Lenihan, Daniel

Cancer therapy has dramatically changed over the past many decades, not only in efficacy but also complexity, with targeted therapeutics that have novel mechanisms of action. As a direct result of these remarkable treatments that have extended the lives of many patients, the increased recognition of cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction as well as the broader description of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity (CTR-CVT) has become obvious. The discipline of cardio-oncology has accepted the challenge to provide excellent cardiovascular (CV) protection for our patients being treated for cancer in order to achieve the best overall outcomes. The successful application of optimal CV protection by cardio-oncology needs to incorporate basic principles to realise these improved overall outcomes. Critical paradigm principles include: (1) using effective CV therapy; (2) targeting the likely mechanisms of action responsible for CTR-CVT; and (3) documenting cancers and cancer therapies associated with high CTR-CVT. Such a CV protection paradigm is likely to have the biggest impact and confirm an improved overall outcome. In addition, it is important to emphasise that knowing those cancers with high CTR-CVT risk requires careful comparative study of CV endpoints during exploratory cancer trials. Furthermore, astute clinical observations of specific CTR-CVT should be routinely reported to allow the development of strategies that minimise the negative impact of CTR-CVT. Lastly, coordinated efforts that allow realistic goals of cancer treatment while minimising the impact of CTR-CVT are the end goal in order to eliminate CV disease as a barrier to effective cancer treatment.

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 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.

e19517 Background: Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity (AIC) is a well-known phenomenon, but event rates and predictors may not be as robust as commonly perceived. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to elucidate AIC definitions, incidence rates and predictors. Methods: 5323 reports were identified via searching Medline, Embase, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria for full text review included minimum of 100 lymphoma patients receiving ACs; median/mean follow up of at least 12 months; and specified evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction. We investigated the definition, reported incidence, and predictors of AIC including subclinical AIC as detected by decrease in left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Meta-analysis was performed with Meta-analyst software with random effects model. Results: A total of 19 studies were included in the analysis. The overall incidence of AIC in 13926 patients was 13.8% (95% CI 4.8-22.8, I2 99.6% p < 0.001) at a mean/median follow-up ranging from 1 to 8 years. Subclinical AIC was seen in 8.2% of 5464 patients (95% CI 6.4 to 10%, I2 78.9%, p < 0.001) at a mean/median follow-up ranging from 1 to 20 years. Subclinical AIC is defined in most studies as asymptomatic decrease in LVEF by 10-15% from baseline of 50-55%. Older age, increasing AC dose or number of cycles, GLS (global longitudinal strain), and prior comorbidities such as CAD, HTN, DM and dyslipidemia were found to predict AIC. However, Heterogeneity was seen in definition of AIC, risk factor assessment and follow-up protocol, which limited the extent of correlative analyses for cardiotoxicity predictors. Conclusions: The overall incidence of clinical HF and subclinical AIC among lymphoma patients was 13.8% and 8.2% respectively. Older age, increasing AC dose or number of cycles, GLS, and prior comorbidities such as CAD, HTN, DM and dyslipidemia were found to predict AIC.

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 This position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Cardio-Oncology Study Group in collaboration with the International Cardio-Oncology Society presents practical, easy-to-use and evidence-based risk stratification tools for oncologists, haemato-oncologists and cardiologists to use in their clinical practice to risk stratify oncology patients prior to receiving cancer therapies known to cause heart failure or other serious cardiovascular toxicities. Baseline risk stratification proformas are presented for oncology patients prior to receiving the following cancer therapies: anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, second and third generation multi-targeted kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukaemia targeting BCR-ABL, multiple myeloma therapies (proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), RAF and MEK inhibitors or androgen deprivation therapies. Applying these risk stratification proformas will allow clinicians to stratify cancer patients into low, medium, high and very high risk of cardiovascular complications prior to starting treatment, with the aim of improving personalised approaches to minimise the risk of cardiovascular toxicity from cancer therapies.

e23081 Background: Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity (AIC) is a well-known phenomenon, but the true incidence is poorly defined, and definitions of AIC in the literature are variable. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to elucidate AIC definitions and the incidence of clinical heart failure (HF) and subclinical AIC reported in adult breast cancer and lymphoma patients after anthracycline (AC) therapy. Methods: 3,428 abstract and titles were identified via PubMed search. Inclusion criteria for full text review included minimum of 100 adult patients receiving ACs; median/mean follow up of at least 12 months; and specified evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction. Outcomes were divided into clinical HF and subclinical AIC. Meta-analysis was performed with MedCalc software with random effects model. Results: 366 full text articles were reviewed. 24 studies, including a total of 11,065 patients, reported clinical HF findings; 21 studies, including a total of 8,098 patients, reported subclinical AIC findings. Meta-analysis showed an overall incidence of clinical HF of 3.1% (range 0 to 29%, CI 1.9 to 4.6%, I2= 93.9%); an incidence of 2.0% (CI 0.9 to 3.6%, I2 = 91.6%) in breast cancer patients receiving AC; and 4.8% in lymphoma patients receiving AC (CI 2.1 to 8.6%, I2 = 93.6%). Subclinical AIC was seen in 13.8% overall patients (range 2 to 45%, CI 10.4 to 17.7%, I2= 95.3%); 10.3% of breast cancer patients (CI 7.0 to 14.3%, I2= 95.0%); and 19.8% of lymphoma patients (CI 12.3 to 28.6%, I2= 94.4%). Incidence of HF correlated with increasing age (r = 0.51, p = 0.06) and cumulative dose (r = 0.51 , p = 0.19). There was notable heterogeneity of AIC definitions between studies (Table). Conclusions: Cardiotoxicity is not uncommon among patients who receive AC, particularly at doses given for the treatment of lymphoma. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in HF incidences. More uniform criteria and precise estimates are needed to inform clinical practice and trials. [Table: see text]