.; Baik, A. H.; Meijers, W. C.; Allenbach, Y.; Alexandre, J.; Rassaf, T.; Müller, O. J.; Aras, M.; Asnani, A. H.; Deswal, A.; Laufer-Perl, M.; Thuny, F.; Kerneis, M.; Hayek, S. S.; Ederhy, S.; Salem, J. E.; Moslehi, J. J., Clinical Strategy for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Associated Myocarditis: A Narrative Review. JAMA Cardiol 2021, 6 (11), 1329–1337.
    OpenUrl
  94. 94.↵
    Mirza, M. R.; Chase, D. M.; Slomovitz, B. M.; dePont Christensen, R.; Novák, Z.; Black, D.; Gilbert, L.; Sharma, S.; Valabrega, G.; Landrum, L. M.; Hanker, L. C.; Stuckey, A.; Boere, I.; Gold, M. A.; Auranen, A.; Pothuri, B.; Cibula, D.; McCourt, C.; Raspagliesi, F.; Shahin, M. S.; Gill, S. E.; Monk, B. J.; Buscema, J.; Herzog, T. J.; Copeland, L. J.; Tian, M.; He, Z.; Stevens, S.; Zografos, E.; Coleman, R. L.; Powell, M. A., Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer. The New England journal of medicine 2023, 388 (23), 2145–2158.
    OpenUrl
  95. 95.↵
    Emons, G.; Mustea, A.; Tempfer, C., Tamoxifen and Endometrial Cancer: A Janus-Headed Drug. Cancers 2020, 12 (9).
  96. 96.↵
    van Weelden, W. J.; Massuger, L.; Pijnenborg, J. M. A.; Romano, A., Anti-estrogen Treatment in Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review. Front Oncol 2019, 9, 359.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    Chitoran, E.; Rotaru, V.; Mitroiu, M. N.; Durdu, C. E.; Bohiltea, R. E.; Ionescu, S. O.; Gelal, A.; Cirimbei, C.; Alecu, M.; Simion, L., Navigating Fertility Preservation Options in Gynecological Cancers: A Comprehensive Review. Cancers 2024, 16 (12).
  98. 98.
    Di Nisio, V.; Daponte, N.; Messini, C.; Anifandis, G.; Antonouli, S., Oncofertility and Fertility Preservation for Women with Gynecological Malignancies: Where Do We Stand Today? Biomolecules 2024, 14 (8).
  99. 99.↵
    Gonçalves, V.; Ferreira, P. L.; Saleh, M.; Tamargo, C.; Quinn, G. P., Perspectives of Young Women With Gynecologic Cancers on Fertility and Fertility Preservation: A Systematic Review. The oncologist 2022, 27 (3), e251–e264.
    OpenUrl
  100. 100.↵
    Cavalcante, M. B.; Sampaio, O. G. M.; Câmara, F. E. A.; Schneider, A.; de Ávila, B. M.; Prosczek, J.; Masternak, M. M.; Campos, A. R., Ovarian aging in humans: potential strategies for extending reproductive lifespan. GeroScience 2023, 45 (4), 2121–2133.
    OpenUrl
  101. 101.↵
    Hickey, M.; Basu, P.; Sassarini, J.; Stegmann, M. E.; Weiderpass, E.; Nakawala Chilowa, K.; Yip, C. H.; Partridge, A. H.; Brennan, D. J., Managing menopause after cancer. Lancet (London, England) 2024, 403 (10430), 984–996.
    OpenUrl
  102. 102.
    Zhu, D.; Chung, H. F.; Dobson, A. J.; Pandeya, N.; Giles, G. G.; Bruinsma, F.; Brunner, E. J.; Kuh, D.; Hardy, R.; Avis, N. E.; Gold, E. B.; Derby, C. A.; Matthews, K. A.; Cade, J. E.; Greenwood, D. C.; Demakakos, P.; Brown, D. E.; Sievert, L. L.; Anderson, D.; Hayashi, K.; Lee, J. S.; Mizunuma, H.; Tillin, T.; Simonsen, M. K.; Adami, H. O.; Weiderpass, E.; Mishra, G. D., Age at natural menopause and risk of incident cardiovascular disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. The Lancet. Public health 2019, 4 (11), e553–e564.
    OpenUrl
  103. 103.↵
    Nappi, R. E.; Chedraui, P.; Lambrinoudaki, I.; Simoncini, T., Menopause: a cardiometabolic transition. The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology 2022, 10 (6), 442–456.
    OpenUrl
  104. 104.↵
    Lyon, A. R.; Dent, S.; Stanway, S.; Earl, H.; Brezden-Masley, C.; Cohen-Solal, A.; Tocchetti, C. G.; Moslehi, J. J.; Groarke, J. D.; Bergler-Klein, J.; Khoo, V.; Tan, L. L.; Anker, M. S.; von Haehling, S.; Maack, C.; Pudil, R.; Barac, A.; Thavendiranathan, P.; Ky, B.; Neilan, T. G.; Belenkov, Y.; Rosen, S. D.; Iakobishvili, Z.; Sverdlov, A. L.; Hajjar, L. A.; Macedo, A. V. S.; Manisty, C.; Ciardiello, F.; Farmakis, D.; de Boer, R. A.; Skouri, H.; Suter, T. M.; Cardinale, D.; Witteles, R. M.; Fradley, M. G.; Herrmann, J.; Cornell, R. F.; Wechelaker, A.; Mauro, M. J.; Milojkovic, D.; de Lavallade, H.; Ruschitzka, F.; Coats, A. J. S.; Seferovic, P. M.; Chioncel, O.; Thum, T.; Bauersachs, J.; Andres, M. S.; Wright, D. J.; López-Fernández, T.; Plummer, C.; Lenihan, D., Baseline cardiovascular risk assessment in cancer patients scheduled to receive cardiotoxic cancer therapies: a position statement and new risk assessment tools from the Cardio-Oncology Study Group of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology in collaboration with the International Cardio-Oncology Society. European journal of heart failure 2020, 22 (11), 1945–1960.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. 105.↵
    Albini, A.; Pennesi, G.; Donatelli, F.; Cammarota, R.; De Flora, S.; Noonan, D. M., Cardiotoxicity of anticancer drugs: the need for cardio-oncology and cardio-oncological prevention. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2010, 102 (1), 14–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  106. 106.↵
    Alberts, D. S.; Garcia, D. J., Safety aspects of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with cancer. Drugs 1997, 54 Suppl 4, 30–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    Yu, X.; Ruan, Y.; Huang, X.; Dou, L.; Lan, M.; Cui, J.; Chen, B.; Gong, H.; Wang, Q.; Yan, M.; Sun, S.; Qiu, Q.; Zhang, X.; Man, Y.; Tang, W.; Li, J.; Shen, T., Dexrazoxane ameliorates doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity by inhibiting both apoptosis and necroptosis in cardiomyocytes. Biochemical and biophysical research communications 2020, 523 (1), 140–146.
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.↵
    Yuan, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Cao, D.; Shen, K.; Li, Q.; Zhang, G.; Wu, X.; Cui, M.; Yue, Y.; Cheng, W.; Wang, L.; Qu, P.; Tao, G.; Hou, J.; Sun, L.; Meng, Y.; Li, G.; Li, C.; Shi, H.; Chen, Y., Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Journal of ovarian research 2021, 14 (1), 12.
    OpenUrl
  109. 109.↵
    Li, X. R.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, G. N.; Huang, J. M.; Pei, L. X., The impact of Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in recurrent ovarian cancer: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Journal of ovarian research 2021, 14 (1), 42.
    OpenUrl
  110. 110.↵
    More, L. A.; Lane, S.; Asnani, A., 5-FU Cardiotoxicity: Vasospasm, Myocarditis, and Sudden Death. Current cardiology reports 2021, 23 (3), 17.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted October 14, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients with Gynecological Cancers: A Population-based Cohort Study
Yue Yang, Jun-Ping Yang, Bing-Shu Li, Li-Wei Cheng, Shu-Jian Wei, Yu-Guo Chen
medRxiv 2024.10.13.24315340; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.13.24315340
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area