Search

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), initially developed for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), have shown promising results in reducing cardiovascular events. We aimed to investigate the effect of GLP1a on cardiovascular events in patients receiving ICIs., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, propensity score-matched cohort study using the TriNetX database. We identified adults with cancer and T2DM who received ICIs between April 2013 and May 2023. The primary efficacy outcome was incident MACE, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, need for coronary revascularization, heart failure, ischemic stroke, and cardiac arrest. The secondary efficacy outcomes were the individual components of MACE as well as myocarditis and pericarditis. Safety outcomes included the occurrence of immune-related adverse events, serious adverse events related to GLP1a use, and all-cause mortality., Results: We identified 7651 patients eligible for inclusion, among which 479 received GLP1a and 7172 received non-GLP1a diabetes medications. After matching (469 patients each), baseline characteristics were well-balanced. Over a median 12-month follow-up, the GLP1a cohort had a significantly lower MACE incidence than the non-GLP1a cohort (9.0 vs. 17.1 events per 100 patient-years) with a 54 % lower risk of MACE (Hazard ratio (HR),0.46 [95 % CI: 0.32-0.67]). There were reductions in myocardial infarction or need for coronary revascularization, heart failure, and all-cause mortality, with no differences in other cardiovascular events. GLP1a use did not increase risk of adverse events, including pancreatitis, biliary disease, bowel obstruction, gastroparesis, and immune-related adverse events., Conclusion: GLP1a use in cancer patients with T2DM receiving ICIs was associated with reduced MACE and all-cause mortality without an increased risk in serious adverse events., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr Neilan reported receipt of personal fees for consulting from Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Roivant, Roche, and Sanofi, and receipt of grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Abbott, and AstraZeneca. Dr Neilan is supported by a gift from A. Curt Greer and Pamela Kohlberg and from Christina and Paul Kazilionis, the Michael and Kathryn Park Endowed Chair in Cardiology, and a Hassenfeld Scholar Award and has additional grant funding from the National Institutes of Health/NHLBI (R01HL137562, K24HL150238). Dr. Reynolds is on the Advisory Board of Regeneron and SAGA Diagnostics. Dr. Reynolds has received educational fees from MedScape and CME Outfitters and research support from Bristol Myers Squibb. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are widely used anticancer therapies 1 that can cause morbid and potentially fatal immune-related adverse events such as immune-related myocarditis (irMyocarditis) 2-5 . The pathogenesis of irMyocarditis and its relationship to antitumour immunity remain poorly understood. Here we sought to define immune responses in heart, tumour and blood in patients with irMyocarditis by leveraging single-cell RNA sequencing coupled with T cell receptor (TCR) sequencing, microscopy and proteomics analyses of samples from 28 patients with irMyocarditis and 41 unaffected individuals. Analyses of 84,576 cardiac cells by single-cell RNA sequencing combined with multiplexed microscopy demonstrated increased frequencies and co-localization of cytotoxic T cells, conventional dendritic cells and inflammatory fibroblasts in irMyocarditis heart tissue. Analyses of 366,066 blood cells revealed decreased frequencies of plasmacytoid dendritic cells, conventional dendritic cells and B lineage cells but an increased frequency of other mononuclear phagocytes in irMyocarditis. Fifty-two heart-expanded TCR clones from eight patients did not recognize the putative cardiac autoantigens α-myosin, troponin I or troponin T. Additionally, TCRs enriched in heart tissue were largely nonoverlapping with those enriched in paired tumour tissue. The presence of heart-expanded TCRs in a cycling blood CD8 T cell population was associated with fatal irMyocarditis case status. Collectively, these findings highlight crucial biology driving irMyocarditis and identify putative biomarkers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: S.M.B.: consultant to Two River Consulting and Third Rock Ventures; and equity in Candid Therapeutics, Kronos Bio, 76Bio and Allogene Therapeutics. D.A.Z.: consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb, Freeline Therapeutics and Intrinsic Imaging; and research funding from Abbott Laboratories. N.P.S.: consultant to Hera Biotech. L.Z.: consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck. J.F.G.: consultant to Amgen, Arcus Biosciences, AI Proteins, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, EMD Serono, InterVenn Biosciences, Gilead Sciences, iTeos Therapeutics, Jounce Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Lilly, Loxo, Merus, Mirati Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Silverback Therapeutics, Merck, Moderna Therapeutics, Mariana Oncology and Takeda; honorarium from Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Pfizer and Takeda; research funding from Adaptimmune, Alexo Therapeutics, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Jounce Therapeutics, Merck, Moderna Therapeutics, Novartis and Tesaro; has an immediate family member who is an employee with stock and other ownership interests in Ironwood Pharmaceuticals; and equity in AI Proteins. C.J.W.: equity in BionTech; research funding from Pharmacyclics; and is on the scientific advisory board of Repertoire, Adventris and Aethon Therapeutics. D.J.: grants and personal fees from Novartis, Genentech, Syros and Eisai; personal fees from Vibliome, PIC Therapeutics, Mapkure and Relay Therapeutics; and grants from Pfizer, Amgen, InventisBio, Arvinas, Takeda, Blueprint Medicines, AstraZeneca, Ribon Therapeutics and Infinity that are outside the submitted work. M.M.-K.: consultant to AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Repare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, AbbVie and Daiichi-Sankyo; and royalties from Elsevier. G.O.: consultant to Bicycle Therapeutics. R.J.S.: consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, Marengo Therapeutics, Novartis, Eisai, Iovance, OncoSec and AstraZeneca; and research funding from Merck. G.M.B.: sponsored research agreements through her institution with Olink Proteomics, Teiko Bio, InterVenn Biosciences and Palleon Pharmaceuticals; is on advisory boards for Iovance, Merck, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis and Ankyra Therapeutics; is a consultant for Merck, InterVenn Biosciences, Iovance and Ankyra Therapeutics; and has equity in Ankyra Therapeutics. T.G.N.: consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, CRC Oncology, Roche, Sanofi and Parexel Imaging Pharmaceuticals; and grant funding from Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb related to the cardiac effects of ICIs. K.L.R.: on the advisory board to SAGA Diagnostics; speaker’s fees from CMEOutfitters and Medscape; and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. A.-C.V.: consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb; and financial interest in 10x Genomics. 10x Genomics designs and manufactures gene sequencing technology for use in research, and such technology is being used in this research; these interests were reviewed by the Massachusetts General Hospital and Mass General Brigham in accordance with their institutional policies. All other authors (I.J.K., S.R., J.C., N.S., S.M., M.W., A.T., Y.S., K.H.X., J.B., P.S., K.S., J.T., K.M., B.Y.A., M.N., C.J.P., D.M., M.J., P.C., A.L., W.A.M., T.S., L.T.N., J.R.S. and M.F.T.) declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

