Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Feb 25;20(2):e0319342. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319342

Cardiology involvement and mortality in adult patients with advanced solid cancer complicated by atrial fibrillation

Takeshi Sato 1,2,#, Zhehao Dai 3,4,*,#, Jun Hashimoto 5,*, Sachiko Ohde 6, Nobuyuki Komiyama 4, Takayuki Inomata 2, Teruo Yamauchi 7,8
Editor: Yoshihiro Fukumoto9
PMCID: PMC11856317  PMID: 39999078

Abstract

Background

The association between comorbid atrial fibrillation (AF) and survival in adult patients with advanced solid cancer, as well as the impact of cardiology involvement in such patients, remains unclear.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included adult patients diagnosed with advanced solid cancers. We calculated prevalence of AF in different cancer types and compared all-cause mortality between patients with and without AF. We further examined the association between cardiology involvement and mortality in the subset of participants with AF.

Results

Among the 1,349 adult patients with advanced solid cancer, 122 (9.0%) had AF. The risk of AF was the highest in lung and mediastinal cancer (15.6%). AF was associated with higher all-cause mortality, which became neutral after adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, cancer types and cancer treatments (crude hazard ratio [HR] 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.75, p =  0.004; adjusted HR 1.08, 95%CI 0.84–1.39, p =  0.552). In those with AF, cardiology involvement was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (age, sex, comorbidities, cancer types and cancer treatments-adjusted HR 0.50 [95%CI 0.28–0.88], p =  0.017), though the cumulative incidence of neither cardiovascular nor non-cardiovascular death differed significantly between patients who received cardiology care and those who did not.

Conclusions

In adult patients with advanced solid cancer, AF per se was not independently associated with increased mortality. Cardiology involvement in patients with advanced solid cancer and AF was linked to a better overall survival, but with low certainty that this finding is not attributable to unmeasured confounding.

Introduction

With recent advancements in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment, prognosis has improved substantially [1]. As survival is prolonged, late morbidity and mortality have become major concerns in managing patients with cancer. Cardiovascular disease is the second most frequent cause of late morbidity and mortality among cancer survivors [2,3], represented prominently by atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients with cancer are at a 1.5 to 3-fold higher risk of developing AF than in general population [4,5]. Furthermore, among patients with cancer, those with AF have a two-fold increased risk of ischemic stroke and a six-fold increased risk of heart failure compared to those without AF [3]. A previous study based on the health insurance database in Taiwan showed that new-onset AF in patients with cancer is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism and heart failure, whereas baseline AF is linked to increased mortality [6]. Another study found that newly developed AF during the postoperative period is associated with higher mortality in patients with esophageal cancer who undergo esophagectomy [7]. Further research is needed to explore the association between AF and mortality in patients with cancer, as well as to identify interventions that could potentially reduce mortality in this population.

Initiating anticoagulation in patients with AF and cancer is more complicated than in the general AF population. Patients with cancer face higher risks of both thromboembolism and bleeding [8]. Conventional risk assessment tools for thromboembolism and bleeding are not directly applicable to patients with cancer due to their distinct risk profiles [9,10]. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on cardio-oncology recommend a comprehensive evaluation of thromboembolic risk, bleeding risk, and drug-drug interactions for these patients to determine anticoagulant use (Class of recommendation I, Level of evidence C) [11]. This approach may be promoted by a multidisciplinary collaboration between oncologists and cardiologists. A recent report demonstrated that although patients with AF and cancer were less likely to receive care from cardiologists than those with AF but not cancer (54% vs. 62%), cardiology involvement in this population was associated with increased anticoagulant prescriptions and reduced stroke risk [12]. Furthermore, both cancer and AF increase the risk of heart failure [3,11]. Therefore, cardiology involvement in managing these multimorbid conditions is expected to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, whether cardiology involvement lowers mortality in patients with cancer complicated by AF, particularly those with advanced cancer, remains unclear.

We hypothesized that AF contributed to higher mortality in patients with advanced solid cancer due to increased risks of heart failure and ischemic stroke [3], which might be mitigated by cardiology involvement with appropriate approaches to anticoagulation and antiarrhythmic drugs, and heart failure therapies. Thus, this single-center retrospective cohort study, including patients with advanced solid cancer, was conducted to compare the mortality between patients with and without AF. Moreover, among those with AF, this study also examined differences in mortality between patients who received care from a cardiologist and those who did not.

Methods

Study design and population

This single-center retrospective cohort study recruited patients from St. Luke’s International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of St. Luke’s International University (approval No. 18-J013), which waived written informed consent from patients given the observational nature of the study and the anonymity in the analysis. Instead, all participants in this study provided consent under an opt-out policy. Eligible participants were initially screened if diagnosed with advanced solid cancer between January 2008 and December 2017. Advanced solid cancer was defined as a locally advanced and/or metastatic tumor that was not amenable to curative resection. Exclusions included: (1) patients under 20 years old, (2) those who sought a second opinion without subsequent management at our hospital, and (3) those who did not receive cancer treatment for any reason.

