Carver, Joseph R.

Importance The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has improved cancer outcomes but at the cost of adverse events, mainly related to the immune system. Cardiovascular (CV) toxic effects, and especially myocarditis, are of particular concern and are the subject of this position statement by the International Cardio-Oncology Society with representation of experts from oncology, hematology, and cardiology. Observations CV toxic effects of ICI therapies include inflammation-associated diseases, such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and vasculitis, as well as the aggravation of chronic inflammatory conditions, such as atherosclerosis with acute ischemic complications (myocardial infarction and stroke). Patients taking ICI therapies can also develop cardiac dysfunction, stress-induced cardiomyopathy (Takotsubo or apical ballooning syndrome), and heart failure without inflammatory cell infiltration of the myocardium. Atrial and ventricular arrhythmias can emerge in the setting of a systemic inflammatory milieu, myocarditis, or ischemia. Of all potential CV adverse effects, myocarditis remains of highest concern, although fatality rates have declined over time with a broadening spectrum of presentations ranging from troponin elevation of uncertain significance to smoldering, nonsevere, and severe or fulminant myocarditis. Conclusions and Relevance Concerns for myocarditis continue to dominate the spectrum of CV toxic effects in patients receiving ICI therapy. Recommendations for management vary according to severity. Multidisciplinary collaborations remain key for managing acute toxic effects and future cancer treatment decisions, including ICI rechallenge. Ischemic heart disease constitutes the main differential diagnosis in these patients, while pericarditis can be concomitantly present, and atrial and ventricular arrhythmias can also complicate the clinical picture. Several gaps in knowledge are identified and require further research.

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.

Abstract The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV‐2) has given rise to a pandemic of unprecedented proportions in the modern era because of its highly contagious nature and impact on human health and society: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Patients with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and established CV disease (CVD) are among those initially identified at the highest risk for serious complications, including death. Subsequent studies have pointed out that patients with cancer are also at high risk for a critical disease course. Therefore, the most vulnerable patients are seemingly those with both cancer and CVD, and a careful, unified approach in the evaluation and management of this patient population is especially needed in times of the COVID‐19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of the unique implications of the viral outbreak for the field of cardio‐oncology and outlines key modifications in the approach to this ever‐increasing patient population. These modifications include a shift toward greater utilization of cardiac biomarkers and a more focused CV imaging approach in the broader context of modifications to typical practice pathways. The goal of this strategic adjustment is to minimize the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection (or other future viral outbreaks) while not becoming negligent of CVD and its important impact on the overall outcomes of patients who are being treated for cancer.

Abstract Aims The presence of cancer can complicate treatment choices for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) increasing both the risk of thrombotic and bleeding events. Methods and results Using data from Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation, we aimed to characterize AF patients with cancer, to describe their management and to assess the association between cancer and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Among 9749 patients, 23.8% had history of cancer (57% solid malignancy, 1.3% leukaemia, 3.3% lymphoma, 40% other type, and 2.2% metastatic cancer). Patients with history of cancer were older, more likely to have CV disease, CV risk factors, and prior gastrointestinal bleeding. No difference in antiarrhythmic and antithrombotic therapy was observed between those with and without cancer. Patients with history of cancer had a significantly higher risk of death (7.8 vs. 4.9 deaths per 100 patient-years follow-up, P = 0.0003) mainly driven by non-CV death (4.2 vs. 2.4 per 100 patient-years follow-up; P = 0.0004) and higher risk of major bleeding (5.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 patient-years follow-up; P = 0.02) compared with non-cancer patients; no differences were observed in risks of strokes/non-central nervous system embolism (1.96 vs. 1.48, P = 0.74) and CV death (2.89 vs. 2.07, P = 0.35) between the two groups. Conclusion A history of cancer is common among AF patients with up to one in four patients having both. Antithrombotic therapy, rates of cerebrovascular accident, other thrombotic events and cardiac death were similar in AF patients with or without a history of cancer. Patients with cancer, however, were at higher risk of major bleeding and non-CV death.