Cardio-oncology最新文献

Background: Due to advancements in methods of cancer treatment, the population of people living with and beyond cancer is dramatically growing. The number of cancer survivors developing cardiovascular diseases and heart failure is also rising, due in part to the cardiotoxic nature of many cancer treatments. Guidelines are being increasingly released, emphasising the need for interdisciplinary action to address this gap in survivorship care. However, the extent to which interventions exist, incorporating the recommendations of cardio-oncology research, remains undetermined.

Objective: The aim of this scoping review is to assess the nature, extent and remit of existing cancer care interventions and their integration of cardio-oncology principles.

Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Guidelines. Databases were independently searched for articles from 2010 to 2022, by two members of the research team. Data were charted and synthesised using the following criteria: (a) the focus of the intervention (b) the medium of delivery (c) the duration (d) the modalities included in the interventions (e) the research articles associated with each intervention (f) the type of studies conducted (g) key measures used (h) outcomes reported.

Results: Interventions encompassed six key modalities: Psychological Support, Physical Activity, Nutrition, Patient Education, Lifestyle and Caregiver Support. The focus, medium of delivery and duration of interventions varied significantly. While a considerable number of study protocols and pilot studies exist documenting HSMIs, only 25% appear to have progressed beyond this stage of development. Of those that have, the present review did not identify any 'feasible' interventions that covered each of the six modalities, while being generalisable to all cancer survivors and incorporating the recommendations from cardio-oncology research.

Conclusion: Despite the substantial volume of research and evidence from the field of cardio-oncology, the findings of this scoping review suggest that the recommendations from guidelines have yet to be successfully translated from theory to practice. There is an opportunity, if not necessity, for cardiac rehabilitation to expand to meet the needs of those living with and beyond cancer.

Capecitabine, a pro-drug of 5-fluorouracil, is commonly used in the treatment of breast and colorectal cancer. Its side effects, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, loss of appetite, and bone marrow suppression, are well recognized. However, coronary vasospasm represents a less commonly recognized but significant complication of fluoropyrimidine-based therapies such as capecitabine. Proposed mechanisms for this adverse effect complication include direct endothelium-independent vasoconstriction, activation of protein kinase C, and activation of the cyclooxygenase pathway. In this report, we present a case of capecitabine-induced coronary vasospasm leading to progressive, focal ST-elevations, myocardial ischemia, and subsequently polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. These events were captured on telemetry, in a male in his early 40s, diagnosed with stage IIIB sigmoid colon cancer. Notably, the patient had no pre-existing coronary artery disease or other cardiovascular risk factors. Upon diagnosis, the patient was initiated on a calcium channel blocker, verapamil, to mitigate further coronary vasospasm events. After thorough discussions that prioritized the patient's input and values, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was placed subcutaneously. Following discharge, the patient restarted capecitabine therapy along with verapamil prophylaxis and did not experience any subsequent shocks from his ICD as assessed during his outpatient follow-up visits. This case emphasizes the need to involve patients in decision-making processes, especially when managing unexpected and serious complications, to ensure treatments align with their quality of life and personal preferences.

Background: Cardiotoxicity is one of the most common adverse events of the chemotherapy. Physical exercise was shown to be cardioprotective. We aim to estimate the efficacy and safety of exercise in cancer patients receiving cardiotoxic chemotherapy.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane, Clinical Trials.gov, and MedRxiv through July 17th, 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Prospero id: CRD42023460902.

Results: We included thirteen RCTs with a total of 952 patients. Exercise significantly increased VO₂ peak (MD: 1.95 with 95% CI [0.59, 3.32], P = 0.005). However, there was no significant effect regarding left ventricular ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, cardiac output, stroke volume, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular end-systolic volume, E/A ratio, resting heart rate, peak heart rate, resting systolic blood pressure, and resting diastolic blood pressure. Also, there was no significant difference regarding any adverse events (AEs) (RR: 4.44 with 95% CI [0.47, 41.56], P = 0.19), AEs leading to withdrawal (RR: 2.87 with 95% CI [0.79, 10.43], P = 0.11), serious AEs (RR: 3.00 with 95% CI [0.14, 65.90], P = 0.49), or all-cause mortality (RR: 0.25 with 95% CI [0.03, 2.22], P = 0.21).

Conclusion: Exercise is associated with increased VO₂ peak in cancer patients receiving cardiotoxic chemotherapy. However, there was no significant difference between exercise and usual care regarding the echocardiographic and safety outcomes.

The hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) procedure is considered a cardiovascular burden. This is due to the potentially cardiotoxic cytostatic agents used before and the risks associated with peri-transplant procedures. We designed a pilot study to determine the clinical utility of the new ST2 marker; furthermore, we routinely assessed cardiac parameters in HSCT recipients. Based on previous cardio-oncology experience in lung and prostate cancer, we can confirm the prognostic and predictive value of classic cardiac biomarkers and modern echocardiography parameters such as global longitudinal strain of the left and right ventricle. After conducting this pilot study we can create a predictive and prognostic model for patients undergoing HSCT. This will greatly enrich our clinical practice, especially in treating older people.

Background: This article provides an up-to-date overview of pericardial effusion in oncological practice and a guidance on its management. Furthermore, it addresses the question of when malignancy should be suspected in case of newly diagnosed pericardial effusion.

