Dent, Susan

Importance The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has improved cancer outcomes but at the cost of adverse events, mainly related to the immune system. Cardiovascular (CV) toxic effects, and especially myocarditis, are of particular concern and are the subject of this position statement by the International Cardio-Oncology Society with representation of experts from oncology, hematology, and cardiology. Observations CV toxic effects of ICI therapies include inflammation-associated diseases, such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and vasculitis, as well as the aggravation of chronic inflammatory conditions, such as atherosclerosis with acute ischemic complications (myocardial infarction and stroke). Patients taking ICI therapies can also develop cardiac dysfunction, stress-induced cardiomyopathy (Takotsubo or apical ballooning syndrome), and heart failure without inflammatory cell infiltration of the myocardium. Atrial and ventricular arrhythmias can emerge in the setting of a systemic inflammatory milieu, myocarditis, or ischemia. Of all potential CV adverse effects, myocarditis remains of highest concern, although fatality rates have declined over time with a broadening spectrum of presentations ranging from troponin elevation of uncertain significance to smoldering, nonsevere, and severe or fulminant myocarditis. Conclusions and Relevance Concerns for myocarditis continue to dominate the spectrum of CV toxic effects in patients receiving ICI therapy. Recommendations for management vary according to severity. Multidisciplinary collaborations remain key for managing acute toxic effects and future cancer treatment decisions, including ICI rechallenge. Ischemic heart disease constitutes the main differential diagnosis in these patients, while pericarditis can be concomitantly present, and atrial and ventricular arrhythmias can also complicate the clinical picture. Several gaps in knowledge are identified and require further research.

Background Data on the safety profiles and clinical outcomes of patients with solid tumors and cardiac metastasis treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are limited. Methods This is an international multicenter retrospective study of patients with cancer and cardiac metastasis at baseline. Patients who had received ≥1 dose of ICI were included. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were graded per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event V.5.0. Objective response rates (ORR) were evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1 when available. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Among 110 pts, median age at ICI initiation was 65 (IQR: 59–75). Median follow-up time since ICI initiation was 36 (95% CI: 26 to 51) months. Melanoma (38%, n=42) and non-small cell lung cancer (24%, n=26) were the most common. 68 (62%) patients received ICIs as first-line, and 29 (26%) patients were treated with combination anti-programmed death-1 and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. The most common location of cardiac metastasis was in the atria (37%, n=41) and ventricles (35%, n=39). 15 patients (13.6%) had bilateral cardiac/pericardial metastasis, 44 (40%) had left-sided, and 43 (39.8%) had right-sided. At ICI initiation, 21% (n=23) had a cardiac thrombus. Cardiology referrals and cardiac MRIs at the time of cancer diagnosis were completed on 58 (53%) and 52 (47%) patients, respectively. Cardiac events occurred in 40 (36%) patients, including arrhythmias (n=14, 13%), arterial/venous emboli (n=4, 3.6%), and cardiac tamponade (n=3, 2.7%). 53 (47%) patients developed trAEs; most common were colitis/diarrhea (n=16, 15%), dermatitis (n=13, 12%), and hepatitis (n=9, 8.2%). ICI-related major cardiac trAEs occurred in 2 (1.8%) patients. 22 patients (20%) developed grade ≥3 trAE. Patients with multiple cardiac metastases had significantly lower responses to ICI-based regimens compared with patients with single cardiac metastasis (11% vs 63%, p=0.02). For melanoma, ORR, median PFS, and median OS were 38%, 9.0 months, and 28.9 months, respectively. 83% of patients with melanoma had concordant responses in overall disease burden and cardiac disease. 91 patients discontinued ICIs, and the main reason was progression or death in 55 (49%) patients. Conclusions Among patients with pre-existing cardiac metastasis, ICIs demonstrated meaningful clinical efficacy with no increase in safety signals. Most patients had concordant responses in the overall disease burden and cardiac mass. Multidisciplinary teams are crucial for the appropriate management of patients with cardiac metastasis.

