Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 28, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
Performance of Traditional Cardiovascular Risk Scores and Objective Optimization in Cancer Survivors
Harsh A Patel1, Saifullah Syed2, Pranathi Tella3
1Department of Internal Medicine, Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital, Udaipur 313001, India.
Insights
Standard cardiovascular disease risk scores do not accurately predict mortality in cancer survivors. New cardio-oncology models are needed to account for cancer treatments and survivor-specific risks.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Oncology
- Epidemiology
Background:
- Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of death in cancer survivors.
- Existing CVD risk prediction tools (ASCVD, Framingham, PREVENT) do not include cancer-specific factors.
- Cardiotoxic cancer therapies and increased cardiovascular risk factors contribute to CVD in survivors.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the predictive performance of general population CVD risk models in cancer survivors.
- To determine if statistical optimization improves the accuracy of these models for cardiovascular mortality prediction in this cohort.
- To highlight the need for cancer-specific cardiovascular risk assessment.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data linked with National Death Index (NDI) mortality data (2001-2018).
- Included cancer survivors without baseline cardiovascular disease.
- Assessed discrimination of ASCVD, Framingham Score, and PREVENT using standard and Youden-optimized thresholds, with Area Under the Curve (AUC) comparisons via DeLong test.
Main Results:
- Standard thresholds showed suboptimal discrimination (AUCs: ASCVD 0.56, Framingham 0.53, PREVENT 0.64).
- Youden-optimized thresholds improved AUCs (ASCVD: 0.68; PREVENT: 0.71), but increased "low-risk" mortality rate, indicating overestimation.
- Optimized thresholds outperformed conventional ones, suggesting limitations of current models.
Conclusions:
- General CVD risk scores inadequately predict cardiovascular mortality in cancer survivors.
- While threshold recalibration improves statistical fit, it doesn't address the fundamental issue of unaddressed cardiotoxic exposures.
- Development of specialized cardio-oncology risk models incorporating oncologic exposures is essential for accurate risk stratification.
Abstract:
Introduction: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of non-cancer death among cancer survivors, attributable to cardiotoxic therapies and cardiovascular risk factors. General population risk prediction tools, including ASCVD (Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), Framingham's Score, and PREVENT (Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease EVENTS), lack cancer-specific variables. We evaluated whether these models, even after statistical optimization, could predict cardiovascular mortality in cancer survivors. Methods: Using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2001-2018, linked with National Death Index (NDI) mortality data, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 634 and 429 cancer survivors, respectively, across model-specific cohorts free of baseline cardiovascular disease. Discrimination was assessed for ASCVD, Framingham Score, and PREVENT using standardized thresholds of 7.5% and 20%, as well as Youden-optimized cutoffs. Area under the curve (AUC) comparisons were performed using the DeLong non-parametric method. Results: Standard thresholds showed suboptimal discrimination across all models (AUCs: ASCVD 0.56, Framingham 0.53, PREVENT 0.64). In contrast, Youden-optimized AUCs (ASCVD: 0.68; PREVENT: 0.71; all p < 0.001, DeLong test). Optimization increased the "low-risk" group's mortality rate from 2.8% to 4.1% (RR = 1.47), suggesting improved statistical fit came at the cost of overestimating the risk. Optimized thresholds outperformed conventional cutoffs, underscoring the necessity for recalibrated, cohort-specific risk stratification in cancer survivors. Conclusions: Standard risk scores have inadequate discrimination for cardiovascular mortality prediction in cancer survivors. Threshold recalibration improves statistical metrics but does not resolve the structural failure of these models to account for cardiotoxic exposure. Development of cardio-oncology-specific risk models incorporating oncologic exposures is therefore warranted.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
Relative Risk
Cancer Prevention
Some...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

