Anticoagulation prescribing patterns in patients with cancer

Anticoagulant prescribing patterns in patients with primary central nervous system malignancies and secondary metastases

To evaluate the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with central nervous system (CNS) malignancies and secondary metastases. All adult patients with CNS malignancies and secondary metastases who were treated with a DOAC or LMWH for any indication from 2018 to 2022 were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) after anticoagulation initiation. Secondary outcomes included non-ICH bleeding events and thromboembolic events. Tolerability was assessed by any changes in anticoagulant therapy during study period. 153 patients were included; 48 patients received enoxaparin and 105 received DOACs, of which apixaban was used most commonly. The population was predominantly White (74%) and male (59%) with a median age of 65. Data was censored for immortal time bias for outcomes evaluated beyond 3 months. ICH occurred in 7.7% of the population, more frequently in the enoxaparin group (DOACs 4, 4% vs. enoxaparin 7, 16%, p = 0.037). Non-ICH bleeds were predominantly minor and more common in the DOAC group (DOACs 13, 13% vs. enoxaparin 1, 2%, p = 0.037). Thromboembolic events were not different between groups (DOACs 9. 9% vs, enoxaparin 2, 4%, p = 0.503). Anticoagulant switches occurred more in the enoxaparin group (DOACs 12, 12.4% vs. enoxaparin, 37.8%, p < 0.001), primarily due to patient or provider preference. Our data supports DOACs to be preferred over LMWH for the treatment of VTE or for stroke prevention with AF to prevent ICH in patients with brain tumors or metastases.

To Measure or Not to Measure: Direct Oral Anticoagulant Laboratory Assay Monitoring in Clinical Practice

The need for therapeutic drug monitoring of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) remains an area of clinical equipoise. Although routine monitoring may be unnecessary given predictable pharmacokinetics in most patients, there may be altered pharmacokinetics in those with end organ dysfunction, such as those with renal impairment, or with concomitant interacting medications, at extremes of body weight or age, or in those with thromboembolic events in atypical locations. We aimed to assess real-world practices in situations in which DOAC drug-level monitoring was used at a large academic medical center. A retrospective review of the records of patients who had a DOAC drug-specific activity level checked from 2016 to 2019 was included. A total of 119 patients had 144 DOAC measurements (apixaban (n = 62) and rivaroxaban (n = 57)). Drug-specific calibrated DOAC levels were within an expected therapeutic range for 110 levels(76%), with 21 levels (15%) above the expected range and 13 levels (9%) below the expected range. The DOAC levels were checked in the setting of an urgent or emergent procedure in 28 patients (24%), followed by renal failure in 17 patients (14%), a bleeding event in 11 patients (9%), concern for recurrent thromboembolism in 10 patients (8%), thrombophilia in 9 patients (8%), a history of recurrent thromboembolism in 6 patients (5%), extremes of body weight in 7 patients (5%), and unknown reasons in 7 patients (5%). Clinical decision making was infrequently affected by the DOAC monitoring. Therapeutic drug monitoring with DOACs may help predict bleeding events in elderly patients, those with impaired renal function, and in the event of an emergent or urgent procedure. Future studies are needed to target the select patient-specific scenarios where monitoring DOAC levels may impact clinical outcomes.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in people living with human immunodeficiency virus

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is associated with increased rates of cardiovascular disease and vascular events, and people living with HIV (PLWH) may often have indications for therapeutic anticoagulation. However, the ideal anticoagulant in PLWH remains unknown. This retrospective cohort evaluated the tolerability and effectiveness of oral anticoagulants in PLWH. The primary outcome was tolerability, defined as a composite of bleeding and/or discontinuation rates. The secondary outcomes included recurrent thromboembolism, bleeding, and discontinuations, independently. There were 92 patients included for analysis, 48 in the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) arm and 44 in the warfarin arm. There were 35 (38%) PLWH that did not tolerate oral anticoagulation therapy in the total cohort. Among these, 19 received a DOAC and 16 received warfarin. There were 16 (17%) PLWH that experienced a bleeding event: six in the DOAC arm and 10 in the warfarin arm. There were 15 (16%) PLWH that experienced recurrent thromboembolism, with similar rates between DOAC versus warfarin (10, 21% vs 5, 11%, respectively; p = 0.11). The most commonly prescribed HIV regimens were protease inhibitor and integrase inhibitor-based regimens. Overall, anticoagulation-related outcomes with either a DOAC or warfarin were poor in our cohort of PLWH, with high rates of bleeding, discontinuations, and recurrent thromboembolism. Further studies are necessary to validate and assess reasons for poor tolerability.

