Next Generation Risk Markers in Preventive Cardio-oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are the first and second most common causes of death within the USA. It is well established that a diagnosis of cancer increases risk and predisposes the patient to CVD, and vice versa. Despite these associations, cancer is not yet incorporated into current CVD risk calculators, necessitating additional CV risk markers for improved stratification in this at-risk population. In this review, we consider the utility of breast arterial calcification (BAC), coronary artery calcification (CAC), clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), and cancer and cancer treatment in CVD risk assessment.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is evidence supporting the use of BAC, CAC, CHIP, and cancer and cancer treatment for improved CV risk stratification in patients with cancer and those who are being screened for cancer. BAC has been shown to predict CAC, coronary atherosclerotic plaque on coronary CTA, coronary artery stenosis on coronary angiography, and CVD events and accordingly enhances CVD risk stratification beyond the atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk pooled cohort equation. Additionally, CAC visualized on CT utilized for lung cancer screening, radiation planning, and cancer staging is predictive of coronary artery disease (CAD). Furthermore, CHIP can also be utilized in risk stratification, as the presence of CHIP carries a 40% increase in CV risk independent of traditional CV risk factors. Finally, cancer and many oncologic therapies confer a lifelong increased risk of CVD. We propose an emerging set of tools to be incorporated into the routine continuum of CVD risk assessment in individuals who have been treated for cancer or who are being screened for cancer development. In this review, we discuss BAC, CAC, CHIP, and cancer and cancer treatment as emerging risk markers in cardiovascular health assessment. Their effectiveness in predicting and influencing the burden of CVD will be discussed, along with suggestions on their incorporation into preventive cardio-oncology practice. Future research will focus on short- and long-term CVD outcomes in these populations.

A new classification of cardio-oncology syndromes

Increasing evidence suggests a multifaceted relationship exists between cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Here, we introduce a 5-tier classification system to categorize cardio-oncology syndromes (COS) that represent the aspects of the relationship between cancer and CVD. COS Type I is characterized by mechanisms whereby the abrupt onset or progression of cancer can lead to cardiovascular dysfunction. COS Type II includes the mechanisms by which cancer therapies can result in acute or chronic CVD. COS Type III is characterized by the pro-oncogenic environment created by the release of cardiokines and high oxidative stress in patients with cardiovascular dysfunction. COS Type IV is comprised of CVD therapies and diagnostic procedures which have been associated with promoting or unmasking cancer. COS Type V is characterized by factors causing systemic and genetic predisposition to both CVD and cancer. The development of this framework may allow for an increased facilitation of cancer care while optimizing cardiovascular health through focused treatment targeting the COS type.

A virtual-hybrid approach to launching a cardio-oncology clinic during a pandemic

BACKGROUND

As cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in cancer survivors, the new subspecialty of Cardio-Oncology has emerged to address prevention, monitoring, and management of cardiovascular toxicities to cancer therapies. During the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we developed a Virtual-Hybrid Approach to build a de novo Cardio-Oncology Clinic.

METHODS

We conceptualized a Virtual-Hybrid Approach including three arms: information seeking in locations with existing Cardio-Oncology clinics, information gathering at the location for a new clinic, and information sharing to report clinic-building outcomes. A retrospective review of outcomes included collection and synthesis of data from our first 3 months (at pandemic peak) on types of appointments, cancers, drugs, and cardiotoxicities. Data were presented using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A de-novo Cardio-Oncology clinic was developed structured from the ground up to integrate virtual and in-person care in a hybrid and innovative model, using the three arms of the Virtual-Hybrid Approach. First, we garnered in-person and virtual preparation through hands-on experiences, training, and discussions in existing Cardio-Oncology Clinics and conferences. Next, we gleaned information through virtual inquiry and niche-building. With partners throughout the institution, a virtual referral process was established for outpatient referrals and inpatient e-consult referrals to actualize a hybrid care spectrum for our patients administered by a multidisciplinary hybrid care team of clinicians, ancillary support staff, and clinical pharmacists. Among the multi-subspecialty clinic sessions, approximately 50% were in Cardio-Oncology, 20% in Preventive Cardiology, and 30% in General Cardiology. In the hybrid model, the Heart & Vascular Center had started to re-open, allowing for 65% of our visits to be in person. In additional analyses, the most frequent cardiovascular diagnosis was cardiomyopathy (34%), the most common cancer drug leading to referral was trastuzumab (29%), and the most prevalent cancer type was breast cancer (42%).

CONCLUSION

This Virtual-Hybrid Approach and retrospective review provides guidance and information regarding initiating a brand-new Cardio-Oncology Clinic during the pandemic for cancer patients/survivors. This report also furnishes virtual resources for patients, virtual tools for oncologists, cardiologists, and administrators tasked with starting new clinics during the pandemic, and innovative future directions for this digital pandemic to post-pandemic era.