López‐Fernández, Teresa

ABSTRACT Introduction and Methods Cancer therapy–related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) is a well established and potentially life‐threatening complication of contemporary oncologic treatment. Although comprehensive cardio‐oncology guidelines have been developed, their integration into routine hematology and oncology practice remains inconsistent. This consensus statement, developed by a multidisciplinary panel of cardio‐oncology experts, aims to provide practical, case‐based guidance to help oncology providers recognize, assess, and manage CTRCD across a spectrum of malignancies and cardiovascular presentations. Clinical Scenarios and Discussion We present representative clinical scenarios that illustrate real‐world challenges in cardio‐oncology and apply evidence‐based recommendations from current guidelines, including those from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the International Cardio‐Oncology Society (ICOS)—to support informed decision‐making. Key areas of focus include baseline cardiovascular risk stratification prior to initiating potentially cardiotoxic therapies, with an emphasis on biomarker and imaging surveillance strategies tailored to individual risk profiles. Also, this document outlines the application of guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) for cancer patients with heart failure. Conclusion By offering a structured, user‐friendly framework, this document seeks to bridge the implementation gap between oncology and cardiology disciplines. Our goal is to equip oncology providers with accessible tools that facilitate early recognition, consistent surveillance, and timely referral, thereby preserving cancer treatment intensity while minimizing cardiovascular morbidity.

Abstract Advancements in the understanding of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have transformed patient care, leading to the development of novel targeted therapies. Traditionally, patient fitness for treatment was based on the tolerability of chemoimmunotherapy such as fludarabine–cyclophosphamide–rituximab. As the CLL patient population is predominantly older, age has historically been a major factor in how a physician selects a patient's treatment. However, as a patient's fitness goes beyond age, the definition of patient fitness should also evolve. Here, we provide suggestions for the current best practice on assessing fitness for treating CLL. Considerations for treatment include assessment of polypharmacy, history of infections, cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, functional status, cognitive and psychological status, nutritional status, and social support. The flow of assessments can start with a typical clinical evaluation followed by geriatric, cardiovascular, and renal reviews, if needed, and include collecting a patient's full history to evaluate their risk of complications with specific CLL treatments. The severity of a patient's cardiovascular profile can range from low to high risk; for those at high risk, collaboration with a cardiologist is recommended. Geriatric assessment is advised to determine baseline frailty and resilience to tolerate treatments, to avoid inappropriate treatment or undertreating patients based on chronological age, and to align the patient's fitness status with the most optimal treatment. Continuous monitoring and assessment, regardless of therapy, are recommended. Patient preferences are also integral to this decision‐making process. Looking beyond a patient's age and basing treatment selection on their fitness is key in the new era of treatment in CLL.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Global collaboration in cardio-oncology is needed to understand the prevalence of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different risk groups, practice settings, and geographic locations. There are limited data on the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities that may impact access to care and outcomes. To address these gaps, we established the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry, a multinational, multicenter prospective registry. METHODS: We assembled cardiologists and oncologists from academic and community settings to collaborate in the first Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Subsequently, a survey for site resources, demographics, and intention to participate was conducted. We designed an online data platform to facilitate this global initiative. RESULTS: A total of 119 sites responded to an online questionnaire on their practices and main goals of the registry: 49 US sites from 23 states and 70 international sites from 5 continents indicated a willingness to participate in the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Sites were more commonly led by cardiologists (85/119; 72%) and were more often university/teaching (81/119; 68%) than community based (38/119; 32%). The average number of cardio-oncology patients treated per month was 80 per site. The top 3 Global Cardio-Oncology Registry priorities in cardio-oncology care were breast cancer, hematologic malignancies, and patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Executive and scientific committees and specific committees were established. A pilot phase for breast cancer using Research Electronic Data Capture Cloud platform recently started patient enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: We present the structure for a global collaboration. Information derived from the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry will help understand the risk factors impacting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different geographic locations and therefore contribute to reduce access gaps in cardio-oncology care. Risk calculators will be prospectively derived and validated.