Data collection

Clinical and demographic data were collected from electronic medical records, encompassing baseline demographics (sex and age), comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, ischemic stroke, and heart failure), cancer treatment for the index cancer (either ongoing treatment upon inclusion or those received previously in earlier stages), and mortality. The baseline was defined as the time of advanced solid cancer diagnosis. AF, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, was diagnosed using a surface electrocardiogram (ECG) following current guidelines [3]. Cardiology involvement was defined as the documented regular participation of a cardiologist in the patient’s care within medical records or self-reported regular visits to a cardiologist outside the hospital setting. Data collection was conducted by a healthcare information technician and an independent physician through January 4 to January 31, 2019. The authors had access to anonymous data where individual participants could not be identified.

Measurement of outcomes

This study was designed to investigate the association between AF and mortality among patients with advanced solid cancer, and to explore whether this association was influenced by cardiology involvement. Therefore, the primary endpoint was defined as all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular deaths, specifically analyzed if a statistically significant difference was observed in the primary endpoint comparison.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were expressed as median (interquartile range [IQR]) and were compared between the two groups using Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were expressed as numbers (percentages) and were compared using the χ2 or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate.

We initially compared the baseline characteristics of the patients with and without AF. Subsequently, to assess overall survival in adult patients with advanced solid cancer with and without AF, we performed Kaplan-Meier estimates and conducted Cox proportional hazard modeling to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted for age, sex, hemoglobin, creatinine, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, stroke, cancer type, and cancer treatment. Similarly, within the AF subgroup, we compared the overall survival between patients cared by a cardiologist and those without cardiology involvement. We employed Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazard models. Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, AF classification, hemoglobin, creatinine, and comorbidities. Model 2 was further adjusted for cancer types. In Model 3, additional adjustments were made for treatments specific to AF. For multivariable regressions, variable selections were based on clinical significance with the forced entry procedure. Multicollinearity in the regression coefficients was assessed by means of the variance inflation factor (VIF) with a criterion of VIF <10. Proportional hazard assumptions were assessed by Schoenfeld residuals tests along with visualization of scaled Schoenfeld residual plots. For analyzing secondary endpoints (cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular deaths), we applied the Aalen-Johansen method and Gray’s test to address competing risks (non-cardiovascular death and cardiovascular death, respectively) [13,14].

Statistical significance was set at P <  0.05. All analyses were performed using the R statistical software version 4.4.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

Participants and baseline characteristics

We initially screened 2,075 patients diagnosed with advanced solid cancer between January 2008 and December 2017 at St. Luke’s International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. Of these, 197 patients were excluded because they were under the age of 20 or visited the hospital only for a second opinion without subsequent management. Among the remaining 1,878 patients, 529 were excluded for not receiving any anticancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, radiotherapy, or surgery. Ultimately, this study included 1,349 adult patients with advanced solid cancer (Fig 1).

Fig 1. CONSORT flow diagram of patients inclusion and exclusion.

Fig 1

AF, atrial fibrillation; CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.

The median age of the included patients was 66 years (range 20–99), and 122 (9.0%) patients had AF. Cancer types were categorized into lung and mediastinal, gastrointestinal, urologic, hepato-biliary-pancreatic, and breast cancers. Less common cancers, such as gynecological cancer, thyroid cancer, oral cancer, head and neck cancer, sarcoma, and carcinoma of unknown primary, were grouped as “others.” The frequency of AF was the highest among patients with lung and mediastinal cancers (15.6%) and the lowest in those with breast cancer (2.6%) (Fig 2). Baseline characteristics of patients with and without AF are shown in Table 1. Patients with AF were older (median 74 years [IQR 68–80] vs. median 66 years [IQR 55–74], p <  0.001) and had a lower proportion of women (27.0% vs. 54.0%, p <  0.001) than those without AF. Patients with AF were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, and stroke (p <  0.001, p <  0.001, p <  0.001, and p =  0.013, respectively). Regarding cancer type, patients with AF had a lower frequency of breast cancer and a higher frequency of lung and mediastinal cancer (5.7% vs. 21.1%, p <  0.001; 32.0% vs. 17.2%, p <  0.001, respectively). Patients with different cancer types received different cancer treatment expectedly, both in the entire cohort, and in the subset of patients with AF (S1 and S2 Tables).

Fig 2. The risk of AF in adult patients with advanced solid cancer across different cancer types.

Fig 2

*Other cancers included gynecological cancer, thyroid cancer, oral cancer, head and neck cancer, sarcoma, and carcinoma of unknown primary. AF, atrial fibrillation.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the participants and comparisons between those with and without AF.

