Prevention of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anthracyclines are extensively used in oncologic patients, in particular for breast cancer and hematological malignancies. Cardiac injury is a potentially dangerous side effect of these drugs. In this systematic review, we analyzed published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess if potential cardioprotective drugs (i.e., renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system [RAAS] blockers and \u3b2-blockers) may prevent heart damage by anthracyclines. Studies were identified by electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE database until August 2020. The impact of cardioprotective drugs to prevent anthracyclines-induced cardiac injury was expressed as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. Twelve RCTs for a total of 1.035 cancer patients treated with anthracyclines were included. RAAS blockers, \u3b2-blockers, and aldosterone antagonists showed a statistically significant benefit in preventing left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reduction (MD 3.57, 95% CI 1.04, 6.09) in 11 studies. A non-statistically significant difference was observed in preventing E/A velocity decrease (MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.00, 0.17; 9 studies), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) increase (MD\u2009-\u20090.88, 95% CI,\u2009-\u20092.75,0.99; 6 studies), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) increase (MD -0.95, 95% CI\u2009-\u20092.67,0.76; 6 studies), and mitral A velocity decrease (MD\u2009-\u20091.42, 95% CI\u2009-\u20093.01,0.17; 4 studies). Heart failure was non-significantly reduced in the cardioprotective arm (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06, 1.59; 5 studies). Hypotension was non-significantly increased in the cardioprotective arm (OR 3.91, 95% CI 0.42, 36.46, 3 studies). Cardioprotective drugs reduce anthracycline-induced cardiac damage as assessed by echocardiographic parameters. The clinical relevance of this positive effect is still to be defined

Clinicians’ and Patients’ Perceptions and Use of the Word “Cured” in Cancer Care: An Italian Survey

Background. The words “hope” and “cure” were used in a greater number of articles and sentences in narrative and editorial papers than in primary research. Despite concomitant improvements in cancer outcomes, the related reluctance to use these terms in more scientifically oriented original reports may reflect a bias worthy of future exploration. This study aims to survey a group of physicians and cancer patients regarding their perception and use of the word cure. Materials and Method. An anonymous online and print survey was conducted to explore Italian clinicians’ (the sample includes medical oncologists, radiotherapists, and oncological surgeons) and cancer patients’ approach to the perception and use of the word “cure” in cancer care. The participants received an email informing them of the study’s purpose and were invited to participate in the survey via a linked form. A portion, two-thirds, of questionnaires were also administered to patients in the traditional paper form. Results. The survey was completed by 224 clinicians (54 oncologists, 78 radiotherapists, and 92 cancer surgeons) and 249 patients. The results indicate a favourable attitude for patients in favour of a new language (“cured” vs. “complete remission”) of the disease experience. Conclusions. The use of the word cured is substantially accepted and equally shared by doctors and patients. Its use can facilitate the elimination of metaphoric implications and toxic cancer-related connotations registered in all cultures that discourage patients from viewing cancer as a disease with varied outcomes, including cure

Clinicians’ and Patients’ Perceptions and Use of the Word “Cured” in Cancer Care: An Italian Survey

Background. The words “hope” and “cure” were used in a greater number of articles and sentences in narrative and editorial papers than in primary research. Despite concomitant improvements in cancer outcomes, the related reluctance to use these terms in more scientifically oriented original reports may reflect a bias worthy of future exploration. This study aims to survey a group of physicians and cancer patients regarding their perception and use of the word cure. Materials and Method. An anonymous online and print survey was conducted to explore Italian clinicians’ (the sample includes medical oncologists, radiotherapists, and oncological surgeons) and cancer patients’ approach to the perception and use of the word “cure” in cancer care. The participants received an email informing them of the study’s purpose and were invited to participate in the survey via a linked form. A portion, two-thirds, of questionnaires were also administered to patients in the traditional paper form. Results. The survey was completed by 224 clinicians (54 oncologists, 78 radiotherapists, and 92 cancer surgeons) and 249 patients. The results indicate a favourable attitude for patients in favour of a new language (“cured” vs. “complete remission”) of the disease experience. Conclusions. The use of the word cured is substantially accepted and equally shared by doctors and patients. Its use can facilitate the elimination of metaphoric implications and toxic cancer-related connotations registered in all cultures that discourage patients from viewing cancer as a disease with varied outcomes, including cure

Manual of Cardio-oncology Cardiovascular Care in the Cancer Patient

This concise and handy manual provides straightforward, up-to-date guidance for cardiologists and other practitioners on the management of cancer patients with cardiac problems, whether they be due to the cancer itself or to antineoplastic treatment. Detailed attention is devoted to the various forms of cardiotoxicity associated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The drugs commonly responsible for each toxicity are identified and clear advice is offered on monitoring techniques and treatment approaches. In addition, the issue of cardiotoxicity due to cancer treatment in particular patient groups \u2013 children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiac disease \u2013 is addressed separately, with guidance on when and how antineoplastic (and/or cardiological) treatments should be modified. Further sections describe the correct responses to cardiac problems secondary to the cancer itself, including thromboembolic disorders and electrolyte imbalances, and the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of cardiac tumors. A closing section considers how to improve cooperation between oncologists, cardiologists, and general practitioners to ensure that cancer patients\u2019 cardiovascular needs are met in a multidisciplinary approach