21st Century Cardio-Oncology: Identifying Cardiac Safety Signals in the Era of Personalized Medicine.

Cardiotoxicity is a well-established complication of oncology therapies. Cardiomyopathy resulting from anthracyclines is a classic example. In the past decade, an explosion of novel cancer therapies, often targeted and more specific than traditional therapies, has revolutionized oncology therapy and dramatically changed cancer prognosis. However, some of these therapies have introduced an assortment of cardiovascular (CV) complications. At times, these devastating outcomes have only become apparent after drug approval and have limited the use of potent therapies. There is a growing need for better testing platforms, both for CV toxicity screening, as well as for elucidating mechanisms of cardiotoxicities of approved cancer therapies. This review discusses the utility of nonclinical models (in vitro, in vivo, & in silico) available and highlights recent advancements in modalities like human stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes for developing more comprehensive cardiotoxicity testing and new means of cardioprotection with targeted anticancer therapies

Cardio-Oncology: Vascular and Metabolic Perspectives: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardio-oncology has organically developed as a new discipline within cardiovascular medicine as a result of the cardiac and vascular adverse sequelae of the major advances in cancer treatment. Patients with cancer and cancer survivors are at increased risk of vascular disease for a number of reasons. First, many new cancer therapies, including several targeted therapies, are associated with vascular and metabolic complications. Second, cancer itself serves as a risk factor for vascular disease, especially by increasing the risk for thromboembolic events. Finally, recent data suggest that common modifiable and genetic risk factors predispose to both malignancies and cardiovascular disease. Vascular complications in patients with cancer represent a new challenge for the clinician and a new frontier for research and investigation. Indeed, vascular sequelae of novel targeted therapies may provide insights into vascular signaling in humans. Clinically, emerging challenges are best addressed by a multidisciplinary approach in which cardiovascular medicine specialists and vascular biologists work closely with oncologists in the care of patients with cancer and cancer survivors. This novel approach realizes the goal of providing superior care through the creation of cardio-oncology consultative services and the training of a new generation of cardiovascular specialists with a broad understanding of cancer treatments

Myocarditis Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: An Expert Consensus on Data Gaps and a Call to Action.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the treatment landscape for cancer. Due to the mechanism of action of ICIs, inflammatory reactions against normal tissue were an anticipated side effect of these agents; these immune-related adverse events have been documented and are typically low grade and manageable. Myocarditis has emerged as an uncommon but potentially life-threatening adverse reaction in patients treated with ICIs. Assessment and characterization of ICI-associated myocarditis is challenging because of its low incidence and protean manifestations. Nevertheless, the seriousness of ICI-associated myocarditis justifies a coordinated effort to increase awareness of this syndrome, identify patients who may be at risk, and enable early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. The Checkpoint Inhibitor Safety Working Group, a multidisciplinary committee of academic, industry, and regulatory partners, convened at a workshop hosted by Project Data Sphere, LLC, on December 15, 2017. This meeting aimed to evaluate the current information on ICI-associated myocarditis, determine methods to collect and share data on this adverse reaction, and establish task forces to close the identified knowledge gaps. In this report, we summarize the workshop findings and proposed steps to address the impact of ICI-associated myocarditis in patients with cancer

Updated standardized definitions for efficacy endpoints in adjuvant breast cancer clinical trials: STEEP Version 2.0

Purpose The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007, provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer clinical trial end points. Given the evolution of breast cancer clinical trials and improvements in outcomes, a panel of experts reviewed the STEEP criteria to determine whether modifications are needed.Methods We conducted systematic searches of ClinicalTrials.gov for adjuvant systemic and local-regional therapy trials for breast cancer to investigate if the primary end points reported met STEEP criteria. On the basis of common STEEP deviations, we performed a series of simulations to evaluate the effect of excluding non-breast cancer deaths and new nonbreast primary cancers from the invasive disease-free survival end point.Results Among 11 phase III breast cancer trials with primary efficacy end points, three had primary end points that followed STEEP criteria, four used STEEP definitions but not the corresponding end point names, and four used end points that were not included in the original STEEP manuscript. Simulation modeling demonstrated that inclusion of second nonbreast primary cancer can increase the probability of incorrect inferences, can decrease power to detect clinically relevant efficacy effects, and may mask differences in recurrence rates, especially when recurrence rates are low.Conclusion We recommend an additional end point, invasive breast cancer-free survival, which includes all invasive disease-free survival events except second nonbreast primary cancers. This end point should be considered for trials in which the toxicities of agents are well-known and where the risk of second primary cancer is small. Additionally, we provide end point recommendations for local therapy trials, low-risk populations, noninferiority trials, and trials incorporating patient-reported outcomes

Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: NeoSTEEP.

PURPOSE: The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS: The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes-both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points-particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS: The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor-positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION: End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison