JACC. CardioOncology · 2026
Identifying Patients With Prostate Cancer Who Benefit Most From Routine Cardiovascular Specialist Referral.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cano Garcia Cristina, Pinthus Jehonathan, Avezum Alvaro, Devereaux P J, Klotz Laurence, Higano Celestia, Fradet Vincent, Selvanayagam Joseph, Guha Avirup, Hajjar Ludhmila, Lopez-Lopez Jose Patricio, Xavier Denis, Ng Kelvin, Rangarajan Sumathy, Karampatos Sarah, Agapay Steven, Mian Rajibul, Balasubramanian Kumar, Cirne Filipe, Huynh Melissa, Davis Margot K, Hamilton Robert J, Gopaul Darin, Mukherjee Som D, Farooqi Malik, Benz Alexander P, Richard Rachel, Koo Chieh Yang Christopher, Leong Darryl P, RADICAL PC Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: RADICAL PC-2 (RAndomizeD Intervention for CArdiovascular and Lifestyle Risk Factors in Prostate Cancer Patients) was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial that tested whether routine referral to a cardiologist or an internist for cardiovascular (CV) risk-factor and lifestyle modification improves outcomes in patients with prostate cancer or receiving androgen-deprivation therapy. The intervention group had more favorable outcomes overall, driven by improved cholesterol control, with no differences in rates of CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or heart failure (HF).
OBJECTIVES: The authors aim to identify patient subgroups more likely to benefit from routine CV care referral.
METHODS: Prespecified subgroup analyses were used to assess whether patients at higher CV risk derived greater benefit from specialist referral, with treatment-effect heterogeneity assessed using interaction tests. The first primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of CV death, MI, stroke, HF, suboptimal cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure (SBP) control, evaluated using the win ratio. The second primary outcome was time to CV death, MI, stroke, or HF.
RESULTS: Among 2487 participants, treatment effect differed by baseline total cholesterol ≤4 mmol/L vs >4 mmol/L (interaction P = 0.016), with respective win ratios of 1.21 (95% CI: 0.89-1.64) and 1.75 (95% CI: 1.51-2.03), and by baseline BP status (SBP ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg vs BP <130/80 mm Hg; interaction P = 0.003), with respective subdistribution HRs (sHRs) for CV death, MI, stroke, or HF of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.61-1.21) and 4.85 (95% CI: 1.65-14.26). The interaction for diabetes did not reach statistical significance (interaction P = 0.054) although the intervention effect estimates suggested a potential difference by diabetes status, with sHRs of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.24-1.15) among participants with diabetes and 1.25 (95% CI: 0.88-1.78) among participants without diabetes. The win ratio was higher among participants with total cholesterol >4 mmol/L, and sHRs were numerically lower among those with SBP ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg and diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS: Uncontrolled modifiable CV risk factors may identify patients with prostate cancer who are more likely to benefit from routine CV care referral.
OBJECTIVES: The authors aim to identify patient subgroups more likely to benefit from routine CV care referral.
METHODS: Prespecified subgroup analyses were used to assess whether patients at higher CV risk derived greater benefit from specialist referral, with treatment-effect heterogeneity assessed using interaction tests. The first primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of CV death, MI, stroke, HF, suboptimal cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure (SBP) control, evaluated using the win ratio. The second primary outcome was time to CV death, MI, stroke, or HF.
RESULTS: Among 2487 participants, treatment effect differed by baseline total cholesterol ≤4 mmol/L vs >4 mmol/L (interaction P = 0.016), with respective win ratios of 1.21 (95% CI: 0.89-1.64) and 1.75 (95% CI: 1.51-2.03), and by baseline BP status (SBP ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg vs BP <130/80 mm Hg; interaction P = 0.003), with respective subdistribution HRs (sHRs) for CV death, MI, stroke, or HF of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.61-1.21) and 4.85 (95% CI: 1.65-14.26). The interaction for diabetes did not reach statistical significance (interaction P = 0.054) although the intervention effect estimates suggested a potential difference by diabetes status, with sHRs of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.24-1.15) among participants with diabetes and 1.25 (95% CI: 0.88-1.78) among participants without diabetes. The win ratio was higher among participants with total cholesterol >4 mmol/L, and sHRs were numerically lower among those with SBP ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg and diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS: Uncontrolled modifiable CV risk factors may identify patients with prostate cancer who are more likely to benefit from routine CV care referral.