AimExpected 1‐year survival is essential to risk stratification of patients with heart failure (HF); however, little is known about the 1‐year prognosis of patients with HF and cancer. Thus, the objective was to investigate the 1‐year prognosis following new‐onset HF stratified by cancer status in patients with breast‐, gastrointestinal‐, or lung cancer.Methods and ResultsAll Danish patients with new‐onset HF from 2000–2018 were included. Cancer status was categorized as history of cancer (no cancer‐related contact within five years of HF diagnosis), non‐active cancer (curative intended procedure administered) and active cancer. Standardized 1‐year all‐cause mortality was reported using G‐computation. Age‐stratified 1‐year all‐cause mortality was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier estimator. In total, 193 359 patients with HF were included, 7.3% had either a breast‐, gastrointestinal or lung cancer diagnosis. Patients with cancer were older and more comorbid than patients without cancer. Standardized 1‐year all‐cause mortalities (95% confidence intervals) were 24.6% (23.0%–26.2%), 27.1% (25.5%–28.6%), and 29.9% (25.9%–34.0%) for history of breast‐, gastrointestinal‐, and lung cancer, which was comparable to patients with non‐active cancers. For active breast‐, gastrointestinal‐, and lung cancer, standardized 1‐year all‐cause mortalities were 36.2% (33.8%–38.6%), 49.0% (47.2%–50.9%), and 61.6% (59.7%–63.5%), respectively. One‐year all‐cause mortality increased incrementally with age, except for active lung cancer.ConclusionStandardized 1‐year all‐cause mortality were comparable for patients with history of cancer and non‐active cancer regardless cancer type, but varied comprehensively for active cancers. Prognostic impact of age was limited for active lung cancer. Thus, granular stratification of cancer is necessary for optimized management of new‐onset HF.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Background/Aim The National Patient Registry (DNPR) provides unique epidemiological insight, but often lacks granular data. We propose a procedure-based definition of cancer status in patients with breast-, lung- and colorectal cancer, which can be applied to administrative health databases. New definitions of cancer status are needed as mortality and morbidity are closely linked to cancer status, yet most studies only use duration since cancer diagnosis as a severity marker. The aim of the study was to validate a new pragmatic definition. Method Medical journals of 600 patients, with breast-, lung- and colorectal cancer from the Department of Oncology at Herlev-Gentofte Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. We defined active cancer as a cancer diagnosis, not followed by a potentially curative procedure within 6 months of the diagnosis. The remaining patients were characterized as having non-active cancer. This dichotomisation was then compared to a cancer status assessment based on treatment received and paraclinical test such as their first post procedural control scan. Based on this comparison, we calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) of our definitions of active and non-active cancer. Results The calculated PPVs for active breast-, lung- and colorectal cancer were 87% (CI 95%: 0.74–0.99), 91% (CI 95%: 0.87–0.96) and 82% (CI 95%: 0.73–0.91). The PPVs for non-active breast-, lung- and colorectal cancer were 95% (CI 95%: 0.92–0.99), 91% (CI 95%: 0.82–0.99) and 73% (CI 95%: 0.66–0.81), respectively. Conclusion We found an overall high PPV for both active and non-active cancer across all three types of cancer.
Background/Aim: The Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) provides unique epidemiological insight, but often lacks granular data. We propose a procedure-based definition of cancer status in patients with breast-, lung-and colorectal cancer, which can be applied to administrative health databases. New definitions of cancer status are needed as mortality and morbidity are closely linked to cancer status, yet most studies only use duration since cancer diagnosis as a severity marker. The aim of the study was to validate a new pragmatic definition. Methods: Medical journals of 600 patients, with breast-, lung-and colorectal cancer from the Department of Oncology at Herlev-Gentofte Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. We defined active cancer as a cancer diagnosis, not followed by a potentially curative procedure within 6 months of the diagnosis. The remaining patients were characterized as having non-active cancer. This dichotomization was then compared to a cancer status assessment based on treatment received and paraclinical test such as their first postprocedural control scan. Based on this comparison, we calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) of our definitions of active and non-active cancer. Results: The calculated PPVs for active breast-, lung-and colorectal cancer were 87% (CI 95%: 0.74-0.99), 91% (CI 95%: 0.87-0.96) and 82% (CI 95%: 0.73-0.91). The PPVs for non-active breast-, lung-and colorectal cancer were 95% (CI 95%: 0.92-0.99), 91% (CI 95%: 0.82-0.99) and 73% (CI 95%: 0.66-0.81), respectively. Conclusion:We found an overall high PPV for both active and non-active cancer across all three types of cancer.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.