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., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are effective in multiple tumor entities but induce a plethora of side effects. Comprehensive real-world analyses are essential to identify new signals, characterize diagnostic features, enable risk assessment, determine pathomechanisms, assess effectiveness of side effect management and compare tumor outcomes., Methods: The international online `Side-Effect Registry Immuno-Oncology´ (SERIO; www.serio-registry.org) collects rare, complex, and severe immunotherapy-induced side effects across all tumor entities with a strong focus on ICI-induced immune-related adverse events (irAE). The relational database management system (RDMS) contains structured data on patient and tumor characteristics, type of immunotherapy, treatment of side effects, and outcome of tumor and irAE. Data are captured within 25 organ modules including new modules for immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) for CAR-T-cell therapies and cytokine release syndrome (CRS) for bispecific antibodies. Information on biological samples is gathered., Results: A total of 1398 irAE cases have been documented by 58 centers from 13 countries in patients with 17 tumor types. IrAEs were induced by nine different immunotherapies including tebentafusp and CAR-T cell therapies, and resulted, among others, in neurological (7.6%), pulmonary (4.0%), and cardiac toxicities (2.9%). 50.0% of all irAEs were graded severe or life-threatening and 23.0% of patients received second-line therapy for steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent irAE. SERIO has contributed to 44 original publications on topics ranging from irMyocarditis to irEncephalitis to long-term persistent sequelae of immunotherapy., Conclusions: A reliable evidence base is crucial for decision-making in rare, complex or therapy-refractory irAE. SERIO can help optimize side effect management and thereby reduce morbidity and mortality induced by immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest LH received speaker and consultancy fees from BiomeDx, BMS, Kyowa Kirin, Merck, MSD, Myoncare, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, SUN and Therakos. The LMU received research grants or clinical study grants from Agenus, AstraZeneca Inc., BMS, Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Huya Bioscience, Immunocore, IO Biotech, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dome GmbH, Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimune, and Sanofi Aventis. AF received honoraria for presentations and travel support from: BMS, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre. AF reports on participation on Advisory Boards of MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Immunocore and institutional research grants from BMS Stiftung Immunonkologie for other financial or non-financial interests. AH reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from MerckPfizer, grants and personal fees from MSD/Merck, grants and personal fees from Philogen, grants and personal fees from Pierre Fabre, grants and personal fees from Regeneron, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Sanofi-Genzyme, grants and personal fees from Novartis Pharma, grants and personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Immunocore, grants and personal fees from Replimune, personal fees from Seagen, personal fees from IO Biotech, personal fees from Dermagnostix, personal fees from Incyte, grants and personal fees from NeraCare, personal fees from Highlight Therapeutics, grants from Huya Biosciences, personal fees from Kyowa Kirin, personal fees from Iovance, outside the submitted work. CL received honoraria (lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events) and travel support from: BMS, MSD Merck, Pierre-Fabre, Biontech, Almirall Hermal, Sun Pharma, KyowaKirin, Immunocore, Sanofi, Novartis. CP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from: Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, Sunpharma, Pierre Fabre, UCB, Nutricia Milupa, Janssen and LEO outside the submitted work. CR reports personal consulting fees from BMS, Roche, MSD, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Pfizer, Regeneron. CR received honoraria (lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events) from Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS. CR reports personal fees (participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board) from Ultimovacs and Regeneron. CR reports stocks/stock options: Ribonexus. DS reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from Novartis, BMS, Amgen, MSD & Array/Pfizer; personal fees and from 4SC, Agenus, Array BioPharma, Astra Zeneca, BioAlta, CureVac, Daiichi Sanyko, Erasma, Haystack, Immatics, Immunocore, InFlarX, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, PamGene, Philogen, Neracare NoviGenix, Ultimovacs, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi, Seagen, Sun Pharma, Regeneron, and Replimune. GMcA reports on grants or contracts from BMS, Genentech-Roche, Merck to his institution. DT reports consultancy, speaker fees or travel grants: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Recordati, Kyowa Kirin, Sun Pharma and Pierre Fabre. GMcA reports on participation on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board from Pierre Fabre and Pfizer (no payments) and on National Breast Cancer Foundation Board (Australia) (no payments). GVL is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, Regeneron. HG reports on grants or contracts from BMS, Roche, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Novartis, Iovance Biotherapeutics to her institution. HG received consulting fees from BMS, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/ Regeneron. HG received speakers honoraria from BMS, MSD Oncology, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi/ Regeneron. HG received travel support from MSD, Amgen, Pfizer. JH received scientific grants from BMS, Sanofi, Sunpharma and consulting fees (for advisory boards) from GSK, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Onkowiessen, Sunpharma. JH received honoraria (talks) from Amgen, BMS, GSK, Immunocore, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma. JH received meeting/travel support from BMS, Iovance, Sunpharma. JH reports on participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board from Nekvax. LZ declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, research support from Novartis and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis; outside the submitted work. MS reports on research support from Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, Miltenyi, Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda. MS reports on participation on Advisory Boards of Astra Zeneca, Avencell, Ichnos, Incyte, Janssen, Molecular Partners. MS received honoraria (speaker’s bureau) from: Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Gilead/Kite, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda. PA reports on grants and contracts from BMS, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi. PA received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, PierreFabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Sandoz, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Pfizer, Lunaphore, Medicenna. Bio-Al Health, ValoTx, Replimmune, Bayer. PA received travel support from Pfizer, BIO-AI Health, Replimmune. PA reports on participation on a Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board from BMS, Roche-Genentech, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AstraZeneca, BoehringerIngelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Oncosec, Nouscom, Seagen, iTeos, Erasca. RD has intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dhome (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer, Simcere and touchIME outside the submitted work. RG received honoraria for advice and lectures from BristolMyers Squibb, Roche Pharma, MerckSharpDohme, Novartis, Merck-Serono, Amgen, Almirall Hermal, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Immunocore, 4SC, Delcath, Sanofi/Regeneron. Ralf Gutzmer received travel support from SUN Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim and PierreFabre. Ralf Gutzmer received research grants from Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck Serono, Amgen, SUN Pharma, KyowaKirin, Admiral Hermal. RK received meeting and travel support from SunPharma, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre. SG reports on clinical trials honoraria to institution from MSD, BMS, Sanofi, Pfizer, BioNTech, EORTC, I-O Biotech, Astra Zeneca, and Regeneron. SG received consulting fees from MSD and BMS and an Online Ticket for ASCO from BMS. TE received speaker and consultancy fees from BMS, Curevac, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Almiral Hermal, and SUN. TN reports on grants or contracts from NIH, BMS, Astra Zeneca to his institution. TN received consulting fees from Genentech, BMS, Roche, Sanofi, Roivant, Race Oncology. TN participated on Data Safety Monitoring Board/ Advisory Board from Genentech. TR declared speaker’s honoraria and travel grants from Therakos and SUN. AR, CE, MK, VM have declared no conflicts of interest. BR received support from BMS, Merck and Astrazeneca. BR received honoraria (for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events) from BMS, Merck and Astrazeneca. BR reports on participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from BMS, Merck and Astrazeneca. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Certain antineoplastic therapies are associated with an increased risk of cardiomyopathy and heart failure (HF). Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve outcomes in patients with HF., Objectives: This study aims to examine the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) or HF., Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of deidentified, aggregate patient data from the TriNetX research network. Patients aged ≥18 years with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, cancer, and exposure to potentially cardiotoxic antineoplastic therapies, with a subsequent diagnosis of cardiomyopathy or HF between January 1, 2013, and April 30, 2020, were identified. Patients with ischemic heart disease were excluded. Patients receiving guideline-directed medical therapy were divided into 2 groups based on SGLT2 inhibitor use. After propensity score matching, odds ratios (ORs) and Cox proportional HRs were used to compare outcomes over a 2-year follow-up period., Results: The study cohort included 1,280 patients with CTRCD/HF (n = 640 per group; mean age: 67.6 years; 41.6% female; 68% White). Patients on SGLT2 inhibitors in addition to conventional guideline-directed medical therapy had a lower risk of acute HF exacerbation (OR: 0.483 [95% CI: 0.36-0.65]; P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.296 [95% CI: 0.22-0.40]; P = 0.001). All-cause hospitalizations or emergency department visits (OR: 0.479; 95% CI: 0.383-0.599; P < 0.001), atrial fibrillation/flutter (OR: 0.397 [95% CI: 0.213-0.737]; P = 0.003), acute kidney injury (OR: 0.486 [95% CI: 0.382-0.619]; P < 0.001), and need for renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.398 [95% CI: 0.189-0.839]; P = 0.012) were also less frequent in patients on SGLT2 inhibitors., Conclusions: SGLT2 inhibitor use is associated with improved outcomes in patients with CTRCD/HF., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Deswal is supported in part by the Ting Tsung and Wei Fung Chao Distinguished Chair. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cardiotoxicity is a growing concern in the oncology population. Transthoracic echocardiography and multigated acquisition scans have been used for surveillance but are relatively insensitive and resource intensive. Innovative imaging techniques are constrained by cost and availability. More sensitive, cost-effective cardiotoxicity surveillance strategies are needed. Circulating cardiovascular biomarkers could provide a sensitive, low-cost solution. Biomarkers such as troponins, natriuretic peptides (NPs), novel upstream signals of oxidative stress, inflammation, and fibrosis as well as panomic technologies have shown substantial promise, and guidelines recommend baseline measurement of troponins and NPs in all patients receiving potential cardiotoxins. Nonetheless, supporting evidence has been hampered by several limitations. Previous reviews have provided valuable perspectives on biomarkers in cancer populations, but important analytic aspects remain to be examined in depth. This review provides comprehensive assessment of critical challenges and solutions in this field, with focus on analytical issues relating to biomarker measurement and interpretation. Examination of evidence pertaining to common and serious forms of cardiotoxicity reveals that improved study designs incorporating larger, more diverse populations, registry-based approaches, and refinement of current definitions are key. Further efforts to harmonize biomarker methodologies including centralized biobanking and analyses, novel decision limits, and head-to-head comparisons are needed. Multimarker algorithms incorporating machine learning may allow rapid, personalized risk assessment. These improvements will not only augment the predictive value of circulating biomarkers in cardiotoxicity but may elucidate both direct and indirect relationships between cardiovascular disease and cancer, allowing biomarkers a greater role in the development and success of novel anticancer therapies.

Advances in cancer therapeutics have led to dramatic improvements in survival, now inclusive of nearly 20 million patients and rising. However, cardiovascular toxicities associated with specific cancer therapeutics adversely affect the outcomes of patients with cancer. Advances in cardiovascular imaging have solidified the critical role for robust methods for detecting, monitoring, and prognosticating cardiac risk among patients with cancer. However, decentralized evaluations have led to a lack of consensus on the optimal uses of imaging in contemporary cancer treatment (eg, immunotherapy, targeted, or biological therapy) settings. Similarly, available isolated preclinical and clinical studies have provided incomplete insights into the effectiveness of multiple modalities for cardiovascular imaging in cancer care. The aims of this scientific statement are to define the current state of evidence for cardiovascular imaging in the cancer treatment and survivorship settings and to propose novel methodological approaches to inform the optimal application of cardiovascular imaging in future clinical trials and registries. We also propose an evidence-based integrated approach to the use of cardiovascular imaging in routine clinical settings. This scientific statement summarizes and clarifies available evidence while providing guidance on the optimal uses of multimodality cardiovascular imaging in the era of emerging anticancer therapies.

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Teske has received speaker fees from Philips and Abbott; consulting from Nordic Pharma. Dr Neilan reports consulting from BMS, Abbvie, Sanofi, Genentech, Roche, and C4-Therapeutics; grant funding from BMS and AZ. Dr López-Fernández has received speaker fees from Philips, Janssen, and Incyte. Dr Szmit has received speaker fees from Amgen, Angelini, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr Guha is supported by American Heart Association-Strategically Focused Research Network Grant in Disparities in Cardio-Oncology (847740 and 863620). Dr Iakobishvili has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, Novo-Nordisk, and Bayer. Dr Sverdlov is supported by the National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship (Award ID 106025) and reports research grants from the Medical Research Future Fund (Australia), NSW Health (Australia), Cancer Institute NSW (Australia), Hunter Medical Research Institute (Australia), Biotronik, RACE Oncology, Bristol Myer Squibb, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor; and personal speaker fees from Novartis, Bayer, Bristol Myer Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other authors report no conflicts.