All patients Without AF With AF P-value
(N =  1349) (N =  1227) (N =  122)
Age, years 66 (56–75) 66 (55–74) 74 (68–80) <0.001
Women 695 (51.5) 662 (54.0) 33 (27.0) <0.001
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 12.2 (10.6–13.6) 12.2 (10.6–13.5) 12.0 (10.1–13.9) 0.913
Creatinine (mg/dL) 0.70 (0.57–0.87) 0.69 (0.56–0.86) 0.81 (0.68–1.00) <0.001
Comorbidities
 Hypertension 412 (30.5) 340 (27.7) 72 (59.0) <0.001
 Diabetes mellitus 281 (20.8) 239 (19.5) 42 (34.4) <0.001
 Heart failure 109 (8.1) 66 (5.4) 43 (35.2) <0.001
 Stroke 97 (7.2) 81 (6.6) 16 (13.1) 0.013
Neoplasm type
 Gastrointestinal 362 (26.8) 321 (26.2) 41 (33.6) 0.096
 Urologic 214 (15.9) 196 (16.0) 18 (14.8) 0.824
 Hepato-biliary-pancreatic 162 (12.0) 153 (12.5) 9 (7.4) 0.133
 Breast 266 (19.7) 259 (21.1) 7 (5.7) <0.001
 Lung and mediastinal 250 (18.5) 211 (17.2) 39 (32.0) <0.001
 Other cancers * 95 (7.0) 87 (7.1) 8 (6.6) 0.973
Staging of neoplasm 0.787
 Stage II ~  III 42 (3.1) 38 (3.1) 4 (3.3)
 Stage IV 1307 (96.9) 1189 (96.9) 118 (96.7)
Treatment for neoplasm
 Surgery 473 (35.1) 427 (34.8) 46 (37.7) 0.588
 Radiotherapy 155 (11.5) 136 (11.1) 19 (15.6) 0.182
 Chemotherapy 956 (70.9) 879 (71.6) 77 (63.1) 0.061
 Endocrine therapy 274 (20.3) 256 (20.9) 18 (14.8) 0.138

Data are presented as median (interquartile range) and compared using Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, and presented as number (percentage) and compared using χ2 test for categorical variables unless otherwise specified.

*Other cancers included gynecological cancer, thyroid cancer, oral cancer, head and neck cancer, sarcoma, and carcinoma of unknown primary.

†These variables were compared using Fisher’s exact test instead of χ2 test.

AF, atrial fibrillation.

AF, clinical characteristics, and mortality in adult patients with advanced solid cancer

The median follow-up duration was 1.8 years. The overall survival curves of patients with and without AF are shown in Fig 3. Patients with AF had significantly worse survival than those without AF (median survival, 1.6 vs. 2.7 years, log-rank p =  0.004). We then performed multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, cancer types, and cancer treatments (VIF of covariates ranged from 1.105 to 3.956 with a mean VIF =  1.543; scaled Schoenfeld residual plots shown in S1 Fig). Age higher than 65-year-old and lower hemoglobin level were independently associated with mortality. Mortality also differed among different cancer types, with gastrointestinal, lung and mediastinal, and hepato-biliary-pancreatic cancers associated with higher mortality than urologic cancer. In addition, cancer treatments such as surgery and endocrine therapy were independently associated with better survival. A positive correlation was observed between the presence of AF and mortality in crude analysis, which became neutral after adjusting for clinical characteristics (adjusted HR 1.08, 95%CI 0.84–1.39, p =  0.552) (Table 2). We further stratified the patients by cancer type, focusing on urologic, gastrointestinal, and lung and mediastinal cancers, which had the largest number of patients. The stratified analysis revealed that, within each cancer type, comorbid AF was not associated with all-cause mortality (S2 Fig).

Fig 3. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival in adult patients with advanced solid cancer with and without AF.

Fig 3

Shaded zones indicate 95% confidence intervals. AF, atrial fibrillation.

Table 2. The Cox proportional hazard analyses for the association between all-cause mortality and AF and other clinical characteristics.

Crude Multivariable
HR 95%CI P-value HR 95%CI P-value
AF 1.39 1.11–1.75 0.004 1.08 0.84–1.39 0.552
Women 0.75 0.63–0.82 <0.001 0.94 0.80–1.11 0.462
Age > 65 1.51 1.31–1.73 <0.001 1.37 1.18–1.59 <0.001
Hemoglobin (per 1 g/dL increase) 0.92 0.90–0.95 <0.001 0.93 0.90–0.96 <0.001
Creatinine (per 1 mg/dL increase) 1.10 1.01–1.20 0.022 1.08 0.98–1.19 0.184
Comorbidities
 Hypertension 1.31 1.13–1.51 <0.001 1.01 0.85–1.20 0.921
 Diabetes mellitus 1.30 1.11–1.53 0.002 0.98 0.82–1.17 0.819
 Heart failure 1.19 0.93–1.52 0.158 0.87 0.66–1.15 0.341
 Stroke 1.39 1.09–1.78 0.008 1.00 0.77–1.30 0.975
Neoplasm type
 Urologic 1 1
 Breast 0.93 0.71–1.23 0.622 0.91 0.64–1.28 0.578
 Gastrointestinal 2.54 1.97–3.27 <0.001 2.70 1.96–3.73 <0.001
 Lung and mediastinal 3.61 2.79–4.68 <0.001 2.91 2.10–4.05 <0.001
 Hepato-biliary-pancreatic 6.29 4.77–8.30 <0.001 6.16 4.38–8.67 <0.001
 Other cancers * 1.30 0.89–1.89 0.175 1.90 1.24–2.90 0.003
Treatment for neoplasm
 Surgery 0.71 0.61–0.82 <0.001 0.49 0.41–0.59 <0.001
 Radiotherapy 1.38 1.13–1.69 0.002 1.32 1.06–1.63 0.012
 Chemotherapy 1.62 1.36–1.91 <0.001 0.81 0.64–1.02 0.067
 Endocrine therapy 0.37 0.31–0.46 <0.001 0.64 0.48–0.85 0.002

*Other cancers included gynecological cancer, thyroid cancer, oral cancer, head and neck cancer, sarcoma, and carcinoma of unknown primary.

