Thukral, Jatin

5079 Background: Treatment sequencing in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after ADT and ARPI exposure varies in practice. While 177 Lu-PSMA use is expanding in routine practice, real world head to head comparisons with docetaxel in ARPI-exposed mCRPC are limited, particularly for short-term outcomes and treatment related acute care utilization. Methods: Using TriNetX, adults > 18 years of age with metastatic prostate cancer and prior ARPI exposure who initiated 177 Lu-PSMA or docetaxel were identified (index = first administration). Cohorts were balanced with 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) on demographics and baseline comorbidities. Outcomes from day 1–180 post-index included all-cause mortality (primary), hospitalization, acute kidney injury (AKI; ICD-10 N17), and thromboembolic/ischemic events (ICD-10 I21/I26/I63/I82). For each outcome, patients with prior documentation of that outcome were excluded. Outcomes are reported as risks and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Before matching, 563 patients initiated 177 Lu-PSMA-617 and 8,749 initiated docetaxel; after 1:1 PSM, 497 patients per cohort were analyzed. At 180 days, all-cause mortality was 7.3% (36/494) with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 versus 12.2% (60/491) with docetaxel (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40–0.88). Hospitalization occurred in 7.2% (21/290) versus 21.1% (52/247) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21–0.55). In a separate matched renal-safety analysis (480 per cohort), AKI occurred in 2.8% (11/390) versus 9.0% (36/399) (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.16–0.60). Thromboembolic/ischemic events were 3.8% (15/394) versus 6.4% (26/404) (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32–1.10). Conclusions: In ARPI-exposed mCRPC, 177 Lu-PSMA was associated with lower 180-day mortality risk and substantially fewer hospitalizations than docetaxel, with a lower risk of AKI. These findings highlight a potential short-term effectiveness and acute-care utilization advantage of 177 Lu-PSMA in routine practice and support further prospective evaluation. Key 180-day outcomes after matching. Outcome 177 Lu-PSMA Docetaxel Effect estimate (180 days) All-cause mortality 36/494 (7.3%) 60/491 (12.2%) RR 0.596 (0.402-0.884) Hospitalization 21/290 (7.2%) 52/247 (21.1%) RR 0.344 (0.213-0.554); Acute kidney injury (AKI)* 11/390 (2.8%) 36/399 (9.0%) RR 0.312 (0.163-0.595) Thromboembolic/ischemic† 15/394 (3.8%) 26/404 (6.4%) RR 0.592 (0.318-1.100) *AKI analysis used a separate matched run (480 per cohort). †Composite of I21, I26, I63, I82.

The therapeutic landscape of hematologic malignancies has undergone a paradigm shift with the increasing incorporation of targeted therapies, including inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling. While VEGF-directed agents have historically been developed and deployed in solid tumors, their application in hematologic cancers—particularly multiple myeloma, select leukemias, and rare lymphomas—has expanded in investigational and clinical settings. VEGF is fundamental to angiogenesis, maintenance of endothelial integrity, and regulation of vascular tone. As a result, therapeutic inhibition of VEGF signaling is associated with a characteristic spectrum of cardiovascular adverse effects. These include hypertension, endothelial dysfunction, heart failure, thromboembolic complications, and renal injury, all of which present important clinical challenges in patients with hematologic malignancies. This population frequently has additional vulnerability due to factors such as cytopenias, preexisting renal impairment, and prior exposure to cardiotoxic anticancer therapies. This review aims to provide a cardio-oncology–oriented overview of VEGF biology, the range of VEGF-targeted agents used in hematologic cancers, and the underlying mechanisms driving their cardiovascular toxicities.

Advances in cancer therapeutics have substantially improved survival across multiple malignancies but have concurrently increased the burden of cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity, establishing cardio-oncology as an essential discipline situated at the interface of oncology and cardiovascular medicine. Despite growing incorporation of cardiac imaging and circulating cardiac biomarkers into surveillance strategies, current approaches remain limited by modest specificity, heterogeneous risk profiles, and inconsistent translation into effective cardioprotective interventions. This review synthesizes contemporary evidence on the biological mechanisms underlying cancer therapy–related cardiovascular toxicity and critically evaluates the current role and limitations of established cardiac biomarkers, including high-sensitivity cardiac troponins and natriuretic peptides, in risk stratification and early injury detection. We further examine why many cardioprotective clinical trials have yielded neutral or modest results, highlighting signal dilution arising from low-risk populations, endpoint heterogeneity, and timing mismatches between injury biology and intervention. This review advances a precision cardio-oncology framework by integrating tumor-derived liquid biopsy platforms—such as circulating tumor DNA, tissue-specific cell-free DNA, and extracellular vesicles—with cardiac biomarkers to provide a biologically contextualized assessment of cardiovascular risk. Tumor-derived biomarkers may reflect treatment intensity, systemic inflammatory burden, and cardiotoxic susceptibility, thereby enhancing the interpretation of cardiac biomarker signals and refining patient selection for targeted cardioprotective strategies.