Liu, Jennifer E.

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.

Background Strategies to estimate risk of cancer therapy‐related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) before initiating cardiotoxic cancer treatment are needed. We hypothesized that baseline ECG markers could identify patients at risk for CTRCD. Methods and Results In this retrospective cohort study, 1278 female patients with stage I–III HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)‐positive breast cancer meeting the following inclusion criteria were included: baseline ECG with QRS <120 milliseconds, baseline echocardiogram, and ≥1 follow‐up echocardiogram. Quantitative measurements of ECG waveform parameters were performed using MUSE (GE Healthcare). The primary outcome of interest was CTRCD at 1 year, defined by left ventricular ejection fraction decline (≥10% to <53% or ≥16% from baseline), or clinical heart failure (New York Heart Association class III/IV). Mean age was 51.7±11.1 years, 990 (77%) received anthracyclines, and all received HER2‐targeted therapy. CTRCD occurred in 160 (13%) patients. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for our previously published CTRCD risk score (composed of patient and treatment‐specific factors), 4 ECG markers remained independently associated with CTRCD risk: QRS axis, R‐wave duration (lead II), ST segment deviation (lead II), and Sokolow–Lyon voltage (all P <0.05). Compared with a model using only clinical CTRCD risk variables, addition of ECG parameters provided incremental value for predicting CTRCD risk ( P <0.001, likelihood ratio test) with continuous net reclassification improvement of 34.9% and integrated discrimination improvement of 3.4%. Conclusions Baseline ECG variables are predictive of subsequent CTRCD and provide incremental value to established clinical risk factors for CTRCD risk classification.

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI)–enabled interpretation of electrocardiogram (ECG) images (AI-ECGs) can identify patterns predictive of future adverse cardiac events. We hypothesized that such an approach would provide prognostic information for the risk of cardiac complications and mortality in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). We retrospectively subjected ECGs obtained before HCT to an externally trained, deep-learning model designed to predict the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). Included were 1377 patients (849 autologous [auto] HCT and 528 allogeneic [allo] HCT recipients). The median follow-up was 2.9 years. The 3-year cumulative incidence of AF was 9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-12) in patients who underwent auto HCT and 13% (10%-16%) in patients who underwent allo HCT. In the entire cohort, pre-HCT AI-ECG estimate of AF risk correlated highly with the development of clinical AF (hazard ratio [HR], 7.37; 95% CI, 3.53-15.4; P &lt; .001), inferior survival (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3-4.5; P = .004), and greater risk of nonrelapse mortality (NRM; HR, 95% CI, 3.36; 1.39-8.13; P = .007), without increased risk of relapse. Association with mortality was only noted in allo HCT recipients, where the risk of NRM was greater. The use of cyclophosphamide after transplantation resulted in greater 90-day incidence of AF (13% vs 5%; P = .01) compared to calcineurin inhibitor–based graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, corresponding to temporal changes in AI-ECG AF prediction after HCT. In summary, AI-ECG can inform risk of posttransplant cardiac outcomes and survival in HCT patients and represents a novel strategy for personalized risk assessment.

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 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.