Aims: This study aimed to characterize the influence of a cancer diagnosis on the use of preventive cardiovascular measures in patients with and without cardiovascular disease (CVD)., Methods and Results: Data from the Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey (spanning 2011-22) were used. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for potential confounders were applied to calculate average marginal effects (AME), the average difference in the probability of using a given therapy between patients with and without cancer. Outcomes of interest included the use of pharmacological therapies, physical activity, smoking cessation, and post-CVD rehabilitation. Among 5 012 721 respondents, 579 114 reported a history of CVD (coronary disease or stroke), and 842 221 reported a diagnosis of cancer. The association between cancer and the use of pharmacological therapies varied between those with vs. without CVD (P-value for interaction: <0.001). Among patients with CVD, a cancer diagnosis was associated with a lower use of blood pressure-lowering medications {AME: -1.46% [95% confidence interval (CI): -2.19% to -0.73%]}, lipid-lowering medications [AME: -2.34% (95% CI: -4.03% to -0.66%)], and aspirin [AME: -6.05% (95% CI: -8.88% to -3.23%)]. Among patients without CVD, there were no statistically significant differences between patients with and without cancer regarding pharmacological therapies. Additionally, cancer was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of engaging in physical activity in the overall cohort and in using post-CVD rehabilitation regimens, particularly post-stroke rehabilitation., Conclusion: Preventive pharmacological agents are underutilized in those with cancer and concomitant CVD, and physical activity is underutilized in patients with cancer in those with or without CVD., Lay Summary: •This paper compared the use of preventive cardiovascular measures, both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical, in patients with and without cancer.•In patients with cardiovascular disease and cancer, there is a lower use of preventive cardiovascular medications compared with those with cardiovascular disease but without cancer. This includes a lower utilization of blood pressure-lowering medications, cholesterol-lowering medications, and aspirin.•Patients with cancer reported lower levels of exercise but higher levels of smoking cessation compared with those without cancer., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The broad application of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has led to significant gains in cancer outcomes. By abrogating inhibitory signals, ICIs promote T cell targeting of cancer cells but can frequently trigger autoimmune manifestations, termed immune-related adverse events (irAEs), affecting essentially any organ system. Among cardiovascular irAEs, immune-related myocarditis (irMyocarditis) is the most described and carries the highest morbidity. The currently recommended treatment for irMyocarditis is potent immunosuppression with corticosteroids and other agents, but this has limited evidence basis. The cellular pathophysiology of irMyocarditis remains poorly understood, though mouse models and human data have both implicated effector CD8 + T cells, some of which are specific for the cardiomyocyte protein α-myosin. While the driving molecular signals and transcriptional programs are not well defined, the involvement of chemokine receptors such as CCR5 and CXCR3 has been proposed. Fundamental questions regarding why only approximately 1% of ICI recipients develop irMyocarditis and why irMyocarditis carries a much worse prognosis than other forms of lymphocytic myocarditis remain unanswered. Further work in both murine systems and with human samples are needed to identify better tools for diagnosis, risk-stratification, and treatment., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) harnesses a patient's immune system to target cancer. There are sparse existing data characterizing death outcomes after CAR-T-related cardiotoxicity. This study examines the association between CAR-T-related severe cardiovascular events (SCE) and mortality., Methods and Results: From a multi-centre registry of 202 patients receiving anti-CD19 CAR-T, covariates including standard baseline cardiovascular and cancer parameters and biomarkers were collected. Severe cardiovascular events were defined as a composite of heart failure, cardiogenic shock, or myocardial infarction. Thirty-three patients experienced SCE, and 108 patients died during a median follow-up of 297 (interquartile range 104-647) days. Those that did and did not die after CAR-T were similar in age, sex, and prior anthracycline use. Those who died had higher peak interleukin (IL)-6 and ferritin levels after CAR-T infusion, and those who experienced SCE had higher peak IL-6, C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, and troponin levels. The day-100 and 1-year Kaplan-Meier overall mortality estimates were 18% and 43%, respectively, while the non-relapse mortality (NRM) cumulative incidence rates were 3.5% and 6.7%, respectively. In a Cox model, SCE occurrence following CAR-T was independently associated with increased overall mortality risk [hazard ratio (HR) 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-4.7] after adjusting for age, cancer type and burden, anthracycline use, cytokine release syndrome grade ≥ 2, pre-existing heart failure, hypertension, and African American ancestry; SCEs were independently associated with increased NRM (HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.4-8.8) after adjusting for cancer burden., Conclusion: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy recipients who experience SCE have higher overall mortality and NRM and higher peak levels of IL-6, CRP, ferritin, and troponin., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest S.S.M. has received consulting fees from Nektar Therapeutics, Health & Wellness Partners, Medicure. P.A.R. has received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, BeiGene, Kite/Gilead, Intellia Therapeutics, Sana Biotechnology, CVS Caremark, Genmab, Pharmacyclics, Takeda, Karyopharm, Nektar Therapeutics, Nurix Therapeutics, and ADC Therapeutics. M.A.P. reports consulting fees from Adicet, Allovir, Caribou Biosciences, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Equilium, Exevir, Incyte, Karyopharm, Kite/Gilead, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, MorphoSys, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Omeros, OrcaBio, Syncopation, VectivBio AG, and Vor Biopharma, is participating in DSMB of Cidara Therapeutics, Medigene, and Sellas Life Sciences, and is on the scientific advisory board of NexImmune and Omeros. M.B.G. has received institutional grant funding from Sanofi, Amgen, and Actinium and consulting fees from Sanofi, Novartis, and Allogene. M.L.P. has received royalties from Juno and Sers and consulting fees from Novartis, Cellectar, Synthekine, Kite, Seres, Magenta, WindMIL, Rheos, Nektar, Notch, Priothera, Ceramedix, Lygenesis, and Pluto. R.S. has received consulting fees from Mudexus and MyBiotics. G.S. has received research funding from Janssen, Amgen, Beyond Spring, and BMS and is on DSMB of ArcellX. E.H.Y. has received institutional grand funding from CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS and Eli and Lilly and consulting fees from Pfizer. J.P.L. has received institutional grants from Genentech, Janssen, and Epizyme and consulting fees from Abbvie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, BMS, Calithera, Constellation, Caribou Biosciences, Eisai, Lilly, Epizyme, Genmab, Grail, Incyte, Jansssen, MEI Pharma, Merck, Mustang Bio, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Seagen, Second Genome, Sutro, ADC Therapeutics, Miltenyi, and Karyopharm. T.G.N. has received consulting fees from BMS, Genentech, Abbvie, Roche, CRO Oncology, and Sanofi and participates in DSMB of Genentech and received research grant funding from AstraZeneca and BMS., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduce heart failure (HF) in at-risk patients and may possess antitumour effects. We examined the effect of SGLT2i on HF and mortality among patients with cancer and diabetes., Methods: This was a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study involving adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus diagnosed with cancer between January 2010 and December 2021. The primary outcomes were hospitalisation for incident HF and all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were serious adverse events associated with SGLT2i., Results: From a total of 8640 patients, 878 SGLT2i recipients were matched to non-recipients. During a median follow-up of 18.8 months, SGLT2i recipients had a threefold lower rate of hospitalisation for incident HF compared with non-SGLT2i recipients (2.92 vs 8.95 per 1000 patient-years, p=0.018). In Cox regression and competing regression models, SGLT2i were associated with a 72% reduction in the risk of hospitalisation for HF (HR 0.28 (95% CI: 0.11 to 0.77), p=0.013; subdistribution HR 0.32 (95% CI: 0.12 to 0.84), p=0.021). The use of SGLT2i was also associated with a higher overall survival (85.3% vs 63.0% at 2 years, p<0.001). The risk of serious adverse events such as hypoglycaemia and sepsis was similar between the two groups., Conclusions: The use of SGLT2i was associated