Barac, Ana

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 Aims We aimed to perform a retrospective cohort study using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database to analyse the trends in cardiovascular disease (CVD)–related mortality in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) from 1999 to 2020. Methods and results We analysed the death certificate data from the CDC WONDER database from 1999 to 2020 for CVD with co-morbid myeloproliferative disorders in the US population. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed per 1 million population by standardizing crude mortality rates to the 2000 US census population. To assess annual national mortality trends, we employed the Joinpoint regression model, calculating the annual per cent change in AAMR and corresponding 95% CIs. A total of 15 269 deaths related to CVD occurred in patients with co-morbid MPNs from 1999 to 2020. Overall, there was a decreasing trend in CVD-related AAMRs throughout these years. Males contributed to 51% of total deaths, and their AAMR was persistently higher than women throughout the study. Non-Hispanic (NH) Whites had the highest overall AAMR, followed by NH Blacks, NH American Indians or Alaska Natives, Hispanics or Latinos, and NH Asian or Pacific Islanders. Conclusion Our findings indicate a significant decline with notable gender, racial/ethnic, and regional differences in CVD-related mortality among patients with MPN over the past two decades. We emphasize the importance of a collaborative approach between oncologists and cardiologists in managing these patients, highlighting the potential benefits of integrating cardio-oncology services to enhance patient outcomes.

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 Aims Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a potentially curative therapy for several malignant and non-malignant haematologic conditions. Patients undergoing HSCT are at an increased risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF). We hypothesized that a diagnosis of AF would be associated with poor outcomes in patients undergoing HSCT. Methods and results The National Inpatient Sample (2016–19) was queried with ICD-10 codes to identify patients aged >50 years undergoing HSCT. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without AF. A multivariable regression model adjusting for demographics and comorbidities was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and regression coefficients with corresponding 95% confidence intervals and P-values. A total of 50 570 weighted hospitalizations for HSCT were identified, out of which 5820 (11.5%) had AF. Atrial fibrillation was found to be independently associated with higher inpatient mortality (aOR 2.75; 1.9–3.98; P < 0.001), cardiac arrest (aOR 2.86; 1.55–5.26; P = 0.001), acute kidney injury (aOR 1.89; 1.6–2.23; P < 0.001), acute heart failure exacerbation (aOR 5.01; 3.54–7.1; P < 0.001), cardiogenic shock (aOR 7.73; 3.17–18.8; P < 0.001), and acute respiratory failure (aOR 3.24; 2.56–4.1; P < 0.001) as well as higher mean length of stay (LOS) (+2.67; 1.79–3.55; P < 0.001) and cost of care (+67 529; 36 630–98 427; P < 0.001). Conclusion Among patients undergoing HSCT, AF was independently associated with poor in-hospital outcomes, higher LOS, and cost of care.

Introduction: Global collaboration in cardio-oncology (CO) is needed to understand the prevalence of cancer treatment related cardiovascular disease (CTRCD) in different risk groups, practice settings and geographic locations. Furthermore, socio-economic and ethnic disparities may impact access to care. Methods: We assembled cardiologists (CA) and oncologists from academic and community settings to collaborate in the first global cardio-oncology registry (G-COR). US and international CO physicians participated in the first global virtual meeting to assess feasibility and structure for G-COR. Subsequently, a survey for sites resources, demographics and intention to participate was conducted. Results: Responses with sites demographics from 104/140 sites invited: 43 US sites from 23 states and 61 international sites from 5 continents indicated decision to participate in G-COR. Sites were more commonly led by CA (74/99) than CA and oncologists (25/99) and were more often University/teaching (68/101) than community based (33/101). Significant minorities/disadvantaged CO patient population were reported by 32/43 US sites versus 16/60 international sites. Average number CO patients treated per month was 83, range (5-1,000). Breast cancer was the first or second G-COR priority for 84 centers, hematological malignancies (HEM) for 66 centers, and immune check point inhibitors (ICI) for 36 centers. Echocardiography with strain imaging is available in 92/95 participating sites and cardiac MRI in 80/86 sites. Biomarkers are used only in suspected or confirmed CTRCD in 56/96 sites and for risk stratification in high risk patients in 40/96 sites. Subsequently, scientific committee and topic committees for breast cancer, HEM, ICI, and disparities in CO were established. A pilot phase utilizing a RedCap Cloud platform will start enrolling patients in the last quarter of 2021 and the registry for all main pillars will launch in early 2022. Conclusions: We present a global initiative for conducting collaborative research. Information learned G-COR will help understanding risk factors impacting CTRCD in different geographic locations and therefore help reducing access gaps in CO care. Additionally, mitigating strategies can be devised for the future.

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 Aims Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the gold standard, guideline-recommended revascularization strategy in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are limited data on its use and effectiveness among patients with active cancer presenting with STEMI. Methods and results All STEMI hospitalizations between 2004 and 2015 from the National Inpatient Sample were retrospectively analysed, stratified by cancer type. Propensity score matching was performed to estimate the average treatment effect of pPCI in each cancer on in-hospital adverse events, including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its individual components, and compare treatment effect between cancer and non-cancer patients. Out of 1 870 815 patients with STEMI, 38 932 (2.1%) had a current cancer diagnosis [haematological: 11 251 (28.9% of all cancers); breast: 4675 (12.0%); lung: 9538 (24.5%); colon: 3749 (9.6%); prostate: 9719 (25.0%)]. Patients with cancer received pPCI less commonly than those without cancer (from 54.2% for lung cancer to 70.6% for haematological vs. 82.3% in no cancer). Performance of pPCI was strongly associated with lower adjusted probabilities of MACCE and all-cause mortality in the cancer groups compared with the no cancer group. There was no significant difference in estimated average pPCI treatment effect between the cancer groups and non-cancer group. Conclusion Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is underutilized in STEMI patients with current cancer despite its significantly lower associated rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality and MACCE that is comparable to patients without cancer. Further work is required to assess the long-term benefit and safety of pPCI in this high-risk group.