ABSTRACT The advent of immunological therapies has revolutionized the treatment of solid and haematological cancers over the last decade. Licensed therapies which activate the immune system to target cancer cells can be broadly divided into two classes. The first class are antibodies that inhibit immune checkpoint signalling, known as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The second class are cell-based immune therapies including chimeric antigen receptor T lymphocyte (CAR-T) cell therapies, natural killer (NK) cell therapies, and tumour infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapies. The clinical efficacy of all these treatments generally outweighs the risks, but there is a high rate of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are often unpredictable in timing with clinical sequalae ranging from mild (e.g. rash) to severe or even fatal (e.g. myocarditis, cytokine release syndrome) and reversible to permanent (e.g. endocrinopathies).The mechanisms underpinning irAE pathology vary across different irAE complications and syndromes, reflecting the broad clinical phenotypes observed and the variability of different individual immune responses, and are poorly understood overall. Immune-related cardiovascular toxicities have emerged, and our understanding has evolved from focussing initially on rare but fatal ICI-related myocarditis with cardiogenic shock to more common complications including less severe ICI-related myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, including conduction system disease and heart block, non-inflammatory heart failure, takotsubo syndrome and coronary artery disease. In this scientific statement on the cardiovascular toxicities of immune therapies for cancer, we summarize the pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of ICI, CAR-T, NK, and TIL therapies. We also highlight gaps in the literature and where future research should focus.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Anti-HER2 therapies have transformed the trajectory for patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) MBC. A subset of patients with HER2+ MBC do exceptionally well and remain on maintenance anti-HER2 therapy for many years. However, current therapy is non-curative and patients are treated indefinitely. While these therapies often are well-tolerated, they may cause significant toxicities, are expensive, and typically require frequent infusion and provider visits. Case reports and retrospective series demonstrate that some patients may do well after stopping anti-HER2 treatment. We currently lack prospective data on the likelihood of clinical impact of successful treatment discontinuation, outcomes among patients who progress and restart HER2-directed therapy, and tools to predict who may safely stop therapy. In this study, we will enroll pts with an exceptional response to anti-HER2 therapy. Pts may elect to either continue or stop anti-HER2 therapy and will be followed clinically and radiographically on a protocol-specified schedule. Considering the central role of patients in choosing the study intervention arm, and the unique nature of stopping therapy as a treatment intervention, patient advocates have been deeply involved in the study design to ensure patient concerns are being heard and addressed. We will retrospectively assess minimal residual disease (MRD), measured in plasma, as a biomarker of ongoing response, in a step toward shifting the treatment paradigm for pts with HER2+ MBC. METHODS: STOP-HER2 is a prospective, non-randomized, phase II, multicenter study of either continuation (cohort 1) or cessation (cohort 2) of anti-HER2 therapy in exceptional responders with HER2+ MBC. Eligible patients must have biopsy-proven HER2+ MBC by ASCO/CAP guidelines and must have been receiving first-line anti-HER2 therapy for MBC for at least 3 years without evidence of progressive disease (PD) as determined by the treating investigator. Patients with prior brain-only PD or oligo-PD outside the brain are eligible at least 2 years after local treatment to the central nervous system (CNS) and in absence of subsequent PD. Up to fifty-two participants will be enrolled into cohort 2, and an additional thirty participants enrolled into the cohort 1, at 10 US sites within the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium. Co-primary endpoints are the 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) in cohorts 2 and 1, separately. Secondary endpoints include the clinical benefit rate upon re-initiation of anti-HER2 therapy for patients in cohort 2 experiencing PD after treatment discontinuation; and 3-year overall survival in both cohorts. Correlative endpoints include MRD status at baseline and the correlation between MRD dynamics and outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes will be collected and analyzed, including quality of life, illness intrusiveness, financial toxicity, anxiety, and decision regret. The study will use a two-stage design to assess the primary objective of estimating the rate of participants who are free of progression at one year after discontinuing anti-HER2 therapy. If 50% or less are free of progression at one year, stopping HER2 therapy would not be considered a viable treatment plan (null hypothesis). The study is designed to have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 10% type I error rate when 68% of exceptional responders are free of progression at one year after stopping HER2 therapy. STOP-HER2 began enrollment in Q2 2023 (NCT05721248). Citation Format: Heather Parsons, Kathryn Ruddy, Stefania Morganti, Karen Smith, Victoria Attaya, Eliza Kallfelz, Michelle DeMeo, Jamie LaScala, Shirley Mertz, Teri Pollastro, Patricia Spears, Adam Brufsky, Chau Dang, Susan Dent, Ahmed Elkhanany, WIlliam Gwin, Ciara O'Sullivan, Kathy Miller, Sara Nunnery, Elaine Walsh, Anna Maria Storniolo, Sara Tolaney, Nabihah Tayob, Antonio Wolff, Eric Winer, Mothaffar Rimawi, Ian Krop, Nancy Lin. The STOP-HER2 Trial: A Phase 2 Study of Stopping Trastuzumab - Outcomes in Patients with HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer (TBCRC 062) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO2-20-01.

