The GISSI Story (1983–1996): A Comprehensive Review

n/

Causes of death in women with breast cancer: a risks and rates study on a population-based cohort

IntroductionThe increasing survival of patients with breast cancer has prompted the assessment of mortality due to all causes of death in these patients. We estimated the absolute risks of death from different causes, useful for health-care planning and clinical prediction, as well as cause-specific hazards, useful for hypothesis generation on etiology and risk factors.Materials and methodsUsing data from population-based cancer registries we performed a retrospective study on a cohort of women diagnosed with primary breast cancer. We carried out a competing-cause analysis computing cumulative incidence functions (CIFs) and cause-specific hazards (CSHs) in the whole cohort, separately by age, stage and registry area.ResultsThe study cohort comprised 12,742 women followed up for six years. Breast cancer showed the highest CIF, 13.71%, and cardiovascular disease was the second leading cause of death with a CIF of 3.60%. The contribution of breast cancer deaths to the CIF for all causes varied widely by age class: 89.25% in women diagnosed at age <50 years, 72.94% in women diagnosed at age 50–69 and 48.25% in women diagnosed at age ≥70. Greater CIF variations were observed according to stage: the contribution of causes other than breast cancer to CIF for all causes was 73.4% in women with stage I disease, 42.9% in stage II–III and only 13.2% in stage IV. CSH computation revealed temporal variations: in women diagnosed at age ≥70 the CSH for breast cancer was equaled by that for cardiovascular disease and “other diseases” in the sixth year following diagnosis, and an early peak for breast cancer was identified in the first year following diagnosis. Among women aged 50–69 we identified an early peak for breast cancer followed by a further peak near the second year of follow-up. Comparison by geographic area highlighted conspicuous variations: the highest CIF for cardiovascular disease was more than 70% higher than the lowest, while for breast cancer the highest CIF doubled the lowest.ConclusionThe integrated interpretation of absolute risks and hazards suggests the need for multidisciplinary surveillance and prevention using community-based, holistic and well-coordinated survivorship care models

Current Data and Future Perspectives on Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an increasingly recognized comorbidity in patients with cancer. Indeed, cancer patients have a significantly higher incidence of AF than that observed in the general population. A reciprocal relationship between these two diseases has been observed, as much as some assume AF to be a marker for occult cancer screening, especially in older adults. The pathophysiological mechanisms are many and varied, including the underlying pro-inflammatory state, specific treatments (chemo- and radiotherapy), and surgery. The therapeutic management of patients with cancer and AF involves the same rhythm and frequency control strategies as the general population; however, the numerous interactions with chemotherapeutics, which lead to a significant increase in side effects, as well as the extreme fragility of the patient, should be considered. Anticoagulant therapy is also a complex challenge to address, as bleeding and stroke risk scores have not been fully assessed in this subpopulation. Furthermore, in large studies establishing the efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), cancer patients have been underrepresented. In this review, we elaborate on the mechanisms linking AF to cancer patients with a particular focus on the therapeutic challenges in this population

Screening and management of dyslipidemia in oncologic patients undergoing cardiotoxic therapies: results from an Italian survey

Abstract Background Baseline cardiovascular risk factors correction is recommended in all cancer patients undergoing potentially cardiotoxic therapies. Despite available guidelines, real-world data on dyslipidemia prevalence and management in the oncologic population are still sparse. Methods This survey was an Italian, investigator-initiated survey initially designed and drafted by the Cardio-Oncology section of the Associazione Nazionale Medici Cardiologi Ospedalieri (ANMCO), comprising 10 individual multi-choice questions and spread after validation through the ANMCO mailing list. The survey was sent to cardiologists working in cardio-oncology units and/or managing patients with cancer. Results Our survey included 139 Italian cardiologists. The majority of them routinely ask for the baseline lipidic profile of their patients, regardless of previous clinical history and planned treatment. According to our participants, the estimated prevalence of dyslipidemia in this population is between 20% and 60%. Although this high prevalence, our results highlight that there is poor harmony in terms of scores for CV risk prediction used in clinical practice to guide drug prescription and baseline therapy optimization. On the same line, coronary artery calcium score is poorly used in this setting. At the same time, more than 30% of interrogated physicians do not prescribe adequate statin doses, even though necessary, and have uncertainties on the use of other anti-dyslipidemic drugs in this population. Conclusions Our results highlight the necessity of strong evidences on dyslipidemia screening and management in the cancer population, as well as the need of knowledge diffusion from scientific societies to clinicians treating these patients

Everolimus immunosuppression in de novo heart transplant recipients: What does the evidence tell us now?

