4.6 Review

Cancer Risk in Congenital Heart Disease-What Is the Evidence?

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 12, Pages 1750-1761

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2019.09.023

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As life expectancy in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) has improved, the risk for developing noncardiac morbidities is increasing in adult patients with CHD (ACHD). Among these noncardiac complications, malignancies significantly contribute to the disease burden of ACHD patients. Epidemiologic studies of cancer risk in CHD patients are challenging because they require large numbers of patients, extended follow-up, detailed and validated clinical data, and appropriate reference populations. However, several observational studies suggest that cancer risks are significantly elevated in patients with CHD compared with the general population. CHD and cancer share genetic and environmental risk factors. An association with exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation secondary to medical therapeutic or diagnostic procedures has been reported. Patients with Down syndrome, as well as, to a lesser extent, deletion of 22q11.2 and renin-angiotensin system pathologies, may manifest both CHD and a predisposition to cancer. Such observations suggest that carcinogenesis and CHD may share a common basis in some cases. Finally, specific conditions, such as Fontan circulation and cyanotic CHD, may lead to multisystem consequences and subsequently to cancer. Nonetheless, there is currently no clear consensus regarding appropriate screening for cancer and surveillance modalities in CHD patients. Physicians caring for patients with CHD should be aware of this potential predisposition and meet screening recommendations for the general population fastidiously. An interdisciplinary and global approach is required to bridge the knowledge gap in this field.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available