Deswal, Anita

Abstract Aims Radiation therapy (RT) is an integral component of cancer therapy but associated with adverse events. Our goal was to establish risk prediction models for major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after chest RT. Methods and results A retrospective study of lung/breast cancer patients who had chest RT with planning CT at Mayo Clinic between 01/2010 and 01/2014. Predictive models were developed based on weighted independent predictors using a derivation (406 lung and 711 breast cancer) and validation cohort (179 lung and 234 breast cancer). Patient characteristics, pre-RT CT for coronary artery calcification (CAC), and post-RT MACCE data were reviewed. Post-RT MACCE occurred in 6.1 and 5.6% in the derivation and validation cohort over a mean follow-up of 42 ± 13 months. Post-therapy model (C2AD2) included CAC (two points), MACCE history (two points), age ≥74 (three points), DM (two points), and mean heart radiation dose ≥ 850 mGy (two points), and pre-therapy model (C2AD) included post-therapy model parameters minus mean heart radiation dose. Both models stratified patients into three risk groups: low (0–2), intermediate (3–5), and high (≥6). Post-RT MACCE across these groups were 2.7, 8.9, and 19.8% in the derivation, and 3.9, 6.6, and 16.4% in the validation cohort for post-therapy model (C2AD2) and 2.8, 9.2, and 20.4% in the derivation and 3.7, 9.2, and 13.2% in the validation cohort for pre-therapy model. Both models showed statistically significant graded survival outcome. Conclusion Post-therapy (C2AD2) and pre-therapy (C2AD) models are simple, easy to use and effective tools to stratify breast and lung cancer patients undergoing chest radiation for post-RT MACCE.

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.