with a lower rate of incident HF and prolonged overall survival in patients with cancer with diabetes mellitus., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TGN has been a consultant to and received fees from Parexel Imaging, Intrinsic Imaging, BMS, H3-Biomedicine, AbbVie, C4-Therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi and Genentech, outside of the current work. TGN has received grant funding from AstraZeneca and BMS. PA has served as a consultant for Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Affimed, Adaptive, Infinity, ADC Therapeutics, Celgene, Morphosys, Daiichi Sankyo, Miltenyi, Tessa, GenMab, C4, Enterome, Regeneron, Epizyme, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Xencor, outside of the current work. PA has received research funding from Kite, Merck, BMS, Affimed, Adaptive, Tensha, Otsuka, Sigma Tau, Genentech/Roche, IGM, and speaking honoraria from Merck and BMS, all unrelated to the current work. LRP has stock in Johnson and Johnson, Exact Sciences, Adverum Biotechnology, Crisper Therapeutics, Editas Med., Integra Lifesciences, Medtronic, Seagen Inc., Shockwave Medical, outside of the current work. All other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Over the last decade or so, there has been a paradigm shift in the oncologic care of patients with a range of solid tumour and haematologic malignancies, away from traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy and towards personalized cancer treatments, using both targeted therapy and immunotherapy. This shift has contributed to the remarkable and sustained increase in the number of cancer survivors and the longevity of patients with a cancer diagnosis. This review will focus on the cardiovascular effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors and will present a background on immune checkpoint inhibition for cancer, the epidemiology, potential mechanisms, the potential insights into cardiovascular biology, and a diagnostic and therapeutic approach to potential cases. Our understanding of the cardiovascular effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors needs to improve. However, the evolution necessarily needs to be rapid. Initial observations noted that immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy can lead to a fulminant myocarditis. Recent reports have expanded the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy on the cardiovascular system to include an increase in cardiac dysfunction without myocarditis, arrhythmias, venous thromboembolic disease, accelerated atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular events. The association between immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and an increase in these cardiovascular events is not only limited to events occurring within the first few weeks after starting therapy but can also include events that occur months to years after therapy. The latter observation is especially of relevance in those treated with adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. There needs to be a shift from recognition of an increase in cardiovascular events to currently approved immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies to understanding the mechanisms that lead to adverse cardiovascular effects, understanding who is at risk, and understanding what we can do about it., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: T.G.N. has received advisory fees from AbbVie, Amgen, C4 Therapeutics, H3-Biomedicine, Genentech, Sanofi, Roche, BMS, and Intrinsic Imaging. T.G.N. has received grant funding from AstraZeneca and BMS. J.N. has received advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Takeda, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, NGM Pharmaceuticals, Kaleido Biosciences, and institutional research grant funding from Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Mirati. J.N. is the principal investigator on grant funding from Merck, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Coronary vasospasm is a known side effect of 5-FU (fluorouracil) therapy. Beyond switching to non-5FU-based chemotherapy, there are no established treatments for 5-FU associated coronary vasospam. Our objective was to assess the safety and efficacy of re-challenge with 5-FU after pre-treatment with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and long-acting nitrates among patients 5-FU associated coronary vasospasm., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with 5-FU coronary vasospasm at a single academic center. By protocol, those referred to cardio-oncology received pre-treatment with either combination [nitrates and CCBs] or single-agent therapy [nitrates or CCBs]) prior to re-challenge with 5-FU. Our primary outcome was overall survival. Other important outcomes included progression-free survival and safety., Results: Among 6,606 patients who received 5-FU from January 2001 to Dec 2020, 115 (1.74%) developed coronary vasospasm. Of these 115 patients, 81 patients continued 5-FU therapy, while 34 stopped. Of the 81 who continued, 78 were referred to cardio-oncology and prescribed CCBs and/or nitrates prior to subsequent 5-FU, while the remaining 3 continued 5-FU without cardiac pre-treatment. Of the 78, 56.4% (44/78) received both nitrates and CCBs, 19.2% (15/78) received CCBs alone, and 24.4% (19/78) received nitrates alone. When compared to patients who stopped 5-FU, those who continued 5-FU after pre-treatment (single or combination therapy) had a decreased risk of death (HR 0.42, P = 0.005 [95% CI 0.23-0.77]) and a trend towards decreased cancer progression (HR 0.60, P = 0.08 [95% CI 0.34-1.06]). No patient in the pre-treatment group had a myocardial infarct after re-challenge; however, chest pain (without myocardial infarction) recurred in 19.2% (15/78) among those who received cardiac pre-treatment vs. 66.7% (2/3) among those who did not (P = 0.048). There was no difference in efficacy or the recurrence of vasospasm among patients who received pre-treatment with a single agent (nitrates or CCBs) or combination therapy (14.7% (5/34) vs. 25.0% (11/44), P = 0.26)., Conclusion: Re-challenge after pre-treatment with CCBs and nitrates guided by a cardio-oncology service was safe and allowed continued 5-FU therapy., Competing Interests: TGN is supported, in part, through a kind gift from Curtis Greer and Pamela Kohlberg. TGN also reports acting as a consultant for Parexel, H3 Biomedicine, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Abbvie and Intrinsic Imaging, unrelated to the current research. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the treatment of advanced malignancies in recent years. Numerous reports have detailed the myriad of possible adverse inflammatory effects of immune checkpoint therapies, including within the cardiovascular system. However, these reports have been largely limited to myocarditis. The critical role of inflammation and adaptive immunity in atherosclerosis has been well characterized in preclinical studies, and several emerging clinical studies indicate a potential role of immune checkpoint targeting therapies in the development and exacerbation of atherosclerosis. In this review, we provide an overview of the role of T-cell immunity in atherogenesis and describe the molecular effects and clinical associations of both approved and investigational immune checkpoint therapy on atherosclerosis. We also highlight the role of cholesterol metabolism in oncogenesis and discuss the implications of these associations on future treatment and monitoring of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the oncologic population receiving immune checkpoint therapy., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Drs Stein-Merlob and Nayeri are supported by the National Institutes of Health Cardiovascular Scientist Training Program (grant T32HL007895). Dr Sallam is supported by the American Heart Association Transformational Project Award and the National Institutes of Health grant HL149766. Dr Neilan is supported by a gift from A. Curt Greer and Pamela Kohlberg, and grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grants R01HL130539, R01HL137562, and K24HL150238. Dr Yang is supported by a grant from CSL Behring. Dr Neilan has been a consultant to and received fees from Amgen, H3-Biomedicine, and AbbVie outside of the current work; has received consultant fees from Bristol Myers Squibb for a Scientific Advisory Board focused on myocarditis related to immune checkpoint inhibitors; and has received grant funding from AstraZeneca on atherosclerosis with immune checkpoint inhibitors. