Evidence Hub

Specific Cardiovascular Mortality in Cancer Survivors: A Nationwide Population‐Based Cohort Study in Japan

Y. Gon, Ling Zha, Tomohiro Kawano, Haruka Kudo, T. Morishima, Tsutomu Sasaki, I. Miyashiro, Hideki Mochizuki et al.

Journal of the American Heart Association : Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease, 2025

9 citations

Abstract

Background Improvements in cancer survivorship have led to concern about cardiovascular disease (CVD) among cancer survivors. This study aimed to investigate CVD mortality in patients with cancer compared with the general population, with a focus on specific CVDs including ischemic heart disease, heart failure, aortic dissection, ischemic stroke, and hemorrhagic stroke. Methods This nationwide population‐based cohort study used data from the National Cancer Registry in Japan. Patients diagnosed with cancer between January 2016 and December 2019 were included. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) and their 95% CIs were calculated to compare the risk of CVD mortality between patients with cancer and the general population. The SMRs were also computed for each specific CVD. Results The study included 3 972 603 patients, representing 6 212 672 person‐years of follow‐up. Patients with cancer had a 2.39‐fold higher risk of cardiovascular death compared with the general population. The SMR was highest for nonlymphoid hematologic malignancies (4.32 [95% CI, 4.15–4.50]). The mortality risk varied across specific types of CVD. Nonlymphoid hematologic malignancies had the highest SMRs for ischemic heart disease (3.15 [95% CI, 2.87–3.45]) and heart failure (7.65 [95% CI, 7.07–8.27]). The SMR for aortic dissection, ischemic stroke, and hemorrhagic stroke were highest for laryngeal (3.31 [95% CI, 2.29–4.79]), pancreatic (5.39 [95% CI, 4.79–6.05]), and liver (3.75 [95% CI, 3.36–4.18])…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free