Abstract 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.

Abstract In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Cardio-Oncology and Imaging Councils of the American College of Cardiology offers recommendations to clinicians regarding the cardiovascular care of cardio-oncology patients in this expert consensus statement. Cardio-oncology patients—individuals with an active or prior cancer history and with or at risk of cardiovascular disease—are a rapidly growing population who are at increased risk of infection, and experiencing severe and/or lethal complications by COVID-19. Recommendations for optimizing screening and monitoring visits to detect cardiac dysfunction are discussed. In addition, judicious use of multimodality imaging and biomarkers are proposed to identify myocardial, valvular, vascular, and pericardial involvement in cancer patients. The difficulties of diagnosing the etiology of cardiovascular complications in patients with cancer and COVID-19 are outlined, along with weighing the advantages against risks of exposure, with the modification of existing cardiovascular treatments and cardiotoxicity surveillance in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract BackgroundRe-allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in delays in care delivery to patients with cardiovascular disease and cancer. The ability of health care providers to provide optimal care in this setting has not been formally evaluated.ObjectivesTo assess the impact of COVID-19 resource re-allocation on scheduling, testing, elective procedures, telemedicine access, use of new COVID-19 therapies, and providers’ opinions on healthcare policies among oncology and cardiology practitioners.MethodsAn electronic survey was conducted by a cardio-oncology collaborative network through regional and state chapters of the American College of Cardiology , American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Descriptive statistics were reported by frequency and proportion for analyses, and stratified categorically by geographic region and specialty.Results1,415 providers (43 countries) participated: 986 cardiologists, 306 oncologists, and 118 trainees/internal medicine. 63% (195/306) of oncologists vs 92% (896/976) of cardiologists reported cancellations of treatments/elective procedures (p=0.01). 46% (442/970) of cardiologists and 25% (76/303) of oncologists modified the scope of their practice (p=<0.001). Academic physicians (74.5%) felt better supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE) vs non-academic (74.5% vs 67.2%; p=0.018). Telemedicine was less common in Europe 81% (74/91), and Latin America 64% (101/158), than the United States, 88% (950/1,097) (p=<0.001). 95% of all groups supported more active leadership from medical professional societies.ConclusionsThese results support initiatives to promote expanded coverage for telemedicine, increased access to PPE, better testing availability and involvement of medical professional societies to help with preparedness for future health care crisis.Appendix: Link to the Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/C8ZDYNW

Abstract The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV‐2) has given rise to a pandemic of unprecedented proportions in the modern era because of its highly contagious nature and impact on human health and society: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Patients with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and established CV disease (CVD) are among those initially identified at the highest risk for serious complications, including death. Subsequent studies have pointed out that patients with cancer are also at high risk for a critical disease course. Therefore, the most vulnerable patients are seemingly those with both cancer and CVD, and a careful, unified approach in the evaluation and management of this patient population is especially needed in times of the COVID‐19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of the unique implications of the viral outbreak for the field of cardio‐oncology and outlines key modifications in the approach to this ever‐increasing patient population. These modifications include a shift toward greater utilization of cardiac biomarkers and a more focused CV imaging approach in the broader context of modifications to typical practice pathways. The goal of this strategic adjustment is to minimize the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection (or other future viral outbreaks) while not becoming negligent of CVD and its important impact on the overall outcomes of patients who are being treated for cancer.

Abstract This position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Cardio-Oncology Study Group in collaboration with the International Cardio-Oncology Society presents practical, easy-to-use and evidence-based risk stratification tools for oncologists, haemato-oncologists and cardiologists to use in their clinical practice to risk stratify oncology patients prior to receiving cancer therapies known to cause heart failure or other serious cardiovascular toxicities. Baseline risk stratification proformas are presented for oncology patients prior to receiving the following cancer therapies: anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, second and third generation multi-targeted kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukaemia targeting BCR-ABL, multiple myeloma therapies (proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), RAF and MEK inhibitors or androgen deprivation therapies. Applying these risk stratification proformas will allow clinicians to stratify cancer patients into low, medium, high and very high risk of cardiovascular complications prior to starting treatment, with the aim of improving personalised approaches to minimise the risk of cardiovascular toxicity from cancer therapies.