AF, atrial fibrillation; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.

Cardiology involvement and all-cause mortality in adult patients with advanced solid cancer and AF

We further divided the patients with AF into two groups: those with cardiology involvement and those without. Paroxysmal and persistent AF were comparably distributed between the two groups. Anticoagulants, beta-blockers, and amiodarone were more frequently administered to patients under cardiology care (Table 3). The overall survival curves are shown in Fig 4, with median survival times of 2.7 years for patients without AF, 2.1 years for those with AF and cardiology involvement, and 1.2 years for those with AF but no cardiology involvement. Significant differences were observed between patients with AF and cardiology involvement and those with AF without cardiology involvement (log-rank p =  0.016), and between patients without AF and those with AF without cardiology involvement (log-rank p <  0.001). Among patients with AF, cardiology involvement was associated with lower all-cause mortality (crude HR 0.59, 95%CI 0.38–0.91, p =  0.017), a finding that remained significant after adjusting for comorbidities (model 1), comorbidities and cancer type (model 2), and comorbidities, cancer type, and AF treatments (model 3) (Table 4). VIFs ranged from 1.070 to 1.441 (mean 1.221) for model 1, from 1.140 to 2.399 (mean 1.486) for model 2, and from 1.273 to 3.723 (mean 1.771) for model 3, respectively; and scaled Schoenfeld residual plots were shown in S3 Fig. Additionally, among the 71 patients with AF and cardiology involvement, 66 received any AF treatment (either anticoagulant or antiarrhythmic or both), who presented comparable all-cause mortality with those who did not receive any AF treatment (log-rank p =  0.332).

Table 3. Baseline characteristics of the participants with AF and the comparison between those with and without cardiology involvement.

Total patients with AF
(N =  122)
No
Cardiologist
(N =  51)
With
Cardiologist
(N =  71)
P-value
Age, years 74 (68–80) 74 (64–81) 74 (70–80) 0.858
Women 33 (27.0) 14 (27.5) 19 (26.8) 1.000
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 12.0 (10.1–13.9) 12.3 (10.4–14.2) 11.9 (10.2–13.6) 0.159
Creatinine (mg/dL) 0.81 (0.68–1.00) 0.79 (0.69–1.00) 0.82 (0.68–0.99) 0.791
Comorbidities
 Hypertension 72 (59.0) 23 (45.1) 49 (69.0) 0.014
 Diabetes mellitus 42 (34.4) 16 (31.4) 26 (36.6) 0.683
 Heart failure 43 (35.2) 9 (17.6) 34 (47.9) 0.001
 Stroke 16 (13.1) 10 (19.6) 6 (8.5) 0.126
Classification of AF 0.264
 Paroxysmal 73 (59.8) 34 (66.7) 39 (54.9)
 Persistent 49 (40.2) 17 (33.3) 32 (45.1)
CHADS2 score 0.353
 0 ~  1 43 (35.2) 21 (41.2) 22 (31.0)
 2 ~  3 62 (50.8) 22 (43.1) 40 (56.3)
 4 ~  6 17 (13.9) 8 (15.7) 9 (12.7)
Neoplasm type
 Gastrointestinal 41 (33.6) 17 (33.3) 24 (33.8) 1.000
 Urologic 18 (14.8) 6 (11.8) 12 (16.9) 0.596
 Hepato-biliary-pancreatic 9 (7.4) 2 (3.9) 7 (9.9) 0.302
 Breast 7 (5.7) 1 (2.0) 6 (8.5) 0.237
 Lung and mediastinal 39 (32.0) 21 (41.2) 18 (25.4) 0.099
 Other cancers * 8 (6.6) 4 (7.8) 4 (5.6) 0.718
Staging of neoplasm 0.639
 Stage II ~  III 4 (3.3) 1 (2.0) 3 (4.2)
 Stage IV 1307 (96.7) 50 (98.0) 68 (95.8)
Treatment for neoplasm
 Surgery 46 (37.7) 18 (35.3) 28 (39.4) 0.782
 Radiotherapy 19 (15.6) 12 (23.5) 7 (9.9) 0.072
 Chemotherapy 77 (63.1) 32 (62.7) 45 (63.4) 1.000
 Endocrine therapy 18 (14.8) 4 (7.8) 14 (19.7) 0.076
Treatment for AF
 Anticoagulants 62 (50.8) 11 (21.6) 51 (71.8) <0.001
 Antiarrhythmics 85 (69.7) 31 (60.8) 54 (76.1) 0.107
Vaughan Williams classification
 Ⅰ 14 (11.5) 4 (7.8) 10 (14.1) 0.391
 Ⅱ (beta-blockers) 55 (45.1) 15 (29.4) 40 (56.3) 0.003
 Ⅲ 6 (4.9) 0 (0) 6 (8.5) 0.040
 Ⅳ 42 (34.4) 19 (37.3) 23 (32.4) 0.716

Data are presented as median (interquartile range) and compared using Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, and as number (percentage) and compared using χ2 test for categorical variables unless otherwise specified.

