↓ Skip to main content

History of hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes and ovarian cancer patient survival: evidence from the ovarian cancer association consortium

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Causes & Control, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 2,187)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
79 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
History of hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes and ovarian cancer patient survival: evidence from the ovarian cancer association consortium
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10552-017-0867-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Albina N. Minlikeeva, Jo L. Freudenheim, Rikki A. Cannioto, J. Brian Szender, Kevin H. Eng, Francesmary Modugno, Roberta B. Ness, Michael J. LaMonte, Grace Friel, Brahm H. Segal, Kunle Odunsi, Paul Mayor, Emese Zsiros, Barbara Schmalfeldt, Rüdiger Klapdor, Thilo Dӧrk, Peter Hillemanns, Linda E. Kelemen, Martin Kӧbel, Helen Steed, Anna de Fazio, on behalf of the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group, Susan J. Jordan, Christina M. Nagle, Harvey A. Risch, Mary Anne Rossing, Jennifer A. Doherty, Marc T. Goodman, Robert Edwards, Keitaro Matsuo, Mika Mizuno, Beth Y. Karlan, Susanne K. Kjær, Estrid Høgdall, Allan Jensen, Joellen M. Schildkraut, Kathryn L. Terry, Daniel W. Cramer, Elisa V. Bandera, Lisa E. Paddock, Lambertus A. Kiemeney, Leon F. Massuger, Jolanta Kupryjanczyk, Andrew Berchuck, Jenny Chang-Claude, Brenda Diergaarde, Penelope M. Webb, Kirsten B. Moysich, on behalf of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium

Abstract

Survival following ovarian cancer diagnosis is generally low; understanding factors related to prognosis could be important to optimize treatment. The role of previously diagnosed comorbidities and use of medications for those conditions in relation to prognosis for ovarian cancer patients has not been studied extensively, particularly according to histological subtype. Using pooled data from fifteen studies participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, we examined the associations between history of hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, and medications taken for these conditions and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among patients diagnosed with invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for age and stage to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) overall and within strata of histological subtypes. History of diabetes was associated with increased risk of mortality (n = 7,674; HR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.01-1.25). No significant mortality associations were observed for hypertension (n = 6,482; HR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.88-1.02) or heart disease (n = 4,252; HR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.87-1.27). No association of these comorbidities was found with PFS in the overall study population. However, among patients with endometrioid tumors, hypertension was associated with lower risk of progression (n = 339, HR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.35-0.84). Comorbidity was not associated with OS or PFS for any of the other histological subtypes. Ever use of beta blockers, oral antidiabetic medications, and insulin was associated with increased mortality, HR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.03-1.40, HR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.05-1.55, and HR = 1.63; 95% CI = 1.20-2.20, respectively. Ever use of diuretics was inversely associated with mortality, HR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.53-0.94. Histories of hypertension, diabetes, and use of diuretics, beta blockers, insulin, and oral antidiabetic medications may influence the survival of ovarian cancer patients. Understanding mechanisms for these observations could provide insight regarding treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 24 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 27 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 611. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2019.
All research outputs
#33,131
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#3
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#737
of 310,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.