Cancer and cardiovascular (CV) disease are the most prevalent diseases in the developed world. Evidence increasingly shows that these conditions are interlinked through common risk factors, coincident in an ageing population, and are connected biologically through some deleterious effects of anticancer treatment on CV health. Anticancer therapies can cause a wide spectrum of short-and long-term cardiotoxic effects. An explosion of novel cancer therapies has revolutionised this field and dramatically altered cancer prognosis. Nevertheless, these new therapies have introduced unexpected CV complications beyond heart failure. Common CV toxicities related to cancer therapy are defined, along with suggested strategies for prevention, detection and treatment. This ESMO consensus article proposes to define CV toxicities related to cancer or its therapies and provide guidance regarding prevention, screening, monitoring and treatment of CV toxicity. The majority of anticancer therapies are associated with some CV toxicity, ranging from asymptomatic and transient to more clinically significant and long-lasting cardiac events. It is critical however, that concerns about potential CV damage resulting from anticancer therapies should be weighed against the potential benefits of cancer therapy, including benefits in overall survival. CV disease in patients with cancer is complex and treatment needs to be individualised. The scope of cardio-oncology is wide and includes prevention, detection, monitoring and treatment of CV toxicity related to cancer therapy, and also ensuring the safe development of future novel cancer treatments that minimise the impact on CV health. It is anticipated that the management strategies discussed herein will be suitable for the majority of patients. Nonetheless, the clinical judgment of physicians remains extremely important; hence, when using these best clinical practices to inform treatment options and decisions, practitioners should also consider the individual circumstances of their patients on a case-by-case basis.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are the two leading causes of death worldwide. Although commonly thought of as two separate disease entities, CVD and cancer possess various similarities and possible interactions, including a number of similar risk factors (e.g. obesity, diabetes), suggesting a shared biology for which there is emerging evidence. While chronic inflammation is an indispensible feature of the pathogenesis and progression of both CVD and cancer, additional mechanisms can be found at their intersection. Therapeutic advances, despite improving longevity, have increased the overlap between these diseases, but there are now millions of cancer survivors at risk of developing CVD. Cardiac risk factors have a major impact on subsequent treatment-related cardiotoxicity. In this review, we explore the risk factors common to both CVD and cancer, highlighting the major epidemiologic studies and potential biological mechanisms that account for them.

The discipline of Cardio-Oncology has seen tremendous growth over the past decade. It is devoted to the cardiovascular (CV) care of the cancer patient, especially to the mitigation and management of CV complications or toxicities of cancer therapies, which can have profound implications on prognosis. To that effect, many studies have assessed CV toxicities in patients undergoing various types of cancer therapies; however, direct comparisons have proven difficult due to lack of uniformity in CV toxicity endpoints. Similarly, in clinical practice, there can be substantial differences in the understanding of what constitutes CV toxicity, which can lead to significant variation in patient management and outcomes. This document addresses these issues and provides consensus definitions for the most commonly reported CV toxicities, including cardiomyopathy/heart failure and myocarditis, vascular toxicity, and hypertension, as well as arrhythmias and QTc prolongation. The current document reflects a harmonizing review of the current landscape in CV toxicities and the definitions used to define these. This consensus effort aims to provide a structure for definitions of CV toxicity in the clinic and for future research. It will be important to link the definitions outlined herein to outcomes in clinical practice and CV endpoints in clinical trials. It should facilitate communication across various disciplines to improve clinical outcomes for cancer patients with CV diseases.

BackgroundThe prevalence of metastatic bone disease in the US population is not well understood. We sought to estimate the current number of US adults with metastatic bone disease using two large administrative data sets.MethodsPrevalence was estimated from a commercially insured cohort (ages 18–64 years, MarketScan database) and from a fee-for-service Medicare cohort (ages ≥65 years, Medicare 5% database) with coverage on December 31, 2008, representing approximately two-thirds of the US population in each age group. We searched for claims-based evidence of metastatic bone disease from January 1, 2004, using a combination of relevant diagnosis and treatment codes. The number of cases in the US adult population was extrapolated from age- and sex-specific prevalence estimated in these cohorts. Results are presented for all cancers combined and separately for primary breast, prostate, and lung cancer.ResultsIn the commercially insured cohort (mean age = 42.3 years [SD = 13.1]), we identified 9505 patients (0.052%) with metastatic bone disease. Breast cancer was the most common primary tumor type (n = 4041). In the Medicare cohort (mean age = 75.6 years [SD = 7.8]), we identified 6427 (0.495%) patients with metastatic bone disease. Breast (n = 1798) and prostate (n = 1862) cancers were the most common primary tumor types. We estimate that 279,679 (95% confidence interval: 274,579–284,780) US adults alive on December 31, 2008, had evidence of metastatic bone disease in the previous 5 years. Breast, prostate, and lung cancers accounted for 68% of these cases.ConclusionOur findings suggest that approximately 280,000 US adults were living with metastatic bone disease on December 31, 2008. This likely underestimates the true frequency; not all cases of metastatic bone disease are diagnosed, and some diagnosed cases might lack documentation in claims data.

BACKGROUNDPosttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) remain an uncommon complication of solid organ transplantation with a high mortality rate reported after conventional therapies. Alternative treatments such as rituximab have been explored.METHODSEleven patients with PTLD, who were CD20 positive, received an intravenous dose of rituximab, 375 mg/m2, weekly × 4 weeks, repeated every 6 months for 2 years in responding patients. The median age of the patients was 56 years (range, 43–68 yrs), and 9 patients were male. The type of solid organ transplantation that these patients received included lung (five patients), kidney (four patients), heart (one patient), and kidney/pancreas (one patient). The median time from transplantation to a PTLD diagnosis was 9 months (range, 1–122 mos). Diagnostic B‐cell histology was diffuse large cell lymphoma or polymorphous process. No patient had bone marrow or central nervous system involvement. Primary extranodal disease was noted in 82% of patients. Immunosuppressive therapy was decreased at the time of diagnosis.RESULTSRituximab was well tolerated, with mild infusional blood pressure alterations noted in two patients. The median follow‐up period was 10 months (range, 1–32 mos). The overall response rate was 64%, with 6 complete responses (CR), 1 partial response, 2 cases of progressive disease, and 2 deaths. The median duration of CR was 8 months (range, 2–19+ mos). The median time to treatment failure was 10 months (range, 5–25+ mos). The median survival was 14 months (range, < 1–32+ mos). Four patients were alive at the time of last follow‐up.CONCLUSIONSSingle‐agent rituximab may offer a response and survival advantage in patients with PTLD. Further evaluation of rituximab in these disorders, potentially in combination with other therapies, is warranted. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

PURPOSE: Pre-menopausal women with cancer are at risk of therapy-associated infertility, premature menopause, and sexual dysfunction. However, it is unknown whether oncologists adequately address these risks during treatment planning. We conducted a study to evaluate physician-patient discussions addressing the impact of cancer treatment and actual treatment effects on fertility, menopause status, and general sexual health.METHODS: A questionnaire was administered in four oncology clinics specializing in breast, gynecologic, general hematology-oncology, and blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) cancer care at a single institution. Eligible participants were pre-menopausal at the time of diagnosis and either actively receiving or within 24 months from completion of treatment. Participants completed the questionnaire at enrollment and at 1-year follow-up.RESULTS: Of the 104 eligible women, a majority were satisfied with the quality (68%) and length (66%) of reproductive health discussions, with the highest satisfaction levels in the gynecologic cancer clinic (85%) and the lowest levels in the BMT clinic (53%). Fertility preservation was desired by 20% of women, including some >40 years old. Women were more interested in discussing treatment impact on menopause status and sexual health than fertility. Rates of discussions on treatment impact on sexual health were low despite 77% of women reporting severe sexual dysfunction at 1-year follow-up.CONCLUSIONS: One-third of women are dissatisfied with the quality and length of discussions regarding the impact of cancer treatment on reproductive health. There is notably inadequate counseling on the effect of treatment on fertility in women > 40 and on sexual function in all women. Oncologists must offer better resources and improve communication on the effect of treatment on reproductive health to pre-menopausal women with cancer.

Long-term survivors of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are at risk for loss of bone mineral density (BMD) and subsequent osteoporosis. There is a lack of clear guidelines for the screening, prevention and treatment of bone loss after HCT. We reviewed the prevailing literature and provide guidelines developed by our center for the screening and management of this complication. Bone loss occurs predominantly within the first 6-12 months after autologous and allogeneic HCT. Recovery first occurs in the lumbar spine and is followed by a slower recovery of BMD in the femoral neck. BMD may not return to baseline levels in patients with continuing exposure to corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors. All HCT recipients should be advised general interventions to reduce fracture risk including adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D. We recommend screening all adult allogeneic and autologous HCT recipients with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry 1 year after transplantation. Patients at high risk for bone loss (for example, patients receiving ≥ 5 mg of prednisone equivalent daily for> 3 months) can be screened earlier (for example, 3-6 months after HCT). Where indicated, bisphosphonates or other anti-resorptive agents (for example, calcitonin) can be used for prevention or treatment of osteoporosis in adult HCT recipients. Pediatric HCT recipients should be referred to a pediatric endocrinologist for evaluation and treatment of bone loss. There remain several areas of uncertainty that need further research in adult and pediatric HCT recipients, such as the optimal timing and frequency of screening for loss of bone mineral density, relationship of bone loss with risk of fractures, selection of appropriate patients for pharmacologic therapy, and optimal dosing schedule and duration of therapy with anti-resorptive agents.

AWS occurs in approximately 50% of women following breast cancer surgery. It can persist for 18 months and potentially longer, develop beyond the early postoperative time period, and reoccur after resolution. Clinicians need to be aware of the chronicity of AWS and its association with reduced range of motion and function.