Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
JCO Oncology Practice · September 28, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Importance Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading noncancer cause of death among patients with prostate cancer (PC). Population-based risk calculators do not account for treatment-related effects of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPis), and they have not been validated across PC treatment states. Observations This Prostate Cancer Foundation–sponsored clinician-industry consensus and narrative review proposes a pragmatic identification and triage schema for point-of-care use. The schema supports rapid risk capture, tier assignment, and referral or risk-factor optimization triggers; it does not provide cardiovascular therapeutic algorithms. We synthesize evidence on baseline cardiometabolic burden, ADT-associated adiposity and muscle-strength changes, plaque progression, ARPi-associated hypertension and cardiac events, suboptimal real-world risk-factor control, and social-needs barriers. Patients are classified as high risk when they have prior major cardiovascular events or established clinical atherosclerotic CVD; intermediate risk when they have no prior event but at least two uncontrolled or adverse risk factors; and low risk when neither criterion is met. We clarify cutpoints, the rationale for operational thresholding, essential versus optional intake elements, and capacity-sensitive referral pathways. Conclusion and Relevance The proposed three-tier schema should be viewed as a hypothesis-generating checklist for oncology, urology, radiation oncology, primary care, and cardiovascular teams. Prospective validation, workflow testing, calibration of referral thresholds, and inclusion of patient and clinic-staff stakeholders are required before broad implementation.