Dataset Information

Association between coronary artery calcium and cardiovascular disease as a supporting cause in cancer: The CAC consortium.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Identifying cancer patients at high risk of CVD is important for targeting CVD prevention strategies and evaluating chemotherapy options in the context of cardiotoxicity. Coronary artery calcium (CAC), a strong marker of coronary atherosclerosis, is used clinically to enhance risk assessment, yet the value of CAC for assessing risk of CVD complications in cancer is poorly understood.

Objective

In cases of cancer mortality, to determine the value of CAC for predicting risk of CVD as a supporting cause of death.

Methods

The CAC Consortium is a multi-center cohort of 66,636 asymptomatic adults without CVD who underwent CAC scanning. During a follow-up of 12.5 years, 1129 patients died of cancer and were included in this analysis. The primary outcome was presence of CVD listed as a supporting cause of cancer mortality on official death certificates obtained from the National Death Index. Logistic regression models were used to assess the odds of CVD being listed as a supporting cause of death by CAC.

Results

CVD was listed as a supporting cause of death in 306 (27%) cancer mortality cases. Baseline CAC was significantly higher in individuals with CVD-supported mortality. Odds ratios of having CVD-supported death increased by ASCVD risk score category [1.15 (0.81, 1.65) for 5-20% 10-year risk and 1.97 (1.36, 2.89) for ≥20% risk, in reference to <5% 10-year ASCVD risk] and CAC category [1.07 (0.73, 1.57) for CAC 1-99, 1.29 (0.87, 1.93) for CAC 100-399, and 2.14 (1.48, 3.09) for CAC ≥400 relative to CAC 0]. In the CAC ≥400 group, these associations remained significantly elevated after adjustment for traditional CVD risk factors [1.66 (1.08, 2.55)]. A sensitivity analysis using a more specific ASCVD-supported mortality outcome, defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, and peripheral artery disease, demonstrated that adjusted odds of ASCVD-supported cancer mortality were significantly elevated in the CAC ≥400 group relative to CAC 0 [3.09 (1.39, 7.38)].

Conclusions

In cancer mortality cases, high antecedent CAC predicted risk of having CVD as a supporting cause of death on official death certificates, independently of ASCVD risk score and CVD risk factors. CAC may be useful for identifying cancer patients at high CVD risk who might benefit from more intense preventive cardiovascular therapies.

SUBMITTER: Wang FM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8315471 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study compared risk discrimination for the prediction of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths for the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) Risk Score (with and without coronary artery calcium [CAC]), and of simple addition of CAC to the PCE.BackgroundThe PCE predict 10-year risk of atherosclerotic CVD events, and the MESA Risk Score predicts risk of CHD. Their comparative performance for the prediction of fatal events is poorly understood.MethodsWe evaluated 53,487 patients ages 45 to 79 years from the CAC Consortium, a retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic individuals referred for clinical CAC scoring. Risk discrimination was measured using C-statistics.ResultsMean age was 57 years, 35% were women, and 39% had CAC of 0. There were 421 CHD and 775 CVD deaths over a mean 12-year follow-up. In the overall study population, discrimination with the MESA Risk Score with CAC and the PCE was almost identical for both outcomes (C-statistics: 0.80 and 0.79 for CHD death, 0.77 and 0.78 for CVD death, respectively). Addition of CAC to the PCE improved risk discrimination, yielding the largest C-statistics. The MESA Risk Score with CAC and the PCE plus CAC showed the best discrimination among the 45% of patients with 5% to 20% estimated risk. Secondary analyses by estimated CVD risk strata showed modestly improved risk discrimination with CAC also among low- and high-estimated risk groups.ConclusionsOur findings support the current guideline recommendation to use, among available risk scores, the PCE for initial risk assessment and to use CAC for further risk assessment in a broad borderline and intermediate risk group. Also, in select individuals at low or high estimated risk, CAC modestly improved discrimination. Studies in unselected populations will lead to further understanding of the potential value of tools combining risk scores and CAC for optimal risk assessment.