*Other cancers included gynecological cancer, thyroid cancer, oral cancer, head and neck cancer, sarcoma, and carcinoma of unknown primary.

†These variables were compared using Fisher’s exact test instead of χ2 test.

AF, atrial fibrillation.

Fig 4. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival among adult patients with advanced solid cancer without AF, with AF and cardiology involvement, and with AF without cardiology involvement.

Fig 4

Shaded zones indicate 95% confidence intervals. * Log-rank p <  0.001. Log-rank p =  0.016. Log-rank p =  0.475. AF, atrial fibrillation.

Table 4. The crude and adjusted hazard ratios of cardiology involvement and clinical characteristics for all-cause mortality in patients with AF and advanced solid cancer.

Crude Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
HR 95%CI P-value HR 95%CI P-value HR 95%CI P-value HR 95%CI P-value
Cardiology involvement 0.59 0.38–0.91 0.017 0.50 0.31–0.82 0.006 0.51 0.31–0.84 0.009 0.50 0.28–0.88 0.017
Women 0.86 0.52–1.40 0.541 0.84 0.50–1.41 0.507 0.79 0.44–1.43 0.440 0.70 0.38–1.29 0.257
Age > 65 0.93 0.56–1.52 0.762 1.20 0.66–2.16 0.553 1.56 0.80–3.02 0.190 1.57 0.77–3.19 0.211
Persistent AF 0.91 0.58–1.42 0.677 0.94 0.59–1.49 0.791 1.16 0.72–1.87 0.547 1.34 0.79–2.27 0.280
Hemoglobin (per 1 g/dL increase) 0.93 0.86–1.02 0.121 0.90 0.82–0.99 0.023 0.90 0.82–0.99 0.029 0.91 0.82–1.00 0.043
Creatinine (per 1 mg/dL increase) 0.96 0.75–1.21 0.693 0.99 0.77–1.28 0.963 1.04 0.79–1.37 0.783 1.07 0.79–1.44 0.679
Comorbidities
 Hypertension 0.88 0.57–1.37 0.569 0.85 0.50–1.44 0.545 0.87 0.49–1.53 0.621 0.78 0.43–1.40 0.404
 Diabetes mellitus 1.21 0.77–1.90 0.409 1.42 0.85–2.38 0.178 1.43 0.83–2.48 0.201 1.44 0.83–2.48 0.192
 Heart failure 0.88 0.56–1.37 0.563 0.89 0.53–1.49 0.667 0.99 0.56–1.72 0.959 1.19 0.65–2.18 0.562
 Stroke 1.17 0.62–2.23 0.623 1.04 0.53–2.05 0.915 0.76 0.36–1.58 0.460 0.74 0.34–1.59 0.435
Neoplasm type
 Urologic 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Breast 1.12 0.32–3.86 0.858 1.79 0.43–7.40 0.422 2.25 0.51–9.90 0.283
 Gastrointestinal 2.64 1.12–6.20 0.026 2.57 1.05–6.27 0.039 3.06 1.22–7.69 0.017
 Lung and mediastinal 5.07 2.20–11.69 <0.001 5.85 2.39–14.32 <0.001 6.73 2.70–16.82 <0.001
 Hepato-biliary-pancreatic 11.17 3.90–31.97 <0.001 10.48 3.57–30.79 <0.001 13.61 4.20–44.19 <0.001
 Other cancers * 4.97 1.70–14.48 0.003 7.89 2.46–25.26 <0.001 11.17 3.27–38.15 <0.001
Treatment for AF
 Beta-blocker 0.64 0.41–1.00 0.052 0.91 0.49–1.68 0.753
 Antiarrhythmics except beta-blocker 1.15 0.75–1.77 0.522 1.72 1.01–2.91 0.044
 Anticoagulants 0.62 0.40–0.96 0.031 0.96 0.51–1.82 0.905

Different models include cardiology involvement and covariables as listed in the table. Briefly, model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, AF classification, and comorbidities. Model 2 was further adjusted for cancer types. In Model 3, additional adjustments were made for treatments specific to AF.

*Other cancers included gynecological cancer, thyroid cancer, oral cancer, head and neck cancer, sarcoma, and carcinoma of unknown primary.

AF, atrial fibrillation; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.

Cardiology involvement and cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular death, and stroke events in adult patients with advanced solid cancer and AF

During the follow-up period (median 1.41 years), 84 patients died, with eight deaths due to cardiovascular causes and 65 due to cancer (S3 Table). Aalen-Johansen estimates for the secondary endpoints, accounting for competing risks, showed that the cumulative incidence for neither cardiovascular nor non-cardiovascular death differed significantly between patients with and without cardiology involvement (p =  0.264 and p =  0.151, respectively; Fig 5). In addition, no patient in either of the two groups had incident cerebral infarction or hemorrhage.

Fig 5. Cumulative incidences of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular deaths stratified by cardiology involvement among adult patients with advanced solid cancer and AF. Solid lines indicate cumulative incidences of cardiovascular deaths; and dashed lines indicate cumulative incidences of non-cardiovascular deaths. Shaded zones indicate 95% confidence intervals. AF, atrial fibrillation; CV, cardiovascular.

