ABSTRACT

Despite current advancements in chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted treatments, the potential for major adverse cardiovascular events, regardless of previous cardiac history, persists. Scoring systems, such as the Heart Failure Association-International Cardio-Oncology Society (HFA-ICOS) risk assessment tool, can be utilized to evaluate several factors including prior cardiac history, risk factors and cardiac biomarkers to categorize patients into low, moderate, high, and very high-risk groups. Common cardiotoxicity complications include new or worsening left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), QT interval prolongation, myocardial ischaemia, hypertension, thromboembolic disease, cardiac device malfunction and valve disease. Baseline electrocardiogram (ECG) and transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) are routinely performed for all patients commenced on cardiotoxic treatment, while other imaging modalities and biochemical markers have proven useful for monitoring. Management mainly includes early risk stratification and prompt identification of cardiovascular complications, with patient-specific surveillance throughout treatment. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial in determining the relationship between potential treatment benefits and cardiotoxicity, and whether the continuation of treatment is appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Early risk stratification, optimizing the patient's cardiovascular status prior to treatment, and prompt identification of suspected cardiotoxicity are key in significantly reducing risk. This article provides a comprehensive review of the various types of treatment-related cardiotoxicity, offering guidance on identifying high-risk patients, recognizing early signs of cardiotoxicity, and outlining appropriate treatment approaches and follow-up care for such cases.

PMID:37886969 | PMC:PMC10605822 | DOI:10.3390/cimb45100526

19:49

PubMed articles on: Cancer & VTE/PE

Comparison of Direct Oral Anticoagulants versus Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Primary and Metastatic Brain Cancers: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

J Thromb Haemost. 2023 Oct 20:S1538-7836(23)00779-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtha.2023.10.011. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for therapeutic anticoagulation in the setting of primary or metastatic brain cancer is not known.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review of studies that compare the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with brain cancer treated with DOACs vs. LMWH.

METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Summary statistics were obtained by calculating the risk ratio (RR), and heterogeneity across studies was estimated using the I2 statistic. A total of 10 retrospective studies (n=1,638) met criteria for inclusion. The primary endpoint was the pooled RR for ICH in patients with brain tumors receiving anticoagulation with DOACs compared with those receiving LMWH. Secondary analyses included the risk of fatal ICH in each subgroup.

RESULTS: The pooled RR for ICH in patients receiving DOACs vs. those receiving LMWH was 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-1.17; P = 0.15; I2 = 50%). In studies evaluating primary brain cancer, there was a reduction in risk of ICH with DOACs (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18-0.69; P = 0.003; I2 = 0%). In patients with metastatic brain cancer, there was no difference in the risk of ICH with type of anticoagulation (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71-1.56; P = 0.80; I2 = 0%). The overall risk of fatal ICH was not different between anticoagulants.

DISCUSSION: The risk of ICH in patients with brain cancer receiving therapeutic anticoagulation varies by anticoagulation agent and diagnosis of primary or metastatic disease.

PMID:37866517 | DOI:10.1016/j.jtha.2023.10.011

19:49

PubMed articles on: Cancer & VTE/PE

Catheter Directed Thrombectomy and Other Deep Venous Interventions in Cancer Patients

Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2023 Jun;26(2):100900. doi: 10.1016/j.tvir.2023.100900. Epub 2023 Aug 5.

ABSTRACT

Treating cancer patients with deep venous thrombosis/venous thromboembolism (DVT/VTE) can be challenging as patients are frequently unable to receive the standard therapy of anticoagulation due to the increased risk of bleeding complications seen in this population. Similarly, the hesitation of interventionalists to use thrombolytic agents due to bleeding risks limits percutaneous intervention options as well. Further, outcome data and guidelines do not exist for oncologic patients and often treatment is tailored to patient-specific factors after multidisciplinary discussion. This article reviews specific factors to consider when planning percutaneous treatment of cancer patients with DVT/VTE, focusing on the iliocaval system.

PMID:37865450 | DOI:10.1016/j.tvir.2023.100900

19:49

PubMed articles on: Cancer & VTE/PE

Associations Between Immune-Related Venous Thromboembolism and Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2023 Jan-Dec;29:10760296231206799. doi: 10.1177/10760296231206799.