López-Fernández, Teresa

Abstract Advancements in the understanding of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have transformed patient care, leading to the development of novel targeted therapies. Traditionally, patient fitness for treatment was based on the tolerability of chemoimmunotherapy such as fludarabine–cyclophosphamide–rituximab. As the CLL patient population is predominantly older, age has historically been a major factor in how a physician selects a patient's treatment. However, as a patient's fitness goes beyond age, the definition of patient fitness should also evolve. Here, we provide suggestions for the current best practice on assessing fitness for treating CLL. Considerations for treatment include assessment of polypharmacy, history of infections, cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, functional status, cognitive and psychological status, nutritional status, and social support. The flow of assessments can start with a typical clinical evaluation followed by geriatric, cardiovascular, and renal reviews, if needed, and include collecting a patient's full history to evaluate their risk of complications with specific CLL treatments. The severity of a patient's cardiovascular profile can range from low to high risk; for those at high risk, collaboration with a cardiologist is recommended. Geriatric assessment is advised to determine baseline frailty and resilience to tolerate treatments, to avoid inappropriate treatment or undertreating patients based on chronological age, and to align the patient's fitness status with the most optimal treatment. Continuous monitoring and assessment, regardless of therapy, are recommended. Patient preferences are also integral to this decision‐making process. Looking beyond a patient's age and basing treatment selection on their fitness is key in the new era of treatment in CLL.

ABSTRACT The advent of immunological therapies has revolutionized the treatment of solid and haematological cancers over the last decade. Licensed therapies which activate the immune system to target cancer cells can be broadly divided into two classes. The first class are antibodies that inhibit immune checkpoint signalling, known as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The second class are cell-based immune therapies including chimeric antigen receptor T lymphocyte (CAR-T) cell therapies, natural killer (NK) cell therapies, and tumour infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapies. The clinical efficacy of all these treatments generally outweighs the risks, but there is a high rate of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are often unpredictable in timing with clinical sequalae ranging from mild (e.g. rash) to severe or even fatal (e.g. myocarditis, cytokine release syndrome) and reversible to permanent (e.g. endocrinopathies).The mechanisms underpinning irAE pathology vary across different irAE complications and syndromes, reflecting the broad clinical phenotypes observed and the variability of different individual immune responses, and are poorly understood overall. Immune-related cardiovascular toxicities have emerged, and our understanding has evolved from focussing initially on rare but fatal ICI-related myocarditis with cardiogenic shock to more common complications including less severe ICI-related myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, including conduction system disease and heart block, non-inflammatory heart failure, takotsubo syndrome and coronary artery disease. In this scientific statement on the cardiovascular toxicities of immune therapies for cancer, we summarize the pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of ICI, CAR-T, NK, and TIL therapies. We also highlight gaps in the literature and where future research should focus.

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.

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.