Fig 5

Discussion

In this retrospective cohort study, we demonstrated that comorbid AF per se was not independently associated with mortality in adult patients with advanced solid cancer. Furthermore, in patients with advanced cancer complicated by AF, cardiology involvement was associated with lower all-cause mortality, which was contributed by both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes. These results underscore the importance of a cardio-oncology multidisciplinary approach in such patients.

We observed different risks of AF across various cancer types in patients with advanced solid cancers. The risk of comorbid AF was the highest among the patients with lung and mediastinal cancer, followed by gastrointestinal cancer, and was the lowest for breast cancer. This pattern is highly consistent with previous studies on patients with cancer at all stages [4,15], and those with metastatic cancer [16]. The increased risk of AF in patients with cancer compared to the general population can be attributed to multiple cancer-related factors, including direct locoregional effects, cardiotoxicity of anti-cancer drugs, thoracic radiotherapy, surgery, and hormonal alterations [17]. Direct tumor growth, radiotherapy to the chest, and thoracic surgery can contribute to the high risk of AF in patients with lung and mediastinal cancer [4].

One major finding of this study was that in patients with advanced solid cancer, the association between comorbid AF and increased mortality disappeared after multivariable adjustment, indicating that AF per se does not increase mortality in patients with advanced solid cancer, and that survival of such patients is mostly determined by clinical features such as age and anemia, and oncologic features. This was further evidenced by the cancer type-stratified analysis (S2 Fig). Additionally, the presence of heart failure was not associated with mortality, either, further supporting that age, anemia, and oncologic features may have larger impact than cardiovascular comorbidities in such patients with advanced solid cancer. Several previous studies have reported the negative impact of comorbid AF on morbidity and mortality [6,18,19]. Hussian et al. identified AF as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality after multivariable adjustment in patients with cancer [18]. The discrepancy between our findings and those of Hussain et al. may stem from our inclusion criteria, which focused exclusively on patients with advanced cancer; however, Hussain et al. included patients with cancer of all stages. Additionally, the different covariates used in the multivariable analyses may have contributed to the differing results [18]. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to elucidate the role of comorbid AF in the prognosis of patients with cancer, taking cancer stages and types into consideration.

Unexpectedly, among the 122 patients with cancer and AF in this study, 42% did not receive care from a cardiology provider, despite the European Society for Medical Oncology’s recommendation that patients with cancer and AF should receive appropriate medical care as indicated (Grade of recommendation C, Level of evidence IV) [20]. Furthermore, we observed that among patients with advanced solid cancer complicated with AF, cardiology involvement in patient care was associated with lower all-cause mortality. Few studies have focused on the prognostic effect of regular cardiologist participation in the care of patients with cancer complicated by AF. O’Neal et al. previously demonstrated that patients with cancer complicated by AF are more likely to fill prescriptions for anticoagulants if treated by a cardiologist and that cardiology involvement in such patients is associated with reduced stroke risk without increased bleeding risk [11]. In this study, we also noted that patients under cardiology care were more likely to take anticoagulants and antiarrhythmics, particularly beta-blockers. However, among the patients with advanced cancer, no patient had incident cerebral infarction or hemorrhage, and the cause of death was predominantly cancer, with only a small number of cardiovascular deaths. Both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality rates were numerically lower, but without statistical significance, in those with cardiology involvement compared to those without cardiology involvement. The limited number of patients and events, leading to the limited power of analysis, may have contributed to the lack of significant difference. The mechanism behind the reduced mortality, though remains unclear and warrants further investigation, could possibility be attributed to the comprehensive evaluation of patients prompted by the multidisciplinary approach involving cardiologists. The results of this study further support the guidelines statement that patients with both advanced solid cancer and AF should be comprehensively evaluated for cardiovascular risks and drug-drug interactions, through a multidisciplinary cardio-oncology approach [11].

Study limitations

This study had several limitations. First, this was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a single center, and the total number of patients with advanced solid cancer complicated by AF was limited, making the findings of this study hypothesis-generating. Patients who were lost to follow-up might have resulted in potential selection bias. Second, given the nature of observational studies, the observed association between cardiology involvement and mortality in patients with advanced cancer and AF may have been biased by unobserved confounders, including confounding by indication. Similarly, such unobserved confounders, as well as competing risks might have also influenced the analysis for the association between AF and mortality. Third, detailed information on specific anti-malignancy medicines such as anthracyclines, trastsuzumab and immune checkpoint inhibitors was not available in regards with cardiotoxicity. Finally, this study included only patients with advanced solid cancers; therefore, the results were not generalizable to those with early-stage cancers or hematological malignancies.

Conclusions

In adult patients with advanced solid cancer, AF per se was not independently associated with increased mortality. In patients with advanced solid cancer complicated by AF, involvement of a cardiology provider was associated with lower all-cause mortality, likely contributed by both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes, but with low certainty that this finding is not attributable to unmeasured confounding. The findings underscore the importance of multidisciplinary cardio-oncologic collaboration in patients with cancer, even in advanced stages, when complicated by AF, and warrant further investigation in large prospective cohorts.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Scaled Schoenfeld residual plots for variables included in the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model corresponding to the results in Table 1.

P values for all variables including the presence of AF, as well as that of the global Schoenfeld test were > 0.05, indicating that the proportional hazard assumptions were met. HF, heart failure.