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In 2017, Massachusetts General Hospital implemented the Severe Immunotherapy Complications (SIC) Service, a multidisciplinary care team for patients hospitalized with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), a unique spectrum of toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This study's objectives were to evaluate the intervention's (1) effect on patient outcomes and healthcare utilization, and (2) ability to collect biological samples via a central infrastructure, in order to study the mechanisms responsible for irAEs., Methods: A hospital database was used to identify patients who received ICIs for a malignancy and were hospitalized with severe irAEs, before (April 2, 2016-October 3, 2017) and after (October 3, 2017-October 24, 2018) SIC Service initiation. The primary outcome was readmission rate after index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) for admissions, corticosteroid and non-steroidal second-line immunosuppression use, ICI discontinuation, and inpatient mortality., Results: In the pre-SIC period, 127 of 1169 patients treated with ICIs were hospitalized for irAEs; in the post-SIC period, 122 of 1159. After SIC service initiation, reductions were observed in irAE readmission rate (14.8% post-SIC vs 25.9% pre-SIC; OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.95; p=0.036) and readmission LOS (median 6 days post-SIC vs 7 days pre-SIC; 95% CI -16.03 to -0.14; p=0.046). No significant pre-initiation and post-initiation differences were detected in corticosteroid use, second-line immunosuppression, ICI discontinuation, or inpatient mortality rates. The SIC Service collected 789 blood and tissue samples from 234 patients with suspected irAEs., Conclusions: This is the first study to report that establishing a highly subspecialized care team focused on irAEs is associated with improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare utilization. Furthermore, the SIC Service successfully integrated blood and tissue collection safety into routine care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LZ—Merck consultant. JC—consultant for BMS and Sanofi-Genzyme. DJ—scientific advisory board fee from Eisai, EMD Serono, Genentech, Ipsen, Novartis, Guardant, Petra Pharma, Mapkure, Vibliome Therapeutics, and Relay Therapeutics; institutional research funds from Novartis, Genentech, EMD Serono, Eisai, Takeda, Placon Therapeutics, Syros, Ribon Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, InventisBio and Amgen. GMB—sponsored research agreements with Palleon Therapeutics and Olink Proteomics; scientific advisory board for Novartis and Nektar Therapeutics; consulting for Merck. MD—consultant for Moderna, Tillotts Pharma, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, and Partner Therapeutics; research funding from Novartis and Eli Lilly; scientific advisory board for Neoleukin Therapeutics. ACG—consultant for Momenta, Alexion, UCB/Ra pharma; royalties from Oakstone Publishing; research funding from Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, MGNET and Project Datasphere. BDM—consultant for Sanofi, AbbVie, and Celestial Pharmaceuticals. He has also received sponsored research agreements from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squib. MK—consultant for Novartis and Mymee; speaker fees for Lilly. TGN—advisory fees from Parexel, BMS, H3 Biomedicine, AbbVie, and Intrinsic Imaging; grant support from AstraZeneca. JRF—research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and X4 Pharmaceuticals. MJM—received honarium/acted as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Nektar Therapeutics, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Immunai Aditya Bardia; consulting or advisory role for bioTheranostics, Genentech, Genentech/Roche (Inst), Immunomedics, Immunomedics (Inst), Innocrin Pharma (Inst), Merck, Merck (Inst), Novartis, Novartis (Inst), Pfizer, Pfizer (Inst), Radius Health (Inst), Radius Pharma, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals; research funding from bioTheranostics. RS—consultant/scientific advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Iovance, Merck, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Replimune; research funding from Merck and Amgen. SB—consultant for Third Rock Consulting and Two River Consulting; equity holdings in Kronos Bio and Allogene Therapeutics. YRS—consultant for Castle Biosciences., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The aim of this study was to characterize severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) seen among hospitalized patients and to examine risk factors for irAE admissions and clinically relevant outcomes, including length of stay, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) discontinuation, readmission, and death., Methods: Patients who received ICI therapy (ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab, or any ICI combination) at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and were hospitalized at MGH following ICI initiation between January 1, 2011, and October 24, 2018, were identified using pharmacy and hospital admission databases. Medical records of all irAE admissions were reviewed, and specialist review with defined criteria was performed. Demographic data, relevant clinical history (malignancy type and most recent ICI regimen), and key admission characteristics, including dates of admission and discharge, immunosuppressive management, ICI discontinuation, readmission, and death, were collected., Results: In total, 450 admissions were classified as irAE admissions and represent the study's cohort. Alongside the increasing use of ICIs at our institution, the number of patients admitted to MGH for irAEs has gradually increased every year from 9 in 2011 to 92 in 2018. The hospitalization rate per ICI recipient has declined over that same time period (25.0% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2018). The most common toxicities leading to hospitalization in our cohort were gastrointestinal (30.7%; n = 138), pulmonary (15.8%; n = 71), hepatic (14.2%; n = 64), endocrine (12.2%; n = 55), neurologic (8.4%; n = 38), cardiac (6.7%; n = 30), and dermatologic (4.4%; n = 20). Multivariable logistic regression revealed statistically significant increases in irAE admission risk for CTLA-4 monotherapy recipients (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; p < .001) and CTLA-4 plus PD-1 combination therapy recipients (OR, 1.88; p < .001), relative to PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy recipients, and patients with multiple toxicity had a 5-fold increase in inpatient mortality., Conclusion: This study illustrates that cancer centers must be prepared to manage a wide variety of irAE types and that CTLA-4 and combination ICI regimens are more likely to cause irAE admissions, and earlier. In addition, admissions for patients with multi-organ involvement is common and those patients are at highest risk of inpatient mortality., Implications for Practice: The number of patients admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) has gradually increased every year and the most common admissions are for gastrointestinal (30.7%), pulmonary (15/8%), and hepatic (14.2%) events. Readmission rates are high (29% at 30 days, 49% at 180 days) and 64.2% have to permanently discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Importantly, multiple concurrent toxicities were seen in 21.6% (97/450) of irAE admissions and these patients have a fivefold increased risk of inpatient death., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

Competing Interests: Sarju GanatraExpert Testimony: Haymarket Medical EducationTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Haymarket Medical Education Tomas NeilanConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Parexel, Intrinsic Imaging, H3 Biomedicine, AbbvieResearch Funding: AstraZenecaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treat an expanding range of cancers. Consistent basic data suggest that these same checkpoints are critical negative regulators of atherosclerosis. Therefore, our objectives were to test whether ICIs were associated with accelerated atherosclerosis and a higher risk of atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular events., Methods: The study was situated in a single academic medical center. The primary analysis evaluated whether exposure to an ICI was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular events in 2842 patients and 2842 controls matched by age, a history of cardiovascular events, and cancer type. In a second design, a case-crossover analysis was performed with an at-risk period defined as the 2-year period after and the control period as the 2-year period before treatment. The primary outcome was a composite of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and ischemic stroke). Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome. In addition, in an imaging substudy (n=40), the rate of atherosclerotic plaque progression was compared from before to after the ICI was started. All study measures and outcomes were blindly adjudicated., Results: In the matched cohort study, there was a 3-fold higher risk for cardiovascular events after starting an ICI (hazard ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.0-5.5]; P <0.001). There was a similar increase in each of the individual components of the primary outcome. In the case-crossover, there was also an increase in cardiovascular events from 1.37 to 6.55 per 100 person-years at 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.8 [95% CI, 3.5-6.5]; P <0.001). In the imaging study, the rate of progression of total aortic plaque volume was >3-fold higher with ICIs (from 2.1%/y before 6.7%/y after). This association between ICI use and increased atherosclerotic plaque progression was attenuated with concomitant use of statins or corticosteroids., Conclusions: Cardiovascular events were higher after initiation of ICIs, potentially mediated by accelerated progression of atherosclerosis. Optimization of cardiovascular risk factors and increased awareness of cardiovascular risk before, during, and after treatment should be considered among patients on an ICI.

