Leger, Kasey J.

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.

Children, adolescents, and young adults (CAYA) with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) without complete metabolic response (CMR) before autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) have poor survival outcomes. CheckMate 744, a phase 2 study for CAYA (aged 5-30 years) with relapsed/refractory cHL, evaluated a risk-stratified, response-adapted approach with nivolumab plus brentuximab vedotin (BV) followed by BV plus bendamustine for patients with suboptimal response. Risk stratification was primarily based on time to relapse, prior treatment, and presence of B symptoms. We present the primary analysis of the standard-risk cohort. Data from the low-risk cohort are reported separately. Patients received 4 induction cycles with nivolumab plus BV; those without CMR (Deauville score >3, Lugano 2014) received BV plus bendamustine intensification. Patients with CMR after induction or intensification proceeded to consolidation (high-dose chemotherapy/auto-HCT per protocol). Primary endpoint was CMR any time before consolidation. Forty-four patients were treated. Median age was 16 years. At a minimum follow-up of 15.6 months, 43 patients received 4 induction cycles (1 discontinued); 11 of whom received intensification, 32 proceeded to consolidation. CMR rate was 59% after induction with nivolumab plus BV, and 94% any time before consolidation (nivolumab plus BV ± BV plus bendamustine). One-year PFS rate was 91%. During induction, 18% of patients experienced grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events. This risk-stratified, response-adapted salvage strategy had high CMR rates with limited toxicities in CAYA with relapsed/refractory cHL. Most patients did not require additional chemotherapy (bendamustine intensification). Additional follow-up is needed to confirm durability of disease control. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02927769.