Safety and efficacy of new oral anticoagulants compared to those of warfarin in AF patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and observational studies

BACKGROUND

Data on the efficacy and safety of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with cancer are limited. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety between NOACs and warfarin in this population.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles published through July 2020 was performed. An evaluation of each study was conducted, and data were extracted. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates and 95% CIs were calculated.

RESULTS

Eight studies (3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 retrospective cohort studies) involving a total of 24,665 patients were included. Among the RCTs, there were no significant differences in the rates of stroke or systemic embolism (OR=0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.06; P=0.09), venous thromboembolism (OR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.33-2.52; P=0.86), myocardial infarction (OR=0.74; 95% CI, 0.44-1.23; P=0.24), major bleeding (OR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.06; P=0.12), or major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding (OR= 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19; P=0.86) between the NOAC and warfarin groups. Among the observational studies, patients who used NOACs had a significantly lower risk than those who used warfarin. The prevalence rates of ischemic stroke (OR=0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.92; P=0.02), VTE (OR=0.50; 95% CI, 0.41-0.60; P<0.00001), major bleeding (OR=0.28; 95% CI, 0.14-0.55; P=0.0002), and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (OR=0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92; P=0.02) were significantly reduced in the NOAC group.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis confirms that NOACs are as safe and effective as warfarin and can be applied in the real world; this data can serve as a reference for clinical doctors for formulating treatment strategies.

Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Central Nervous System Malignancies

Patients with brain tumors are at high risk for thromboembolic complications and frequently require anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a less burdensome treatment for cancer-associated thrombosis with safety and efficacy comparable to those of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH); however, there are few data to support the use of DOACs in patients with brain tumors. The purpose of this study was to better understand the safety profile of anticoagulants in patients with primary and metastatic brain tumors, with particular interest in the safety and efficacy of DOACs. Our hypothesis was that DOACs are as safe and effective as LWMH in this population. This study was conducted through a single-center retrospective chart review of 125 patients with primary and metastatic brain tumors on anticoagulation. Our primary outcomes were major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), with secondary outcomes of minor bleeding and recurrent thrombosis. The rate of major bleeding was 26% in the LMWH group versus 9.6% in the DOAC group (p = .03). The rate of ICH was 15% in the LMWH group versus 5.8% in the DOAC group (p = .09). The severity of ICH in both groups was low with median Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5 scores of 2 in the LMWH group and 3 in the DOAC group. The rates of minor bleeding and recurrent thrombosis were low in both groups. Our conclusion is that DOAC use in patients with brain tumors is not associated with increased rates of major bleeding compared with LMWH and is a safe and effective option. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with brain tumors are at high risk for venous thromboembolism and frequently require anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are less burdensome than low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for treatment of thromboembolism, but there is concern in the community over increased risk of bleeding. This study provides much-needed objective evidence that there are fewer major bleeding events in patients with brain tumors on DOACs compared to LMWH with similar efficacy. As the paradigm of anticoagulation in patients with cancer shifts from LWMH toward DOACs, this work is particularly meaningful as it suggests DOACs are safe and effective for patients with brain tumors.

Treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)

Background

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients.

Methods

Literature was searched in databases including Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), and MEDLINE (PubMed). Eligible studies were included, and data were collected independently by 2 reviewers. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of DOACs in the treatment of VTE in cancer patients. The odds ratios (ORs) of different DOACs compared with LMWHs for VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) recurrence, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), were calculated in meta-analyses and subgroup analyses.

Results

A total of 18 articles were eligible for analyses, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective studies. Both RCTs and retrospective studies confirmed that DOACs decreased the risk of VTE recurrence [RCTs: OR, 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45–0.80; retrospective studies: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59–0.90] and DVT recurrence (RCTs: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36–0.80; retrospective studies: OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.63), but not PE recurrence or fatal PE in cancer patients. Subgroup analyses revealed an important role of rivaroxaban in decreasing recurrent VTE. Meanwhile, major bleeding events were not increased in the DOAC group, but the risks of CRNMBs were significantly elevated. Subgroup analyses confirmed the role of rivaroxaban in increasing the risk of major bleeding events and CRNMBs.

