ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Cardio-Oncology in Older Adults: Evidence Gaps, Geriatric Considerations, and Future Directions.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardio-oncology has emerged as a critical discipline addressing cardiovascular toxicities from cancer therapies, yet substantial evidence gaps persist for elderly patients, who represent over 60% of new cancer diagnoses. This narrative review synthesizes the current literature on cardio-oncology challenges in older adults (≥65 years), highlighting underrepresentation in clinical trials, compounded risks from frailty, multimorbidity, and polypharmacy, and the paucity of geriatric-specific guidelines. Older adults exhibit heightened susceptibility to cardiotoxicity from antineoplastic therapies due to age-related declines in cardiac reserve and renal function, and baseline atherosclerosis. Comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGA) identify frailty as a key predictor of adverse outcomes, yet their integration into cardio-oncology protocols remains inconsistent, with limited prospective data on risk-stratification tools such as echocardiography and biomarkers. Observational studies underscore disparities in surveillance and management, leading to the undertreatment of cancer and overtreatment of comorbidities. Current cardio-oncology guidelines recognize older age, multimorbidity, frailty, and individualized assessment as important considerations in clinical decision-making. However, validated geriatric-specific thresholds, surveillance strategies, and management algorithms remain limited, particularly for frail older adults and the oldest-old populations. Emerging priorities include multidisciplinary models incorporating geriatricians, randomized trials in frail populations, and real-world evidence on novel agents. This review advocates tailored strategies to optimize shared decision-making, enhance equity, and address current knowledge gaps through CGA-driven research, while proposing a pragmatic age- and frailty-stratified framework to support individualized cardiovascular assessment in elderly cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.