(Tiff)

pone.0319342.s001.tiff (5.6MB, tiff)
S2 Fig. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival in adult patients with advanced solid cancer with and without AF, stratified by cancer type.

Patients with advanced urologic, gastrointestinal, and lung and mediastinal (lung and med) cancers were analyzed. Shaded zones indicate 95% confidence intervals. AF, atrial fibrillation.

(Tiff)

pone.0319342.s002.tiff (2.8MB, tiff)
S3 Fig. Scaled Schoenfeld residual plots for variables included in the multivariable Cox proportional hazards models corresponding to the results in Table 4.

Panels A, B and C correspond to the scaled Schoenfeld residual plots for variables included in Models 1, 2 and 3 in Table 4, respectively. P value for each variable, as well as that for the global Schoenfeld test were > 0.05 in all models, indicating that the proportional hazard assumptions were met. AA, antiarrhythmics; AF, atrial fibrillation; HF, heart failure.

(Tiff)

pone.0319342.s003.tiff (7.1MB, tiff)
S1 Table. Different treatment strategies among different cancer types in the entire cohort.

(DOCX)

pone.0319342.s004.docx (16.4KB, docx)
S2 Table. Different treatment strategies among different cancer types in patient with atrial fibrillation.

(DOCX)

pone.0319342.s005.docx (16.4KB, docx)
S3 Table. Causes of mortality in patients with AF and advanced solid cancer.

(DOCX)

pone.0319342.s006.docx (16.6KB, docx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Jemal A, Ward EM, Johnson CJ, Cronin KA, Ma J, Ryerson B, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2014, featuring survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(9):djx030. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mertens AC, Liu Q, Neglia JP, Wasilewski K, Leisenring W, Armstrong GT, et al. Cause-specific late mortality among 5-year survivors of childhood cancer: the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(19):1368–79. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):373–498. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jakobsen CB, Lamberts M, Carlson N, Lock-Hansen M, Torp-Pedersen C, Gislason GH, et al. Incidence of atrial fibrillation in different major cancer subtypes: a Nationwide population-based 12 year follow up study. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):1105. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-6314-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Guzzetti S, Costantino G, Sada S, Fundarò C. Colorectal cancer and atrial fibrillation: a case-control study. Am J Med. 2002;112(7):587–8. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(02)01029-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hu Y, Liu C, Chang PM, Tsao H, Lin Y, Chang S, et al. Incident thromboembolism and heart failure associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation in cancer patients. Int J Cardiol. 2013;165(2):355–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.08.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chin J-H, Moon Y-J, Jo J-Y, Han YA, Kim HR, Lee E-H, et al. Association between postoperatively developed atrial fibrillation and long-term mortality after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients: an observational study. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154931. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Steffel J, Collins R, Antz M, Cornu P, Desteghe L, Haeusler KG, et al. 2021 European Heart Rhythm Association practical guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2021;23(10):1612–76. doi: 10.1093/europace/euab065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.D’Souza M, Carlson N, Fosbøl E, Lamberts M, Smedegaard L, Nielsen D, et al. CHA2DS2-VASc score and risk of thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation and recent cancer. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2018;25(6):651–8. doi: 10.1177/2047487318759858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Patell R, Gutierrez A, Rybicki L, Khorana AA. Usefulness of CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores for stroke prediction in patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120(12):2182–6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.08.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lyon AR, López-Fernández T, Couch LS, Asteggiano R, Aznar MC, Bergler-Klein J, et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines on cardio-oncology developed in collaboration with the European Hematology Association (EHA), the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO) and the International Cardio-Oncology Society (IC-OS). Eur Heart J. 2022;43(41):4229–361. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac244 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.O’Neal WT, Claxton JS, Sandesara PB, MacLehose RF, Chen LY, Bengtson LGS, et al. Provider specialty, anticoagulation, and stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(16):1913–22. . doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.07.077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Aalen OO, Johansen S. An empirical transition matrix for non-homogeneous Markov chains based on censored observations. Scand J Stat. 1978;5(3):141–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Statis. 1988;16(3):1141–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yun JP, Choi E-K, Han K-D, Park SH, Jung J-H, Park SH, et al. Risk of atrial fibrillation according to cancer type: a nationwide population-based study. JACC CardioOncol. 2021;3(2):221–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccao.2021.03.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Han H, Chen L, Lin Z, Wei X, Guo W, Yu Y, et al. Prevalence, trends, and outcomes of atrial fibrillation in hospitalized patients with metastatic cancer: findings from a national sample. Cancer Med. 2021;10(16):5661–70. doi: 10.1002/cam4.4105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hajjar LA, Fonseca SMR, Machado TIV. Atrial fibrillation and cancer. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:590768. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.590768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hussain M, Misbah R, Donnellan E, Alkharabsheh S, Hou Y, Cheng F, et al. Impact of timing of atrial fibrillation, CHA2DS2-VASc score and cancer therapeutics on mortality in oncology patients. Open Heart. 2020;7(2):e001412. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2020-001412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Guha A, Fradley MG, Dent SF, Weintraub NL, Lustberg MB, Alonso A, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and mortality of atrial fibrillation in breast cancer: a SEER-Medicare analysis. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(4):300–12. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab745 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Curigliano G, Lenihan D, Fradley M, Ganatra S, Barac A, Blaes A, et al. Management of cardiac disease in cancer patients throughout oncological treatment: ESMO consensus recommendations. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(2):171–90. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2019.10.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