The efficacy of everolimus with reduced cyclosporine in de novo heart transplant patients has been demonstrated convincingly in randomized studies. Moreover, everolimus-based immunosuppression in de novo heart transplant recipients has been shown in two randomized trials to reduce the increase in maximal intimal thickness based on intravascular ultrasound, indicating attenuation of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV). Randomized trials of everolimus in de novo heart transplantation have also consistently shown reduced cytomegalovirus infection versus antimetabolite therapy. In maintenance heart transplantation, conversion from calcineurin inhibitors to everolimus has demonstrated a sustained improvement in renal function. In de novo patients, a renal benefit may only be achieved if there is an adequate reduction in exposure to calcineurin inhibitor therapy. Delayed introduction of everolimus may be appropriate in patients at high risk of wound healing complications, e.g. diabetic patients or patients with ventricular assist device. The current evidence base suggests that the most convincing reasons for use of everolimus from the time of heart transplantation are to slow the progression of CAV and to lower the risk of cytomegalovirus infection. A regimen of everolimus with reduced-exposure calcineurin inhibitor and steroids in de novo heart transplant patients represents a welcome addition to the therapeutic armamentarium

Cancer survivorship at heart: a multidisciplinary cardio-oncology roadmap for healthcare professionals

In cancer, a patient is considered a survivor from the time of initial diagnosis until the end of life. With improvements in early diagnosis and treatment, the number of cancer survivors (CS) has grown considerably and includes: (1) Patients cured and free from cancer who may be at risk of late-onset cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity (CTR-CVT); (2) Patients with long-term control of not-curable cancers in whom CTR-CVT may need to be addressed. This paper highlights the importance of the cancer care continuum, of a patient-centered approach and of a prevention-oriented policy. The ultimate goal is a personalized care of CS, achievable only through a multidisciplinary-guided survivorship care plan, one that replaces the fragmented management of current healthcare systems. Collaboration between oncologists and cardiologists is the pillar of a framework in which primary care providers and other specialists must be engaged and in which familial, social and environmental factors are also taken into account

HCF-ANMCO/AICPR/GIEC/ITAHFA/SICOA/SICP/SIMG/SIT Cardiological Societies Council Consensus document: Anticoagulant therapy in venous thromboembolism and atrial fibrillation of the patient with cancer. Current knowledge and new evidence

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis, either symptomatic or incidental, is a common complication in the history of cancer disease. The risk of VTE is 4-7-fold higher in oncology patients, and it represents the second leading cause of death, after cancer itself. In cancer patients, compared with the general population, VTE therapy is associated with higher rates of recurrent thrombosis and/or major bleeding. The need for treatment of VTE in patients with cancer is a challenge for the clinician because of the multiplicity of types of cancer, the disease stage and the imbricated cancer treatment. Historically, in cancer patients, low molecular weight heparins have been preferred for treatment of VTE. More recently, in large randomized clinical trials, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) demonstrated to reduce the risk of VTE. However, in the "real life", uncertainties remain on the use of DOACs, especially for the bleeding risk in patients with gastrointestinal cancers and the potential drug-to-drug interactions with specific anticancer therapies.In cancer patients, atrial fibrillation can arise as a perioperative complication or for the side effect of some chemotherapy agents, as well as a consequence of some associated risk factors, including cancer itself. The current clinical scores for predicting thrombotic events (CHA2DS2-VASc) or for predicting bleeding (HAS-BLED), used to guide antithrombotic therapy in the general population, have not yet been validated in cancer patients. Encouraging data for DOAC prescription in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer are emerging: recent post-hoc analysis showed safety and efficacy of DOACs for the prevention of embolic events compared to warfarin in cancer patients. Currently, anticoagulant therapy of cancer patients should be individualized with multidisciplinary follow-up and frequent reassessment. This consensus document represents an advanced state of the art on the subject and provides useful notes on clinical practice