Risk Factors for Heart Failure Among Pan-European Childhood Cancer Survivors: A PanCareSurFup and ProCardio Cohort and Nested Case-Control Study.

PURPOSE Heart failure (HF) is a potentially life-threatening complication of treatment for childhood cancer. We evaluated the risk and risk factors for HF in a large European study of long-term survivors. Little is known of the effects of low doses of treatment, which is needed to improve current treatment protocols and surveillance guidelines. METHODS This study includes the PanCareSurFup and ProCardio cohort of ≥ 5-year childhood cancer survivors diagnosed between 1940 and 2009 in seven European countries (N = 42,361). We calculated the cumulative incidence of HF and conducted a nested case-control study to evaluate detailed treatment-related risk factors. RESULTS The cumulative incidence of HF was 2% (95% CI, 1.7 to 2.2) by age 50 years. The case-control study (n = 1,000) showed that survivors who received a mean heart radiation therapy (RT) dose of 5 to < 15 Gy have an increased risk of HF (odds ratio, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.5 to 12.3), when compared with no heart RT. The risk associated with doses 5 to < 15 Gy increased with exposure of a larger heart volume. In addition, the HF risk increased in a linear fashion with higher mean heart RT doses. Regarding total cumulative anthracycline dose, survivors who received ≥ 100 mg/m2 had a substantially increased risk of HF and survivors treated with a lower dose showed no significantly increased risk of HF. The dose-response relationship appeared quadratic with higher anthracycline doses. CONCLUSION Survivors who received a mean heart RT dose of ≥ 5 Gy have an increased risk of HF. The risk associated with RT increases with larger volumes exposed. Survivors treated with < 100 mg/m2 total cumulative anthracycline dose have no significantly increased risk of HF. These new findings might have consequences for new treatment protocols for children with cancer and for cardiomyopathy surveillance guidelines

Late cardiac events after childhood cancer: Methodological aspects of the pan-european study pancaresurfup

Background and Aim Childhood cancer survivors are at high risk of long-Termadverse effects of cancer and its treatment, including cardiac events. The pan-European PanCareSurFup study determined the incidence and risk factors for cardiac events among childhood cancer survivors. The aim of this article is to describe the methodology of the cardiac cohort and nested case-control study within PanCareSurFup. Methods Eight data providers in Europe participating in PanCareSurFup identified and validated symptomatic cardiac events in their cohorts of childhood cancer survivors. Data onsymptomatic heart failure, ischemia, pericarditis, valvular disease and arrhythmia were collected and graded according to the Criteria for Adverse Events. Detailed treatment data, data on potential confounders, lifestyle related risk factors and general health problems were collected. Results The PanCareSurFup cardiac cohort consisted of 59,915 5-year childhood cancer survivors with malignancies diagnosed between 1940 and 2009 and classified according to the International Classification of Childhood Cancer 3. Different strategies were used to identify cardiac events such as record linkage to population/ hospital or regional based databases, and patient-And general practitioner-based questionnaires. Conclusion The cardiac study of the European collaborative research project PanCareSurFup will provide the largest cohort of 5-year childhood cancer survivors with systematically ascertained and validated data on symptomatic cardiac events. The result of this study can provide information to minimize the burden of cardiac events in childhood cancer survivors by tailoring the follow-up of childhood cancer survivors at high risk of cardiac adverse events, transferring this knowledge into evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and providing a platformfor future research studies in childhood cancer patients. © 2016 Feijen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Risk of subsequent primary oral cancer in a cohort of 69,460 5-year survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer in Europe: the PanCareSurFup study

Background Survivors of childhood cancer are at risk of subsequent primary malignant neoplasms (SPNs), but the risk for rarer types of SPNs, such as oral cancer, is uncertain. Previous studies included few oral SPNs, hence large-scale cohorts are required to identify groups at risks. Methods The PanCareSurFup cohort includes 69,460 5-year survivors of childhood cancer across Europe. Risks of oral SPNs were defined by standardised incidence ratios (SIRs), absolute excess risks and cumulative incidence. Results One hundred and forty-five oral SPNs (64 salivary gland, 38 tongue, 20 pharynx, 2 lip, and 21 other) were ascertained among 143 survivors. Survivors were at 5-fold risk of an oral SPN (95% CI: 4.4-5.6). Survivors of leukaemia were at greatest risk (SIR = 19.2; 95% CI: 14.6-25.2) followed by bone sarcoma (SIR = 6.4, 95% CI: 3.7-11.0), Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR = 6.2, 95% CI: 3.9-9.9) and soft-tissue sarcoma (SIR = 5.0, 95% CI: 3.0-8.5). Survivors treated with radiotherapy were at 33-fold risk of salivary gland SPNs (95% CI: 25.3-44.5), particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR = 66.2, 95% CI: 43.6-100.5) and leukaemia (SIR = 50.5, 95% CI: 36.1-70.7) survivors. Survivors treated with chemotherapy had a substantially increased risk of a tongue SPN (SIR = 15.9, 95% CI: 10.6-23.7). Conclusions Previous radiotherapy increases the risk of salivary gland SPNs considerably, while chemotherapy increases the risk of tongue SPNs substantially. Awareness of these risks among both health-care professionals and survivors could play a crucial role in detecting oral SPNs early.</p

A new method to facilitate valid and consistent grading cardiac events in childhood cancer survivors using medical records

BACKGROUND Cardiac events (CEs) are among the most serious late effects following childhood cancer treatment. To establish accurate risk estimates for the occurrence of CEs it is essential that they are graded in a valid and consistent manner, especially for international studies. We therefore developed a data-extraction form and a set of flowcharts to grade CEs and tested the validity and consistency of this approach in a series of patients. METHODS The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 and 4.0 were used to define the CEs. Forty patients were randomly selected from a cohort of 72 subjects with known CEs that had been graded by a physician for an earlier study. To establish whether the new method was valid for appropriate grading, a non-physician graded the CEs by using the new method. To evaluate consistency of the grading, the same charts were graded again by two other non-physicians, one with receiving brief introduction and one with receiving extensive training on the new method. We calculated weighted Kappa statistics to quantify inter-observer agreement. RESULTS The inter-observer agreement was 0.92 (95% CI 0.80-1.00) for validity, and 0.88 (0.79-0.98) and 0.99 (0.96-1.00) for consistency with the outcome assessors who had the brief introduction and the extensive training, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The newly developed standardized method to grade CEs using data from medical records has shown excellent validity and consistency. The study showed that the method can be correctly applied by researchers without a medical background, provided that they receive adequate training

Guidance to bone morbidity in children and adolescents undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is widely performed in children and adolescents with hematologic diseases, including very high-risk leukemia. With increasing success and survival rates, the long-term sequelae of HSCT have become important. Here, we provide guidance to the prevention and treatment of the most common bone morbidities—osteoporosis and osteonecrosis—emerging in the context of HSCT in children and adolescents. We give an overview on definitions, symptoms, and diagnostics and propose an algorithm for clinical practice based on discussions within the International Berlin Frankfurt Münster (BFM) Stem Cell Transplantation Committee and the Pediatric Disease Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, our expert knowledge, and a literature review

Flowchart heart failure.

<p>1a. The first question is <i>“Symptoms¹?”</i>, “number 1″ refers to block 1 under the step diagram, in this block symptoms of heart failure are shown, so the user knows which symptoms could occur; When the answer is “NO”. 1b. Is the <i>“EF<40%-20% or the FS<15%”</i> YES grade 3 heart failure. NO grade ≤2 heart failure. When the answer is “YES” Go to question “Responsive to intervention²?” 2. Question <i>“Responsive to intervention²?”</i>, block 2 in which common interventions for heart failure are shown; When the answer is “NO” grade 4 heart failure. When the answer is “YES” grade 3 heart failure. When it is “UNKNOWN” go to question “ <i>Device³, life threatening consequences⁴ or heart transplant?”</i>. 3. Question “ Device³, life threatening consequences⁴ or heart transplant?”, block 3 under the step diagram, in this block devices used as treatment for heart failure are shown. In block 4 the life threatening consequences associated with heart failure are stated; When the answer is “NO” grade 3 heart failure. When the answer is “YES” grade 4 heart failure. Ref. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0100432#pone.0100432-Dickstein1" target="_blank">[10]</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0100432#pone.0100432-McMurray1" target="_blank">[11]</a>. ICD-10 = International classification of disease version 10. EF = ejection fraction. SF = shortening fraction. CRT-P or D = cardiac resynchronisation therapy pacemaker or defibrillator. ICD = implantable cardioverse defibrillator. LVAD = left ventricular assistance device.</p

Definitions of cardiac events (using CTCAEv3.0 and CTCAEv4.0).

<p>Definitions of cardiac events (using CTCAEv3.0 and CTCAEv4.0).</p

Result second consistency assessment (non-physician (NP) vs non-physician (extensive training) (NPE)).

<p>Result second consistency assessment (non-physician (NP) vs non-physician (extensive training) (NPE)).</p