Saro H. Armenian

Purpose Cardiac dysfunction is a serious adverse effect of certain cancer-directed therapies that can interfere with the efficacy of treatment, decrease quality of life, or impact the actual survival of the patient with cancer. The purpose of this effort was to develop recommendations for prevention and monitoring of cardiac dysfunction in survivors of adult-onset cancers. Methods Recommendations were developed by an expert panel with multidisciplinary representation using a systematic review (1996 to 2016) of meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, observational studies, and clinical experience. Study quality was assessed using established methods, per study design. The guideline recommendations were crafted in part using the Guidelines Into Decision Support methodology. Results A total of 104 studies met eligibility criteria and compose the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. The strength of the recommendations in these guidelines is based on the quality, amount, and consistency of the evidence and the balance between benefits and harms. Recommendations It is important for health care providers to initiate the discussion regarding the potential for cardiac dysfunction in individuals in whom the risk is sufficiently high before beginning therapy. Certain higher risk populations of survivors of cancer may benefit from prevention and screening strategies implemented during cancer-directed therapies. Clinical suspicion for cardiac disease should be high and threshold for cardiac evaluation should be low in any survivor who has received potentially cardiotoxic therapy. For certain higher risk survivors of cancer, routine surveillance with cardiac imaging may be warranted after completion of cancer-directed therapy, so that appropriate interventions can be initiated to halt or even reverse the progression of cardiac dysfunction.

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.

PURPOSE: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), including ischemic heart disease, stroke, and heart failure, are well-established late effects of therapy in survivors of childhood and young adult (< 40 years at diagnosis) cancers; less is known regarding CVD in long-term survivors of adult-onset (≥ 40 years) cancer. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study design was used to describe the magnitude of CVD risk in 36,232 ≥ 2-year survivors of adult-onset cancer compared with matched (age, sex, and residential ZIP code) noncancer controls (n = 73,545) within a large integrated managed care organization. Multivariable regression was used to examine the impact of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs; hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia) on long-term CVD risk in cancer survivors. RESULTS: Survivors of multiple myeloma (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.70; P < .01), carcinoma of the lung/bronchus (IRR, 1.58; P < .01), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (IRR, 1.41; P < .01), and breast cancer (IRR, 1.13; P < .01) had significantly higher CVD risk when compared with noncancer controls. Conversely, prostate cancer survivors had a lower CVD risk (IRR, 0.89; P < .01) compared with controls. Cancer survivors with two or more CVRFs had the highest risk of CVD when compared with noncancer controls with less than two CVRFs (IRR, 1.83 to 2.59; P < .01). Eight-year overall survival was significantly worse among cancer survivors who developed CVD (60%) when compared with cancer survivors without CVD (81%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: The magnitude of subsequent CVD risk varies according to cancer subtype and by the presence of CVRFs. Overall survival in survivors who develop CVD is poor, emphasizing the need for targeted prevention strategies for individuals at highest risk of developing CVD.