29 Dec 2024

PONE-D-24-53250Cardiology Involvement and Mortality in Adult Patients with Advanced Solid Cancer Complicated by Atrial FibrillationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dai,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 12 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In the online submission form, you indicated that "Data cannot be shared publicly because of restrictions from the institutional review board. Instead, anonymized data are available upon reasonable requests to the corresponding author (Zhehao Dai, daizh@luke.ac.jp) with confidentiality agreements assured." All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 5 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper that retrospectively evaluated the prognostic impact of Af in solid cancers at a single center.

1.Heart failure as a comorbidity did not show any effect on prognosis. Is this related to the fact that atrial fibrillation did not show any effect on prognosis after adjustment for factors in patients with solid cancer?

2.Could the involvement of the cardiology department have been a bias? For example, cancer patients with poor prognosis were not referred.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review “Cardiology Involvement and Mortality in Adult Patients with Advanced Solid Cancer Complicated by Atrial Fibrillation”

The authors investigated the association between comorbid atrial fibrillation (AF) and survival in adult patients with advanced solid cancer and the impact of cardiology involvement in such patients. This study was a meaningful with important knowledge, and a well-performed analysis. However, I have a few concerns about this manuscript.

The authors showed that in patients with advanced solid cancer and atrial fibrillation, cardiology involvement is associated with reduced overall mortality. This is a very important finding, but what is the reason of this? Specifically, you showed that the cumulative incidence for neither cardiovascular nor non-cardiovascular death differed significantly between patients with and without cardiology involvement.

Specific comment:

1) The stage of the cancer would be related to the prognosis. Also, In the case of worse the cancer prognosis, it is possible that oncologists are less likely to consult with cardiologists, leading to the less chance to be involved by cardiologists.

Please provide the information of the stage of cancer between patients with and without cardiology involvement at the baseline in this study.

2) Comorbidities such as severe anemia and renal failure may be related to the prognosis of cancer patients. Please provide data of hemoglobin and creatine at the baseline. We also suggest additionally adjust for anemia and renal failure in the Cox proportional hazard model.

3) Authors showed that anticoagulants were frequently administered to patients under cardiology care. What is the incidence of cerebrovascular disease (cerebral infarction and/or cerebral hemorrhage) between the two groups? Similarly, is there any difference of anemia between the two groups? It is expected that the presence of anemia will make it difficult to introduce anticoagulant therapy.

4) Is there a difference in prognosis between groups treated for AF and those not treated for AF among the patient with cardiologist involvement?

5) The figure numbers seem to differ from those in the manuscript (Figures 2-5).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Feb 25;20(2):e0319342. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319342.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Jan 2025

We have uploaded our response to reviewers as a seperate file, named "Response to reviewers.docx".

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0319342.s007.docx (107KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

31 Jan 2025

Cardiology involvement and mortality in adult patients with advanced solid cancer complicated by atrial fibrillation

PONE-D-24-53250R1

Dear Dr. Dai,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I think the content of this paper is excellent. The resubmitted paper has been appropriately revised to address the issues pointed out. In conclusion, there are no further points to be made about this paper.

Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for revising the original submission.

The authors answered the questions from the reviewers nicely in this R1 session.

The reviewer would like to congratulate the authors for the current interesting study.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

PONE-D-24-53250R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dai,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yoshihiro Fukumoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Scaled Schoenfeld residual plots for variables included in the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model corresponding to the results in Table 1.

    P values for all variables including the presence of AF, as well as that of the global Schoenfeld test were > 0.05, indicating that the proportional hazard assumptions were met. HF, heart failure.

    (Tiff)

    pone.0319342.s001.tiff (5.6MB, tiff)
    S2 Fig. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival in adult patients with advanced solid cancer with and without AF, stratified by cancer type.

    Patients with advanced urologic, gastrointestinal, and lung and mediastinal (lung and med) cancers were analyzed. Shaded zones indicate 95% confidence intervals. AF, atrial fibrillation.

    (Tiff)

    pone.0319342.s002.tiff (2.8MB, tiff)
    S3 Fig. Scaled Schoenfeld residual plots for variables included in the multivariable Cox proportional hazards models corresponding to the results in Table 4.

    Panels A, B and C correspond to the scaled Schoenfeld residual plots for variables included in Models 1, 2 and 3 in Table 4, respectively. P value for each variable, as well as that for the global Schoenfeld test were > 0.05 in all models, indicating that the proportional hazard assumptions were met. AA, antiarrhythmics; AF, atrial fibrillation; HF, heart failure.

    (Tiff)

    pone.0319342.s003.tiff (7.1MB, tiff)
    S1 Table. Different treatment strategies among different cancer types in the entire cohort.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0319342.s004.docx (16.4KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Different treatment strategies among different cancer types in patient with atrial fibrillation.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0319342.s005.docx (16.4KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Causes of mortality in patients with AF and advanced solid cancer.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0319342.s006.docx (16.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0319342.s007.docx (107KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES