Treatment for lymphoma and late cardiovascular disease risk: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and aims Lymphoma patients are frequently treated with cancer therapies that may increase the risk of adverse health outcomes later in life, including cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. We sought to investigate the long‐term risk of CVD incidence in this survivor population relative to the general population to quantify this health burden. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases, from date of inception to November 2016, with additional searches completed through June 2018. Included reports were observational studies assessing CVD incidence in patients of either Hodgkin or non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (HL, NHL) who survived for at least 5 years from the time of diagnosis or if the study had a median follow‐up of 10 years. Meta‐analyses were performed using random effects models, and subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the incidence of specific CVD subtypes (coronary heart disease, pericardial disease, valvular heart disease, myocardial disease, cardiac dysrhythmia, and cerebrovascular disease). Heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 statistics and prediction intervals. Results Of the 7734 studies identified, 22 studies were included in this review, representing 32 438 HL and NHL survivors. Relative to the general population, lymphoma survivors had statistically significant two to threefold increases in the risk for nearly all subtypes of CVD examined. Lymphoma survivors appeared to be particularly susceptible to pericardial diseases (HL: 10.67, 95% confidence interval (CI), 7.75‐14.69; NHL: 4.70, 95% CI, 2.08‐10.61) and valvular diseases (HL: 13.10, 95% CI, 7.41‐23.16; NHL: 3.76, 95% CI, 2.12‐6.66). Although the 95% CIs were suggestive of increased risks, the 95% prediction intervals often included the null, reflecting the high heterogeneity of the estimates. Conclusion Given the suggested increased risks of cardiovascular outcomes in lymphoma survivor populations relative to the general population, tailored screening and prevention programmes may be warranted to offset the future burden of disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".