Kerry L. Reynolds

Abstract Purpose: While various studies have highlighted the prognostic significance of pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT), the impact of additional adjuvant therapy after pCR is not known. Experimental Design: PubMed was searched for studies with NAT for breast cancer and individual patient-level data was extracted for analysis using plot digitizer software. HRs, with 95% probability intervals (PI), measuring the association between pCR and overall survival (OS) or event-free survival (EFS), were estimated using Bayesian piece-wise exponential proportional hazards hierarchical models including pCR as predictor. Results: Overall, 52 of 3,209 publications met inclusion criteria, totaling 27,895 patients. Patients with a pCR after NAT had significantly better EFS (HR = 0.31; 95% PI, 0.24–0.39), particularly for triple-negative (HR = 0.18; 95% PI, 0.10–0.31) and HER2+ (HR = 0.32; 95% PI, 0.21–0.47) disease. Similarly, pCR after NAT was also associated with improved survival (HR = 0.22; 95% PI, 0.15–0.30). The association of pCR with improved EFS was similar among patients who received subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.36; 95% PI, 0.19–0.67) and those without adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.36; 95% PI, 0.27–0.54), with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.60). Conclusions: Achieving pCR following NAT is associated with significantly better EFS and OS, particularly for triple-negative and HER2+ breast cancer. The similar outcomes with or without adjuvant chemotherapy in patients who attain pCR likely reflects tumor biology and systemic clearance of micrometastatic disease, highlighting the potential of escalation/deescalation strategies in the adjuvant setting based on neoadjuvant response. See related commentary by Esserman, p. 2771

The discipline of Cardio-Oncology has seen tremendous growth over the past decade. It is devoted to the cardiovascular (CV) care of the cancer patient, especially to the mitigation and management of CV complications or toxicities of cancer therapies, which can have profound implications on prognosis. To that effect, many studies have assessed CV toxicities in patients undergoing various types of cancer therapies; however, direct comparisons have proven difficult due to lack of uniformity in CV toxicity endpoints. Similarly, in clinical practice, there can be substantial differences in the understanding of what constitutes CV toxicity, which can lead to significant variation in patient management and outcomes. This document addresses these issues and provides consensus definitions for the most commonly reported CV toxicities, including cardiomyopathy/heart failure and myocarditis, vascular toxicity, and hypertension, as well as arrhythmias and QTc prolongation. The current document reflects a harmonizing review of the current landscape in CV toxicities and the definitions used to define these. This consensus effort aims to provide a structure for definitions of CV toxicity in the clinic and for future research. It will be important to link the definitions outlined herein to outcomes in clinical practice and CV endpoints in clinical trials. It should facilitate communication across various disciplines to improve clinical outcomes for cancer patients with CV diseases.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treat an expanding range of cancers. Consistent basic data suggest that these same checkpoints are critical negative regulators of atherosclerosis. Therefore, our objectives were to test whether ICIs were associated with accelerated atherosclerosis and a higher risk of atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular events. Methods: The study was situated in a single academic medical center. The primary analysis evaluated whether exposure to an ICI was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular events in 2842 patients and 2842 controls matched by age, a history of cardiovascular events, and cancer type. In a second design, a case-crossover analysis was performed with an at-risk period defined as the 2-year period after and the control period as the 2-year period before treatment. The primary outcome was a composite of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and ischemic stroke). Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome. In addition, in an imaging substudy (n=40), the rate of atherosclerotic plaque progression was compared from before to after the ICI was started. All study measures and outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results: In the matched cohort study, there was a 3-fold higher risk for cardiovascular events after starting an ICI (hazard ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.0–5.5]; P <0.001). There was a similar increase in each of the individual components of the primary outcome. In the case-crossover, there was also an increase in cardiovascular events from 1.37 to 6.55 per 100 person-years at 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.8 [95% CI, 3.5–6.5]; P <0.001). In the imaging study, the rate of progression of total aortic plaque volume was >3-fold higher with ICIs (from 2.1%/y before 6.7%/y after). This association between ICI use and increased atherosclerotic plaque progression was attenuated with concomitant use of statins or corticosteroids. Conclusions: Cardiovascular events were higher after initiation of ICIs, potentially mediated by accelerated progression of atherosclerosis. Optimization of cardiovascular risk factors and increased awareness of cardiovascular risk before, during, and after treatment should be considered among patients on an ICI.