Cancer Therapy–Related Hypertension: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary anticancer drugs have significantly improved cancer survival at the expense of cardiovascular toxicities, including heart disease, thromboembolic disease, and hypertension. One of the most common side effects of these drugs is hypertension, especially in patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, as well as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and proteasome inhibitors. Adjunctive therapy, including corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, as well as anti-androgen hormone therapy for prostate cancer, may further increase blood pressure in these patients. Cancer therapy-induced hypertension is often dose limiting, increases cardiovascular mortality in cancer survivors, and is usually reversible after interruption or discontinuation of treatment. The exact molecular mechanisms underlying hypertension are unclear, but recent discoveries indicate an important role for reduced nitric oxide generation, oxidative stress, endothelin-1, prostaglandins, endothelial dysfunction, increased sympathetic outflow, and microvascular rarefaction. In addition, genetic polymorphisms in vascular endothelial growth factor receptors are implicated in vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor-induced hypertension. Diagnosis, management, and follow-up of cancer therapy-induced hypertension follow national hypertension guidelines because evidence-based clinical trials specifically addressing patients who develop hypertension as a result of cancer therapy are currently lacking. Rigorous baseline assessment of patients before therapy is started requires particular emphasis on assessing and treating cardiovascular risk factors. Hypertension management follows guidelines for the general population, although special attention should be given to rebound hypotension after termination of cancer therapy. Management of these complex patients requires collaborative care involving oncologists, cardiologists, hypertension specialists, primary care professionals, and pharmacists to ensure the optimal therapeutic effect from cancer treatment while minimizing competing cardiovascular toxicities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
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".