Main body: Cancer-related pericardial effusion is commonly the result of localization of lung and breast cancer, melanoma, or lymphoma to the pericardium via direct invasion, lymphatic dissemination, or hematogenous spread. Several cancer therapies may also cause pericardial effusion, most often during or shortly after administration. Pericardial effusion following radiation therapy may instead develop after years. Other diseases, such as infections, and, rarely, primary tumors of the pericardium complete the spectrum of the possible etiologies of pericardial effusion in oncological patients. The diagnosis of cancer-related pericardial effusion is usually incidental, but cancer accounts for approximately one third of all cardiac tamponades. Drainage, which is mainly attained by pericardiocentesis, is needed when cancer or cancer treatment-related pericardial effusion leads to hemodynamic impairment. Placement of a pericardial catheter for 2-5 days is advised after pericardial fluid removal. In contrast, even a large pericardial effusion should be conservatively managed when the patient is stable, although the best frequency and timing of monitoring by echocardiography in this context are yet to be established. Pericardial effusion secondary to immune checkpoint inhibitors typically responds to corticosteroid therapy. Pericardiocentesis may also be considered to confirm the presence of neoplastic cells in the pericardial fluid, but the yield of cytological examination is low. In case of newly found pericardial effusion in individuals without active cancer and/or recent cancer treatment, a history of malignancy, unremitting or recurrent course, large effusion or presentation with cardiac tamponade, incomplete response to empirical therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, and hemorrhagic fluid at pericardiocentesis suggest a neoplastic etiology.

Background: Thoracic radiotherapy may damage the myocardium and arteries, increasing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Women with a high local breast cancer (BC) recurrence risk may receive an additional radiation boost to the tumor bed.

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the CVD risk and specifically ischemic heart disease (IHD) in BC patients treated with a radiation boost, and investigated whether this was modified by age.

Methods: We identified 5260 BC patients receiving radiotherapy between 2005 and 2016 without a history of CVD. Boost data were derived from hospital records and the national cancer registry. Follow-up data on CVD events were obtained from Statistics Netherlands until December 31, 2018. The relation between CVD and boost was evaluated with competing risk survival analysis.

Results: 1917 (36.4%) received a boost. Mean follow-up was 80.3 months (SD37.1) and the mean age 57.8 years (SD10.7). Interaction between boost and age was observed for IHD: a boost was significantly associated with IHD incidence in patients younger than 40 years but not in patients over 40 years. The subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) was calculated for ages from 25 to 75 years, showing a sHR range from 5.1 (95%CI 1.2-22.6) for 25-year old patients to sHR 0.5 (95%CI 0.2-1.02) for 75-year old patients.

Conclusion: In patients younger than 40, a radiation boost is significantly associated with an increased risk of CVD. In absolute terms, the increased risk was low. In older patients, there was no association between boost and CVD risk, which is likely a reflection of appropriate patient selection.

Background: Different breast cancer pharmacotherapy agents cause different forms of cardiovascular toxicity. We aim to assess if breast cancer pharmacotherapy trials approach cardiovascular safety in a targeted or generalized manner when administering different agents.

Methods: We searched Embase and Medline for phase 2 and 3 breast cancer pharmacotherapy trials. We examined exclusion criterion for cardiovascular conditions and cardiovascular safety assessment through cardiovascular imaging, electrocardiogram, troponin, or natriuretic peptides. Fisher's exact test was utilized to compare reporting.

Results: Fifty breast cancer clinical trials were included in this study. Trials administering microtubule inhibitors were most likely to exclude patients with any CV condition compared with trials administering other agents (93.5% vs. 68.4%; p < 0.05), particularly coronary artery disease (77.4% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.01) but reported performing an electrocardiogram in 13 (41.9%) trials. Trials administering anti-HER 2 agents excluded all patients with at least one CV condition, particularly patients with heart failure (100.0% vs. 62.9%) and were more likely to perform echocardiograms (80.0% vs. 22.9%, p < 0.001) compared with other agents. Other agents excluded participants in a generalized manner and do not frequently perform targeted safety assessments.

Conclusions: Only trials administering microtubule inhibitors or anti-HER 2 therapy exclude patients with cardiovascular disease in a targeted approach. However, anti-HER 2 therapy trials are the only breast cancer clinical trials that perform targeted safety assessments. Breast cancer clinical trials need to develop a targeted approach to cardiovascular safety assessments to permit inclusion of high-risk participants and generate clinical trial data generalizable to patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing cancer therapy.

Background: Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor is an inflammatory biomarker that may prognosticate cardiovascular outcomes. We sought to determine the associations between soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor and established markers of cardiotoxicity in breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin.

Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer receiving standard-dose doxorubicin (240 mg/m²) at Rush University Medical Center and Rush Oak Park Hospital (Chicago, IL) between January 2017 and May 2019. Left ventricular ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, and cardiac biomarkers (N-terminal prohormone B-type natriuretic peptide, troponin-I, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) were measured at baseline and at intervals up to 12-month follow-up after end of treatment. The associations between soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor and these endpoints were evaluated using multivariable mixed effects linear regression.

Results: Our study included 37 women (mean age 47.0 ± 9.3 years, 60% white) with a median baseline soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor level of 2.83 ng/dL. No participant developed cardiomyopathy based on serial echocardiography by one-year follow-up. The median percent change in left ventricular strain was -4.3% at 6-month follow-up and absolute changes in cardiac biomarkers were clinically insignificant. There were no significant associations between soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor and these markers of cardiotoxicity (all p > 0.05).

Conclusions: In this breast cancer cohort, doxorubicin treatment was associated with a very low risk for cardiotoxicity. Across this narrow range of clinical endpoints, soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor was not associated with markers of subclinical cardiotoxicity. Further studies are needed to clarify the prognostic utility of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor in doxorubicin-associated cardiomyopathy and should include a larger cohort of leukemia and lymphoma patients who receive higher doses of doxorubicin.