Conclusions

Compared with LMWHs, DOACs (especially rivaroxaban) significantly reduce the risk of VTE and DVT, but not PE recurrence, in patients with cancer. Although DOACs did not increase the major bleeding events in pooled analysis, rivaroxaban showed an elevated risk of this adverse effect in subgroup analysis. In addition, the risk of CRNMB events was increased after the application of DOACs including rivaroxaban.

Cardiomyopathies and Arrhythmias Induced by Cancer Therapies

Cardiology and oncology are two fields dedicated to the study of various types of oncological and cardiac diseases, but when they collide, a new specialty is born, i.e., cardio-oncology. Continuous research on cancer therapy has brought into the clinic novel therapeutics that have significantly improved patient survival. However, these therapies have also been associated with adverse effects that can impede the proper management of oncological patients through the necessity of drug discontinuation due to life-threatening or long-term morbidity risks. Cardiovascular toxicity from oncological therapies is the main issue that needs to be solved. Proper knowledge, interpretation, and management of new drugs are key elements for developing the best therapeutic strategies for oncological patients. Upon continuous investigations, the profile of cardiotoxicity events has been enlarged with the inclusion of myocarditis upon administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors and cardiac dysfunction in the context of cytokine release syndrome with chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy. Affinity enhanced and chimeric antigen receptor T cells have both been associated with hypotension, arrhythmia, and left ventricular dysfunction, typically in the setting of cytokine release syndrome. Therefore, the cardiologist must adhere to the progressing field of cancer therapy and become familiar with the adverse effects of novel drugs, and not only the ones of standard care, such as anthracycline, trastuzumab, and radiation therapy. The present review provides essential information summarized from the latest studies from cardiology, oncology, and hematology to bring together the three specialties and offers proper management options for oncological patients.

Temporal trends in first-line outpatient anticoagulation treatment for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

First-line treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer consisted, historically, of unfractionated heparin or low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). With recent clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) showing similar efficacy as LMWH, little is known about anticoagulant prescribing patterns in patients with cancer and a VTE. This study characterized the temporal trends in first-line outpatient anticoagulation therapy for cancer-associated VTE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of patients who were hospitalized for a cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) between 01/01/2000 and 10/31/2017 identified patients from the cancer registries at two regions of an integrated healthcare delivery system. The primary outcome was the trend in age- and sex-adjusted rates of first-line anticoagulant therapy during the 30 days post-hospital discharge. Therapies were categorized as 1) injectable LMWH monotherapy, 2) warfarin ± injectable, 3) injectable fondaparinux monotherapy, or 4) DOAC ± injectable.

RESULTS

Overall, 9816 patients were included with a mean age of 66 ± 13 years and 54% were female. From 2000 to 2003, warfarin ± injectable was used in ≈90% of cases. After 2003, there was a steady decline in warfarin use (25% in 2017) corresponding with increased LMWH use: 11% in 2003 to 55% in 2017. The DOAC ± injectable use has rapidly increased from <1% in 2014 to 20% in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2000 to 2017, first-line anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated VTE has experienced a substantial increase in LMWH and DOAC use with a resultant decline in warfarin use.

Adverse cardiac effects of cancer therapies: cardiotoxicity and arrhythmia

Remarkable progress has been made in the development of new therapies for cancer, dramatically changing the landscape of treatment approaches for several malignancies and continuing to increase patient survival. Accordingly, adverse effects of cancer therapies that interfere with the continuation of best-possible care, induce life-threatening risks or lead to long-term morbidity are gaining increasing importance. Cardiovascular toxic effects of cancer therapeutics and radiation therapy are the epitome of such concerns, and proper knowledge, interpretation and management are needed and have to be placed within the context of the overall care of individual patients with cancer. Furthermore, the cardiotoxicity spectrum has broadened to include myocarditis with immune checkpoint inhibitors and cardiac dysfunction in the setting of cytokine release syndrome with chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy. An increase in the incidence of arrhythmias related to inflammation such as atrial fibrillation can also be expected, in addition to the broadening set of cancer therapeutics that can induce prolongation of the corrected QT interval. Therefore, cardiologists of today have to be familiar not only with the cardiotoxicity associated with traditional cancer therapies, such as anthracycline, trastuzumab or radiation therapy, but even more so with an ever-increasing repertoire of therapeutics. This Review provides this information, summarizing the latest developments at the juncture of cardiology, oncology and haematology.

Inpatient and outpatient treatment patterns of cancer-associated thrombosis in the United States

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are among the recommended treatment options for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) in the 2019 National Comprehensive Care Network guidelines. Little is known about the current utilization of DOACs in CAT patients, particularly on the inpatient to outpatient therapy transition. This study assessed real-world treatment patterns of CAT in hospital/ED in adult cancer patients (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with CAT during a hospital visit in IQVIA's Hospital Charge Data Master database between July 1, 2015 and April 30, 2018, and followed their outpatient medical and pharmacy claims to evaluate the initial inpatient/ED and outpatient anticoagulants received within 3 months post-discharge. Results showed that LMWH and unfractionated heparin (UFH) were the most common initial inpatient/ED CAT treatments (35.2% and 27.4%, respectively), followed by DOACs (9.6%); 20.8% of patients received no anticoagulants. Most DOAC patients remained on DOACs from inpatient/ED to outpatient settings (71.4%), while 24.1%, 43.5%, and 0.1% of patients treated with LMWH, warfarin, or UFH respectively, remained on the same therapy after discharge. In addition, DOACs were the most common initial post-discharge outpatient therapy. Outpatient treatment persistence and adherence appeared higher in patients using DOACs or warfarin versus LMWH or UFH. This study shows that DOACs are used as an inpatient/ED treatment option for CAT, and are associated with less post-discharge treatment switching and higher persistence and adherence. Further research generating real-world evidence on the role of DOACs to help inform the complex CAT clinical treatment decisions is warranted.

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are still debated in the treatment of patients with cancer, and the optimal duration of therapy remains uncertain. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched to retrieve studies on the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LMWH in treating patients with cancer from January 1980 to October 2018. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding. Our study included two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine observational studies, together comprising 4509 patients with cancer. The pooled estimates indicated that DOACs led to a modest reduction recurrent VTE in the RCTs [RR: 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.96, P = 0.03] and in the observational studies (RR: 0.74, 95% CI, 0.58-0.93, P = 0.011), without increasing the risk of major bleeding for observational studies (P = 0.805), but increased for RCTs (P = 0.017). The same trends were observed in the rivaroxaban subgroup. Moreover, subgroup analyses according to the treatment duration indicated that DOACs significantly reduced the incidence of recurrent VTE (P = 0.006 at 6 months; P < 0.001 at 12 months) without significant differences in major bleeding compared with LMWH at 6 or 12 months. Patients with cancer who received DOACs exhibited a significant reduction in recurrent VTE with no increased risk of major bleeding compared with LMWH. DOACs may be an alternative choice for long-term anticoagulant therapy in patients with cancer.

Atrial Fibrillation in Active Cancer Patients: Expert Position Paper and Recommendations

Improvements in survival among cancer patients have revealed the clinical impact of cardiotoxicity on both cardiovascular and hematological and oncological outcomes, especially when it leads to the interruption of highly effective antitumor therapies. Atrial fibrillation is a common complication in patients with active cancer and its treatment poses a major challenge. These patients have an increased thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk but standard stroke prediction scores have not been validated in this population. The aim of this expert consensus-based document is to provide a multidisciplinary and practical approach to the prevention and treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with active cancer. This is a position paper of the Spanish Cardio-Oncology working group and the Spanish Thrombosis working group, drafted in collaboration with experts from the Spanish Society of Cardiology, the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology, the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology, and the Spanish Society of Hematology.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Cancer and Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Several studies have investigated the effect of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with cancer, but the results remain controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs versus warfarin in this population. Methods and Results We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases until February 16, 2019 for studies comparing the effect of NOACs with warfarin in AF patients with cancer. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were extracted and pooled by a random-effects model. Five studies involving 8908 NOACs and 12 440 warfarin users were included. There were no significant associations between cancer status and risks of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, or death in AF patients. Compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with decreased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.99), venous thromboembolism (RR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.63), and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98) and with borderline significant reductions in ischemic stroke (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00) and major bleeding (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.00). In addition, risks of efficacy and safety outcomes of NOACs versus warfarin were similar between AF patients with and without cancer. Conclusions In patients with AF and cancer, compared with warfarin, NOACs had lower or similar rates of thromboembolic and bleeding events and posed a reduced risk of venous thromboembolism.

Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cancer

Purpose

This review summarizes the available evidence concerning direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use to treat venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer as well as pertinent safety data on the use of DOACs in patients with both cancer and atrial fibrillation.

Summary

The introduction of DOACs into clinical practice changed the way thrombotic complications are managed and prevented in diverse patient populations, including VTE and atrial fibrillation. Low-molecular-weight heparins have been the standard of care for treating VTE in cancer patients due to superiority over vitamin K antagonists in preventing recurrent VTE. Therefore, widespread DOAC use for VTE in patients with active cancer has not been adopted.

Conclusion

Recent randomized clinical trials (SELECT-D, Hokusai VTE Cancer) have provided evidence that DOACs may have a role in treating VTE in cancer patients.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with active malignancy and use of anticoagulants: Under-prescription but no adverse impact on all-cause mortality

Prescription of anticoagulants (ACs) in patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) is challenging and the impact on survival is not defined. In this study data prospectively collected in Oncology Units were retrospectively evaluated. Among 4664 patients admitted for malignancy, 394 patients (8.4%) had documented AF (mean age of 74 ± 9) and AC was prescribed to 155 patients (40%). Neither the type of cancer, the stage of the disease (metastatic or not) nor the ongoing treatments were significantly associated with prescription of AC, which was independently associated with BMI (OR 1.10; CI 95% 1.03-1.17; p = .003), valvular heart disease (OR 3.76; CI95% 1.59-8.87; p = .002), and previous venous thromboembolism (OR 6.67; 95%CI 2.67-16.70; p < .001). During a median follow-up of 212 days, survival from all-cause death was 37%, 28% and 18% at 6 months, 1 and 2 years, respectively. Only variables related to neoplastic disease or to patient clinical complexity were independently associated with mortality. A CHA₂DS₂VASc ≥ 4 was significantly associated with mortality (HR 1.33; 95%CI 1.06-1.67; p = .013). Treatment with ACs was not significantly related to mortality, neither in the whole cohort of patients, nor in patients with metastatic malignancies. In conclusion the prescription of ACs in patients with AF and active cancer was suboptimal, with one fourth of the patients not treated with ACs and one third using LMWH at prophylactic, non-therapeutic doses. Only few variables (BMI, valvular heart disease and previous venous thromboembolism) predicted prescription of ACs. Prescription of ACs was not associated with all-cause mortality, even in the subgroup with metastasis.

Hypertension in malignancy-an underappreciated problem

Hypertension is one of the most common comorbidities in cancer patients with malignancy, in particular, in the elderly. On the other hand, hypertension is a long-term consequence of antineoplastic treatment, including both chemotherapy and targeted agents. Several chemotherapeutics and targeted drugs may be responsible for development or worsening of the hypertension. The most common side effect of anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) treatment is hypertension. However, pathogenesis of hypertension in patients receiving this therapy appears to be associated with multiple pathways and is not yet fully understood. Development of hypertension was associated with improved antitumor efficacy in patients treated with anti-antiangiogenic drugs in some but not in all studies. Drugs used commonly as adjuvants such as steroids, erythropoietin stimulating agents etc, may also cause rise in blood pressure or exacerbate preexisiting hypertension. Hypotensive therapy is crucial to manage hypertension during certain antineoplastic treatment. The choice and dose of antihypertensive drugs depend upon the presence of organ dysfunction, comorbidities, and/or adverse effects. In addition, severity of the hypertension and the urgency of blood pressure control should also be taken into consideration. As there are no specific guidelines on the hypertension treatment in cancer patients we should follow the available guidelines to obtain the best possible outcomes and pay the attention to the individualization of the therapy according to the actual situation.

Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Cardiovascular Toxicity Related to Anti-Cancer Treatment in Clinical Practice: An Opinion Paper from the Working Group on Cardio-Oncology of the Korean Society of Echocardiography

Cardiovascular (CV) toxicity associated with anti-cancer treatment is commonly encountered and raises critical problems that often result in serious morbidity or mortality. Most cardiac toxicities are related to the cumulative dose of chemotherapy; however, the type of chemotherapy, concomitant agents, and/or conventional CV risk factors have been frequently implicated in CV toxicity. Approximately half of the patients exhibiting CV toxicity receive an anthracycline-based regimen. Therefore, serologic biomarkers or cardiac imagings are important during anti-cancer treatment for early detection and the decision of appropriate management of cardiotoxicity. However, given the difficulty in determining a causal relationship, a multidisciplinary collaborative approach between cardiologists and oncologists is required. In this review, we summarize the CV toxicity and focus on the role of cardiac imaging in management strategies for cardiotoxicity associated with anti-cancer treatment.