Cardiovascular health and cancer mortality: evidence from US NHANES and UK Biobank cohort studies.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association recently introduced a novel cardiovascular health (CVH) metric, Life's Essential 8 (LE8), for health promotion. However, the relationship between LE8 and cancer mortality risk remains uncertain. METHODS: We investigated 17,076 participants from US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (US NHANES) and 272,727 participants from UK Biobank, all free of cancer at baseline. The CVH score, based on LE8 metrics, incorporates four health behaviors (diet, physical activity, smoking, and sleep) and four health factors (body mass index, lipid, blood glucose, and blood pressure). Self-reported questionnaires assessed health behaviors. Primary outcomes were mortality rates for total cancer and its subtypes. The association between CVH score (continuous and categorical variable) and outcomes was examined using Cox model with adjustments. Cancer subtypes-related polygenic risk score (PRS) was constructed to evaluate its interactions with CVH on cancer death risk. RESULTS: Over 141,526 person-years in US NHANES, 424 cancer-related deaths occurred, and in UK Biobank, 8,872 cancer deaths were documented during 3,690,893 person-years. High CVH was associated with reduced overall cancer mortality compared to low CVH (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91 in US NHANES; 0.51, 0.46-0.57 in UK Biobank). Each one-standard deviation increase in CVH score was linked to a 19% decrease in cancer mortality (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) in US NHANES and a 19% decrease (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.79-0.83) in UK Biobank. Adhering to ideal CVH was linearly associated with decreased risks of death from lung, bladder, liver, kidney, esophageal, breast, colorectal, pancreatic, and gastric cancers in UK Biobank. Furthermore, integrating genetic data revealed individuals with low PRS and high CVH exhibited the lowest mortality from eight cancers (HRs ranged from 0.36 to 0.57) compared to those with high PRS and low CVH. No significant modification of the association between CVH and mortality risk for eight cancers by genetic predisposition was observed. Subgroup analyses showed a more pronounced protective association for overall cancer mortality among younger participants and those with lower socio-economic status. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining optimal CVH is associated with a substantial reduction in the risk of overall cancer mortality. Adherence to ideal CVH correlates linearly with decreased mortality risk across multiple cancer subtypes. Individuals with both ideal CVH and high genetic predisposition demonstrated significant health benefits. These findings support adopting ideal CVH as an intervention strategy to mitigate cancer mortality risk and promote healthy aging.