Non-invasive surrogate markers of pulmonary hypertension are associated with poor survival in patients with cancer

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, and cardiopulmonary comorbidities may further adversely affect cancer prognosis. We recently described lung cancer-associated pulmonary hypertension (PH) as a new form of PH and comorbidity of lung cancer. While patients with lung cancer with PH had significantly reduced overall survival compared with patients without PH, the prevalence and impact of PH in other cancers remain unclear. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational cohort study, we analysed the prevalence and impact of PH on clinical outcomes in 1184 patients with solid tumours other than lung cancer, that is, colorectal, head and neck, urological, breast or central nervous system tumours, using surrogate markers for PH determined by CT. RESULTS: PH prevalence in this cohort was 10.98%. A Cox proportional hazard model revealed a significant reduction in the median survival time of patients with cancer with PH (837 vs 2074 days; p<0.001). However, there was no correlation between pulmonary metastases and PH. A subgroup analysis showed that PH was linked to decreased lung and cardiac function. Additionally, PH was associated with systemic arterial hypertension (p<0.001) and coronary artery disease (p=0.014), but not emphysema. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, fewer patients with cancer had surrogate parameters for PH compared with previously published results among patients with lung cancer. Consequently, the prevalence of PH in other cancers might be lower compared with lung cancer; however, PH still has a negative impact on prognosis. Furthermore, our data does not provide evidence that lung metastases cause PH. Thus, our results support the idea that lung cancer-associated PH represents a new category of PH. Our results also highlight the importance of further studies in the field of cardio-oncology.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.