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., (© 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

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., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Aims: The prognostic importance of post-diagnosis assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in cancer patients is not well established. We sought to examine the association between CRF and mortality in cancer patients., Methods and Results: This was a single-centre cohort analysis of 1632 patients (58% male; 64 ± 12 years) with adult-onset cancer who were clinically referred for exercise treadmill testing a median of 7 [interquartile range (IQR): 3-12] years after primary diagnosis. Cardiorespiratory fitness was defined as peak metabolic equivalents (METs) achieved during standard Bruce protocol and categorized by tertiles. The association between CRF and all-cause and cause-specific mortality was assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for important covariates. Median follow-up was 4.6 (IQR: 2.6-7.0) years; a total of 411 deaths (229, 50, and 132 all-cause, cardiovascular (CV), and cancer related, respectively) occurred during this period. Compared with low CRF (range: 1.9-7.6 METs), the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was 0.38 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.28-0.52] for intermediate CRF (range: 7.7-10.6 METs) and 0.17 (95% CI: 0.11-0.27) for high CRF (range: 10.7-22.0 METs). The corresponding HRs were 0.40 (95% CI: 0.19-0.86) and 0.41 (95% CI: 0.16-1.05) for CV mortality and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.26-0.60) and 0.16 (95% CI: 0.09-0.28) for cancer mortality, respectively. The adjusted risk of all-cause, CV, and cancer mortality decreased by 26%, 14%, and 25%, respectively with each one MET increment in CRF., Conclusion: Cardiorespiratory fitness is a strong, independent predictor of all-cause, CV, and cancer mortality, even after adjustment for important clinical covariates in patients with certain cancers., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

COVID-19 infections are characterized by inflammation of the lungs and other organs that ranges from mild and asymptomatic to fulminant and fatal. Patients who are immunocompromised and those with cardiopulmonary comorbidities appear to be particularly afflicted by this illness. During pandemic conditions, many aspects of cancer care have been impacted. One important clinical question is how to manage patients who need anticancer therapy, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) during these conditions. Herein, we consider diagnostic and therapeutic implications of using ICI during this unprecedented period of COVID-19 infections. In particular, we consider the impact of ICI on COVID-19 severity, decisions surrounding continuing or interrupting therapy, diagnostic measures in patients with symptoms or manifestations potentially consistent with either COVID-19 or ICI toxicity, and resumption of therapy in infected patients. While more robust data are needed to guide clinicians on management of patients with cancer who may be affected by COVID-19, we hope this commentary provides useful insights for the clinical community., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RS: currently serves or recently has served on advisory boards for Array Biopharma, Asana Biosciences, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and Replimune. He also has received research funding from Amgen and Merck. DBJ serves on advisory boards for Array Biopharma, BMS, Jansen, Novartis, and Merck, and receives research funding from BMS and Incyte. BR: serves on advisory boards for Pfizer, Genentech, Aveo, Novartis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Merck, Corvus, Arravive, Exelixis, 3D Medicines and Arrowhead and has received research funding for the institution for Pfizer, Merck, Genentech, Peloton, Aveo, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, and Exelixis. TN has been a consultant to and received fees from Parexel Imaging, Intrinsic Imaging, H3-Biomedicine, and Syros Pharmaceuticals, outside of the current work, and also reports consultant fees from Bristol Myers Squibb for a scientific advisory board focused on myocarditis related to immune checkpoint inhibitors. CML has served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Genoptix, Sequenom, Ariad, Takeda, Blueprints Medicine, Cepheid, Foundation Medicine, and Eli Lilly, and reports receiving commercial research grants from Xcovery and Novartis. JJM has served on an advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Audentes Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Takeda, Ipsen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Intrexon, and Regeneron., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The advent of immunotherapy, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, has ushered in a promising new era of treatment of patients with a variety of malignancies who historically had a poor prognosis. However, these therapies are associated with potentially life-threatening cardiovascular adverse effects. As immunotherapy evolves to include a wider variety of malignancies, risk stratification, prompt recognition, and treatment of cardiotoxicity will become increasingly important and hence cardiologists will need to play a fundamental role in the comprehensive care of these patients. This article reviews cardiotoxicity associated with contemporary immunotherapy and discusses potential management strategies., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Chemotherapy is associated with cardiovascular injury, including the development of a cardiomyopathy and vascular remodeling. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is sensitive to detect not only established morphologic and functional abnormalities but also early, potentially reversible, signs of myocardial injury. It robustly detects and quantifies myocardial edema, inflammation, and focal fibrosis, as well as interstitial fibrosis and vascular remodeling. These capabilities support the role of CMR as an excellent tool for evaluating cardiotoxicity. Novel CMR markers may even enhance patient management by facilitating the early detection of reversible myocardial tissue remodeling before classic morphologic and functional changes appear., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Influenza vaccination (FV) is recommended for patients with cancer. Recent data suggested that the administration of the FV was associated with an increase in immune-related adverse events (irAEs) among patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Myocarditis is an uncommon but serious complication of ICIs and may also result from infection with influenza. There are no data testing the relationship between FV and the development of myocarditis on ICIs., Methods: Patients on ICIs who developed myocarditis (n = 101) (cases) were compared to ICI-treated patients (n = 201) without myocarditis (controls). A patient was defined as having the FV if they were administered the FV from 6 months prior to start of ICI to anytime during ICI therapy. Alternate thresholds for FV status were also tested. The primary comparison of interest was the rate of FV between cases and controls. Patients with myocarditis were followed for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, hemodynamically significant complete heart block and cardiovascular death., Results: The FV was administered to 25% of the myocarditis cases compared to 40% of the non-myocarditis ICI-treated controls (p = 0.01). Similar findings of lower rates of FV administration were noted among myocarditis cases when alternate thresholds were tested. Among the myocarditis cases, those who were vaccinated had 3-fold lower troponin levels when compared to unvaccinated cases (FV vs. No FV: 0.12 [0.02, 0.47] vs. 0.40 [0.11, 1.26] ng/ml, p = 0.02). Within myocarditis cases, those administered the FV also had a lower rate of other irAEs when compared to unvaccinated cases (36 vs. 55% p = 0.10) including lower rates of pneumonitis (12 vs. 36%, p = 0.03). During follow-up (175 [IQR 89, 363] days), 47% of myocarditis cases experienced a MACE. Myocarditis cases who received the FV were at a lower risk of cumulative MACE when compared to unvaccinated cases (24 vs. 59%, p = 0.002)., Conclusion: The rate of FV among ICI-related myocarditis cases was lower than controls on ICIs who did not develop myocarditis. In those who developed myocarditis related to an ICI, there was less myocardial injury and a lower risk of MACE among those who were administered the FV.

