4.5 Review

Cancer and heart disease: associations and relations

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
卷 21, 期 12, 页码 1515-1525

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.1539

关键词

Cardio-oncology; Circulating factors; Heart failure; Cancer

资金

  1. Innovational Research Incentives Scheme programme of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO VIDI) [917.13.350]
  2. European Research Council [ERC STg 715732, ERC CoG 818715]
  3. Netherlands Heart Foundation (CVON-Talent program 2017)
  4. Netherlands Heart Foundation [D97.017]
  5. Netherlands Heart Foundation (CVON DOSIS) [2014-40]
  6. Netherlands Heart Foundation (CVON SHE-PREDICTS-HF) [2017-21]
  7. Netherlands Heart Foundation (CVON RED-CVD) [2017-11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Emerging evidence supports that cancer incidence is increased in patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease and heart failure (HF), and patients with HF frequently die from cancer. Recently, data have been generated showing that circulating factors in relation to HF promote tumour growth and development in murine models, providing proof that a causal relationship exists between both diseases. Several common pathophysiological mechanisms linking HF to cancer exist, and include inflammation, neuro-hormonal activation, oxidative stress and a dysfunctional immune system. These shared mechanisms, in combination with risk factors, in concert may explain why patients with HF are prone to develop cancer. Investigating the new insights linking HF with cancer is rapidly becoming an exciting new field of research, and we herein review the most recent data. Besides insights in mechanisms, we call for clinical awareness, that is essential to optimize treatment strategies of patients having developed cancer with a history of HF. Finally, ongoing and future trials should strive for comprehensive phenotyping of both CV and cancer end points, to allow optimal usefulness of data, and to better describe and understand common characteristics of these two lethal diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据