Thukral, Nikhil

7041 Background: CD20×CD3 bispecific antibodies and CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies are increasingly used in relapsed/refractory DLBCL. CAR T therapy is associated with higher rates of CRS,ICANS, and cytopenias, whereas bispecific antibodies are often perceived as less toxic and more outpatient-friendly. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network. Adult patients with DLBCL treated with bispecific antibodies (glofitamab, epcoritamab) were compared with those receiving commercial CAR T-cell therapy (tisa, liso, axi). Propensity score matching was performed on demographics, comorbidities, baseline laboratory values, and corticosteroid exposure, yielding 468 patients per cohort. Outcomes included CRS, ICANS, severe neutropenia (ANC <500/µL), and thrombocytopenia (platelets <50×10³/µL), as well as hospitalization and ICU admission at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan–Meier analysis with log-rank testing. Results: After matching, CAR T therapy was associated with significantly higher immune-mediated toxicity. CRS occurred more frequently with CAR T at 1 month (37.4% vs 22.4%), 3 months (39.3% vs 27.6%), 6 months (40.6% vs 28.8%), and 12 months (41.2% vs 29.7%) (all p<0.001). ICANS was also more common with CAR T across all timepoints (1 month: 10.5% vs 4.9%; 12 months: 12.6% vs 7.5%). Severe neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were markedly more frequent in the CAR T cohort, with neutropenia affecting 66.7% vs 12.8% at 1 month and 71.6% vs 32.7% at 12 months (all p<0.001). Despite higher toxicity, healthcare utilization was comparable. Hospitalization rates were similar between groups at 1 and 3 months (61.8% vs 66.7% and 67.1% vs 75.9%), and ICU admission rates did not differ meaningfully at any timepoint. Importantly, overall survival consistently favored CAR T therapy. Survival differences emerged early and persisted over time, with lower mortality in the CAR T cohort at 1 month (2.1% vs 9.0%), 3 months (7.7% vs 18.6%), 6 months (15.8% vs 26.7%), and 12 months (26.5% vs 35.3%), corresponding to significantly improved OS by log-rank testing at all timepoints (p<0.001). Conclusions: In this large, real-world, propensity-matched analysis of relapsed/refractory DLBCL, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with substantially higher rates of CRS, ICANS, and severe cytopenias compared with bispecific antibodies. However, these toxicities did not translate into higher hospitalization or ICU utilization. Despite a less favorable early toxicity profile, CAR T therapy conferred a consistent and clinically meaningful survival advantage from early to late follow-up. Early toxicity alone should not preclude CAR T referral in appropriate candidates, underscoring the need for optimized patient selection, sequencing strategies, and supportive care.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-based therapies have become an integral part of modern cancer care, delivering durable responses in patients with otherwise refractory hematologic malignancies. As their use has expanded, it has become increasingly clear that these immune-based treatments exert important effects on the cardiovascular system. Rather than reflecting isolated cardiac injury, CAR-associated cardiovascular complications arise from a broader inflammatory process in which immune activation, cytokine release, endothelial dysfunction, and myocardial stress are closely interconnected. Pro-inflammatory mediators such as interleukin-6, interleukin-1β, tumor necrosis factor-α, and interferon-γ play central roles in shaping these responses, particularly during cytokine release syndrome. From a clinical perspective, cardiovascular manifestations often include hypotension, arrhythmias, and transient reductions in left ventricular function, with more severe presentations occurring in patients who develop high-grade inflammatory toxicity. At the same time, advances in immune engineering are reshaping how these platforms are viewed, extending their relevance beyond toxicity alone. Preclinical studies now suggest that CAR-based approaches may be adapted to modulate cardiac fibrosis and promote myocardial repair, highlighting a potential shift from purely oncologic applications toward broader cardiovascular benefit. Placing these developments within a cardio-oncology framework emphasizes the need for careful cardiovascular assessment, longitudinal monitoring, and close collaboration between specialties.

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.