Recent advances in cancer treatments have significantly improved survival rates, reemphasizing the focus on reducing the potential complications associated with some therapies. Cardiovascular disease associated with chemotherapies is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer survivors. Early detection of cardiotoxicity improves cardiac outcomes among cancer patients. The review will focus on imaging modalities used to assess cardiotoxicity - the cardiovascular consequences of chemotherapies. The review will discuss the benefits and limitations associated with each technique, as well as the guidelines available to help identify at risk patients. We will discuss novel techniques that may help detect earlier signs of cardiotoxicity, directing management that may improve clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Myocarditis is an uncommon, but potentially fatal, toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Myocarditis after ICI has not been well characterized., Objectives: The authors sought to understand the presentation and clinical course of ICI-associated myocarditis., Methods: After observation of sporadic ICI-associated myocarditis cases, the authors created a multicenter registry with 8 sites. From November 2013 to July 2017, there were 35 patients with ICI-associated myocarditis, who were compared to a random sample of 105 ICI-treated patients without myocarditis. Covariates of interest were extracted from medical records including the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and hemodynamically significant complete heart block., Results: The prevalence of myocarditis was 1.14% with a median time of onset of 34 days after starting ICI (interquartile range: 21 to 75 days). Cases were 65 ± 13 years of age, 29% were female, and 54% had no other immune-related side effects. Relative to controls, combination ICI (34% vs. 2%; p < 0.001) and diabetes (34% vs. 13%; p = 0.01) were more common in cases. Over 102 days (interquartile range: 62 to 214 days) of median follow-up, 16 (46%) developed MACE; 38% of MACE occurred with normal ejection fraction. There was a 4-fold increased risk of MACE with troponin T of ≥1.5 ng/ml (hazard ratio: 4.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.5 to 10.9; p = 0.003). Steroids were administered in 89%, and lower steroids doses were associated with higher residual troponin and higher MACE rates., Conclusions: Myocarditis after ICI therapy may be more common than appreciated, occurs early after starting treatment, has a malignant course, and responds to higher steroid doses., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Anthracyclines are an important component of cancer treatments; however, their use is limited by the occurrence of cardiotoxicity. There are limited data on the occurrence of heart failure and the value of baseline and follow-up measurements of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) in the current era. Therefore, the objectives of the present study were twofold: (1) to characterize the occurrence of and risk factors for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs: symptomatic heart failure and cardiac death) in a large contemporaneous population of adult patients treated with anthracyclines and (2) to test the value of LVEF and LV dimensions obtained using echocardiography in the prediction of MACE. Five thousand fifty-seven patients were studied, of whom 124 (2.4%) developed MACE. Of the total cohort, 2,285 patients had an available echocardiogram pre-chemotherapy. Patients with MACE were older (p <0.0001), predominantly men (p = 0.03), and with a higher incidence of cardiovascular risk factors and cardiac treatments. Patients with hematologic cancers had a higher incidence of cardiac events than patients with breast cancer (4.2% vs 0.7%, p <0.0001). Baseline LVEF, LVEF ≤5 points above the lower limits of normal, and LV internal diameter were predictive of the rate of occurrence of MACE. In conclusion, older patients with hematologic cancers and patients with a baseline LVEF ≤5 points above the lower limit of normal have higher incidence of MACE and should be closely monitored., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Survival in cancer has improved, shifting some of the focus of care to minimizing the long term complications of cancer therapy. Cardiovascular disease is a leading long-term cause of morbidity and mortality in patients who survive cancer. In the review we will focus on imaging techniques that are used to detect the cardiovascular consequences of chemotherapy. We will differentiate cardiotoxicity and cardiac injury from cardiac dysfunction and cardiomyopathy. We will discuss the current clinical measures that are used to monitor patients, the limitations of each technique, and then detail research into novel methods for tracking and detecting the cardiac toxicity and cardiac dysfunction that may occur as a result of chemotherapy.

We aimed to determine whether the myocardial extracellular volume (ECV), measured using T1 measurements obtained during cardiac magnetic resonance imaging were increased in patients treated with anthracyclines. We performed cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography and measured the ECV in 42 patients treated with anthracyclines. The data from the cardiac magnetic resonance study were compared to those from healthy volunteers. The anthracycline-treated cohort consisted of 21 men and 21 women with a mean age of 55 ± 17 years, who presented a median of 84 months after chemotherapy with a cumulative anthracycline exposure of 282 ± 65 mg/m(2) and a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 52 ± 12%. The ECV was elevated in the anthracycline-treated patients compared to the age- and gender-matched controls (0.36 ± 0.03 vs 0.28 ± 0.02, p <0.001). A positive association was found between the ECV and left atrial volume (ECV vs indexed left atrial volume, r = 0.65, p <0.001), and negative association was found between the ECV and diastolic function (E' lateral, r = -0.64, p <0.001). In conclusion, the myocardial ECV is elevated in patients with previous anthracycline treatment and is associated with the diastolic function and increased atrial volumes., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We aimed to describe the cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings and determine the prognostic variables in patients with a cardiomyopathy after treatment with anthracyclines. CMR imaging was performed in 91 patients (58% men, mean age 43 ± 18 years, and mean anthracycline dose of 276 ± 82 mg/m(2)) with a reduced ejection fraction after anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Major adverse cardiovascular events were defined as cardiovascular death, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy, and admission for decompensated heart failure. Patients presented a median of 88 months (interquartile range 37 to 138) after chemotherapy and were followed for 27 months (interquartile range 22 to 38). Late gadolinium enhancement was an uncommon finding (5 patients, 6%) despite a reduced ejection fraction (36 ± 8%). An inverse association was found between the anthracycline dose and the indexed left ventricular (LV) mass by CMR (r = -0.67, p <0.001). A total of 52 adverse cardiac events occurred (event rate of 22%/year). When the patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of a major adverse cardiovascular event, the indexed LV mass and glomerular filtration rate were lower and the anthracycline dose was greater among the patients who experienced an adverse event. In a multivariate model, the indexed LV mass demonstrated the strongest association with major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 0.89, chi-square 26, p <0.001). In conclusion, myocardial scar by late gadolinium enhancement-CMR is infrequent in patients with anthracycline-cardiomyopathy despite a reduced ejection fraction, the event rate in patients with established anthracycline-cardiotoxicity is high, and indexed LV mass by CMR imaging is a predictor of adverse cardiovascular events., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)