Childhood cancer survivors, especially those treated with high-dose cranial radiation or with hypertension, have a high risk of recurrent stroke decades after a first stroke.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports closer monitoring of childhood cancer survivors after high-dose cranial radiation; leaves open optimal prevention strategies pending prospective trials.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the rates and predictors of recurrent stroke among survivors of pediatric cancer who have had a first stroke. METHODS: The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study is a retrospective cohort study with longitudinal follow-up that enrolled 14,358 survivors (<21 years old at diagnosis; diagnosed 1970-1986; survived ≥5 years after cancer diagnosis) and followed them prospectively since 1994. We surveyed 443 survivors who reported a first stroke to identify recurrent stroke, and estimated recurrent stroke rates ≥5 years after cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 329 respondents (74% response rate), 271 confirmed a first stroke at a median age of 19 years (range 0-53), and 70 reported a second stroke at a median age of 32 years (range 1-56). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, independent predictors of recurrent stroke included cranial radiation therapy (CRT) dose of ≥50 Gy (vs none, hazard ratio [HR] 4.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-13.7), hypertension (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.0-3.5), and older age at first stroke (HR 6.4; 95% CI 1.8-23; for age ≥40 vs age 0-17 years). The 10-year cumulative incidence of late recurrent stroke was 21% (95% CI 16%-27%) overall, and 33% (95% CI 21%-44%) for those treated with ≥50 Gy of CRT. CONCLUSION: Survivors of childhood cancer, particularly those previously treated with high-dose cranial radiation, have a high risk of recurrent stroke for decades after a first stroke. Although these strokes are mostly occurring in young adulthood, hypertension, an established atherosclerotic risk factor, independently predicts recurrent stroke in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fullerton et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: