2022 ESC Guidelines on cardio-oncology: how can we improve the cardiovascular health of patients with cancer and cancer survivors?

Ischaemic and bleeding risk after ST-elevation myocardial infarction in patients with active cancer: a nationwide study

Aims

Treatment of patients with cancer presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is complex given the increased risk of both thrombotic and major bleeding complications.

Methods and results

A nationally linked cohort of STEMI patients between January 2005 and March 2019 was obtained from the UK Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project and the UK National Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care registries. The primary outcomes were major bleeding and re-infarction at 1 year following admission with STEMI. Major bleeding was defined as bleeding events that require hospital admission. Re-infarction was defined as acute MI according to the fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. A total of 322 776 STEMI-indexed admissions were identified between January 2005 and March 2019. Of those, 7050 (2.2%) patients were diagnosed with active cancer. Cancer patients were older with more cardiovascular comorbidities. Cancer patients received invasive coronary angiography (62.2% vs. 72.7%, P < 0.001) and percutaneous coronary intervention (58.4% vs. 69.5%, P < 0.001) less often compared with patients without cancer and were less likely to be prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy (85% vs. 95.4%, P < 0.001). The incidence of major bleeding (6.5% vs. 3.5%, P < 0.001) and re-infarction (cancer 5.7%, no cancer 5.1%, P = 0.01) was higher in cancer patients at 1 year. After adjustment for differences in baseline covariates, a similar risk of re-infarction (sub-hazard ratios (SHR) 1.10, 95% CI 0.94-1.27) and a 50% increased risk of major bleeding (SHR 1.49, 95% CI 1.30-1.71) were observed in cancer patients.

Conclusion

Compared with non-cancer patients, cancer patients have a higher risk of major bleeding but not of re-infarction. Mitigating bleeding risk in STEMI patients with cancer is of paramount importance to improve outcomes.

A strain-guided trial of cardioprotection in early-stage breast cancer patients on anti-HER2 therapy (PROTECT HER2)

BACKGROUND

Global longitudinal strain (GLS) has been used to identify patients at risk for cancer-therapy related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD). However, there is limited data on the effectiveness of initiating cardioprotective therapy based on a strain-guided strategy in early stage HER2+ breast cancer patients. This randomized clinical trial assessed if treatment with carvedilol based on a strain-guided strategy can prevent development of CTRCD in HER2+ breast cancer patients on non-anthracycline based regimens.

METHODS

Study participants were prospectively assigned to one of four arms. Patients with normal LVEF and GLS remained in Arm A. Patients whose GLS decreased by > 15% from baseline or to < -15% during follow up were randomized 1:1 to prophylactic carvedilol (Arm B) or no therapy (Arm C). Patients who developed CTRCD were assigned to Arm D. The primary endpoint was GLS stability. The secondary endpoints were development of CTRCD and rate of anti-HER2 treatment interruption.

RESULTS

Among 110 patients who completed follow up, 84 were assigned to Arm A, 10 each were randomized to Arms B or C, and 6 were assigned to Arm D. At the end of the study period, there were no significant differences in GLS stability, development of CTRCD, or number of cancer therapy cycles completed between patients who did and did not receive cardioprotective therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective randomized GLS-guided study of prophylactic carvedilol in early stage HER2+ breast cancer patients on non-anthracycline regimens, there were no significant difference between groups in GLS stability, CTRCD or trastuzumab cycles held. These findings may identify a low-risk group of patients who may be considered for less intensive cardiac surveillance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02993198 . Start date: 4/2015. This trial included patients who were retrospectively registered.

Forty years after mediastinal radiotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma: how late is late cardiotoxicity? A case report

Radiation-associated cardiovascular disease is well-described yet under-recognized. Mediastinal radiation is known to affect any component of the heart. We present a case of valvular, coronary, and conduction abnormalities up to decades after initial radiotherapy.

Myocardial Protection and Current Cancer Therapy: Two Opposite Targets with Inevitable Cost

Myocardial protection against ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) is mediated by various ligands, activating different cellular signaling cascades. These include classical cytosolic mediators such as cyclic-GMP (c-GMP), various kinases such as Phosphatydilinositol-3- (PI3K), Protein Kinase B (Akt), Mitogen-Activated-Protein- (MAPK) and AMP-activated (AMPK) kinases, transcription factors such as signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) and bioactive molecules such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Most of the aforementioned signaling molecules constitute targets of anticancer therapy; as they are also involved in carcinogenesis, most of the current anti-neoplastic drugs lead to concomitant weakening or even complete abrogation of myocardial cell tolerance to ischemic or oxidative stress. Furthermore, many anti-neoplastic drugs may directly induce cardiotoxicity via their pharmacological effects, or indirectly via their cardiovascular side effects. The combination of direct drug cardiotoxicity, indirect cardiovascular side effects and neutralization of the cardioprotective defense mechanisms of the heart by prolonged cancer treatment may induce long-term ventricular dysfunction, or even clinically manifested heart failure. We present a narrative review of three therapeutic interventions, namely VEGF, proteasome and Immune Checkpoint inhibitors, having opposing effects on the same intracellular signal cascades thereby affecting the heart. Moreover, we herein comment on the current guidelines for managing cardiotoxicity in the clinical setting and on the role of cardiovascular confounders in cardiotoxicity.