American Heart Association cardiovascular health metrics and cancer outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
[BACKGROUND] Cardiovascular disease and cancer have numerous shared risk factors.
- p-value P < .001
- 95% CI 0.79-0.91
- 연구 설계 systematic review
APA
Torres J, Navarro S, et al. (2026). American Heart Association cardiovascular health metrics and cancer outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.. American heart journal, 297, 107426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2026.107426
MLA
Torres J, et al.. "American Heart Association cardiovascular health metrics and cancer outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.." American heart journal, vol. 297, 2026, pp. 107426.
PMID
41856447
Abstract
[BACKGROUND] Cardiovascular disease and cancer have numerous shared risk factors. Our objective is to determine whether American Heart Association (AHA) cardiovascular health (CVH) metrics are associated with cancer outcomes.
[METHODS] We searched PubMed and Scopus (inception to July 15, 2025). We included cohort studies examining the association of AHA CVH metrics with cancer risk and cancer mortality. We conducted meta-analyses to generate summary risk ratios (RRs), hazard ratios (HRs), and standard errors for outcomes with at least 3 contributing studies reporting associations with low (worse), moderate, and high (best) CVH score groups. We utilized meta regression to examine dose-response relationships of CVH score groups.
[RESULTS] Our systematic review included 26 studies. Moderate (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.91, P < .001) and high (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.81, P < .001) CVH scores were associated with decreased overall cancer risk with evidence of a dose-response effect for more favorable groups (coefficient, -0.09; standard error [SE], 0.02; P < .001). High CVH scores were associated with statistically significantly decreased risk of breast (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90), colorectal (RR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.57-0.74), and lung cancer (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.70). We found evidence for lower cancer mortality in the moderate (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68, P < .001) and high (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41-0.53, P < .001) CVH score groups. Meta regression demonstrated a dose-response effect on all cancer mortality (coefficient, -0.33; SE, 0.05; P < .001).
[CONCLUSIONS] We provide evidence for a dose response association of better CVH scores with decreased cancer incidence and cancer mortality. Optimizing CVH may improve cancer outcomes.
[METHODS] We searched PubMed and Scopus (inception to July 15, 2025). We included cohort studies examining the association of AHA CVH metrics with cancer risk and cancer mortality. We conducted meta-analyses to generate summary risk ratios (RRs), hazard ratios (HRs), and standard errors for outcomes with at least 3 contributing studies reporting associations with low (worse), moderate, and high (best) CVH score groups. We utilized meta regression to examine dose-response relationships of CVH score groups.
[RESULTS] Our systematic review included 26 studies. Moderate (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.91, P < .001) and high (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.81, P < .001) CVH scores were associated with decreased overall cancer risk with evidence of a dose-response effect for more favorable groups (coefficient, -0.09; standard error [SE], 0.02; P < .001). High CVH scores were associated with statistically significantly decreased risk of breast (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90), colorectal (RR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.57-0.74), and lung cancer (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.70). We found evidence for lower cancer mortality in the moderate (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68, P < .001) and high (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41-0.53, P < .001) CVH score groups. Meta regression demonstrated a dose-response effect on all cancer mortality (coefficient, -0.33; SE, 0.05; P < .001).
[CONCLUSIONS] We provide evidence for a dose response association of better CVH scores with decreased cancer incidence and cancer mortality. Optimizing CVH may improve cancer outcomes.