Stroke risk is currently estimated as part of the composite risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We investigated if composite-CVD risk prediction tools QRISK3 and Pooled Cohort Equations-PCE, derived from middle-aged adults, are as good as stroke-specific Framingham Stroke Risk Profile-FSRP and QStroke for capturing the true risk of stroke in older adults. External validation for 10y stroke outcomes was performed in men (60-79y) of the British Regional Heart Study. Discrimination and calibration were assessed in separate validation samples (FSRP n = 3762, QStroke n = 3376, QRISK3 n = 2669 and PCE n = 3047) with/without adjustment for competing risks. Sensitivity/specificity were examined using observed and clinically recommended thresholds. Performance of FSRP, QStroke and QRISK3 was further compared head-to-head in 2441 men free of a range of CVD, including across age-groups. Observed 10y risk (/1000PY) ranged from 6.8 (hard strokes) to 11 (strokes/transient ischemic attacks). All tools discriminated weakly, C-indices 0.63-0.66. FSRP and QStroke overestimated risk at higher predicted probabilities. QRISK3 and PCE showed reasonable calibration overall with minor mis-estimations across the risk range. Performance worsened on adjusting for competing non-stroke deaths. However, in men without CVD, QRISK3 displayed relatively better calibration for stroke events, even after adjustment for competing deaths, including in oldest men. All tools displayed similar sensitivity (63-73 %) and specificity (52-54 %) using observed risks as cut-offs. When QRISK3 and PCE were evaluated using thresholds for CVD prevention, sensitivity for stroke events was 99 %, with false positive rate 97 % suggesting existing intervention thresholds may need to be re-examined to reflect age-related stroke burden.

Cardio-oncology research studies often require consideration of potential competing risks, as the occurrence of other events (eg, cancer-related death) may preclude the primary event of interest (eg, cardiovascular outcome). However, the decision to conduct competing risks analysis is not always straightforward, and even when deemed necessary, misconceptions exist about the appropriate choice of analytical methods to address the competing risks. R researchers are encouraged to consider competing risks at the study design stage and are provided provide an assessment tool to guide decisions on analytical approach on the basis of study objectives. The existing statistical methods for competing risks analysis, including cumulative incidence estimations and regression modeling are also reviewed. Cardio-oncology-specific examples are used to illustrate these concepts and highlight potential pitfalls and misinterpretations. R code is also provided for these analyses.

Centrosome and spindle pole-associated protein (CSPP1) is a centrosome and microtubule-binding protein that plays a role in cell cycle-dependent cytoskeleton organization and cilia formation. Previous studies have suggested that CSPP1 plays a role in tumorigenesis; however, no pan-cancer analysis has been performed. This study systematically investigates the expression of CSPP1 and its potential clinical outcomes associated with diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy. CSPP1 is widely present in tissues and cells and its aberrant expression serves as a diagnostic biomarker for cancer. CSPP1 dysregulation is driven by multi-dimensional mechanisms involving genetic alterations, DNA methylation, and miRNAs. Phosphorylation of CSPP1 at specific sites may play a role in tumorigenesis. In addition, CSPP1 correlates with clinical features and outcomes in multiple cancers. Take brain low-grade gliomas (LGG) with a poor prognosis as an example, functional enrichment analysis implies that CSPP1 may play a role in ferroptosis and tumor microenvironment (TME), including regulating epithelial-mesenchymal transition, stromal response, and immune response. Further analysis confirms that CSPP1 dysregulates ferroptosis in LGG and other cancers, making it possible for ferroptosis-based drugs to be used in the treatment of these cancers. Importantly, CSPP1-associated tumors are infiltrated in different TMEs, rendering immune checkpoint blockade therapy beneficial for these cancer patients. Our study is the first to demonstrate that CSPP1 is a potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarker associated with ferroptosis and TME, providing a new target for drug therapy and immunotherapy in specific cancers.

BACKGROUND: An increased risk of malignancy was reported with simvastatin/ezetimibe in 1,873 patients in the SEAS (Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis) trial.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to clarify this unexpected finding in a larger sample size of patients stabilized after acute coronary syndrome, we conducted a prospective systematic analysis of malignancy events in IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial).
METHODS: Within IMPROVE-IT, 17,708 patients post-acute coronary syndrome were randomized to either ezetimibe 10 mg or matching placebo on a background of simvastatin 40 mg who took ≥1 dose of the study drug. Suspected tumors (benign and malignant) reported by investigators or identified from a review of adverse events were adjudicated by oncologists without knowledge of drug assignment. The primary malignancy endpoint included new, relapsing, or progressive malignancies (excluding nonmelanotic skin malignancies). The secondary endpoint was death due to malignancy.
RESULTS: In this trial, 1,470 patients developed the primary malignancy endpoint during a median 6 years of follow-up. The most common malignancy locations were prostate (18.9%), lung (16.8%), and bladder (8.8%) with no differences by treatment group (p > 0.05 for each location). Kaplan-Meier 7-year rates of malignancies were similar with ezetimibe and placebo (10.2% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio: 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.93 to 1.14; p = 0.56), as were the rates for malignancy death (3.8% vs. 3.6%; hazard ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.88 to 1.23; p = 0.68).
CONCLUSIONS: Among 17,708 patients receiving simvastatin 40 mg daily, those randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg daily had a similar incidence of malignancy and deaths due to malignancy compared with those receiving placebo during a median follow-up of 6 years (96,377 patient-years). (IMPROVE-IT: Examining Outcomes in Subjects With Acute Coronary Syndrome: Vytorin [Ezetimibe/Simvastatin] vs Simvastatin [P04103]; NCT00202878).