Cardiovascular disease is a competing cause of death in patients with cancer with early-stage disease. This elevated cardiovascular disease risk is thought to derive from both the direct effects of cancer therapies and the accumulation of risk factors such as hypertension, weight gain, cigarette smoking, and loss of cardiorespiratory fitness. Effective and viable strategies are needed to mitigate cardiovascular disease risk in this population; a multimodal model such as cardiac rehabilitation may be a potential solution. This statement from the American Heart Association provides an overview of the existing knowledge and rationale for the use of cardiac rehabilitation to provide structured exercise and ancillary services to cancer patients and survivors. This document introduces the concept of cardio-oncology rehabilitation, which includes identification of patients with cancer at high risk for cardiac dysfunction and a description of the cardiac rehabilitation infrastructure needed to address the unique exposures and complications related to cancer care. In this statement, we also discuss the need for future research to fully implement a multimodal model of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with cancer and to determine whether reimbursement of these services is clinically warranted.

PURPOSE To provide guidance on exercise, diet, and weight management during active cancer treatment in adults. METHODS A systematic review of the literature identified systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of aerobic and resistance exercise, specific diets and foods, and intentional weight loss and avoidance of weight gain in adults during cancer treatment, on quality of life, treatment toxicity, and cancer control. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to May 2021. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS The evidence base consisted of 52 systematic reviews (42 for exercise, nine for diet, and one for weight management), and an additional 23 randomized controlled trials. The most commonly studied types of cancer were breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal. Exercise during cancer treatment led to improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, strength, fatigue, and other patient-reported outcomes. Preoperative exercise in patients with lung cancer led to a reduction in postoperative length of hospital stay and complications. Neutropenic diets did not decrease risk of infection during cancer treatment. RECOMMENDATIONS Oncology providers should recommend regular aerobic and resistance exercise during active treatment with curative intent and may recommend preoperative exercise for patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer. Neutropenic diets are not recommended to prevent infection in patients with cancer during active treatment. Evidence for other dietary and weight loss interventions during cancer treatment was very limited. The guideline discusses special considerations, such as exercise in individuals with advanced cancer, and highlights the critical need for more research in this area, particularly regarding diet and weight loss interventions during cancer treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

IMPORTANCESedentary behavior is associated with several health outcomes, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality. Less is known about the association between objectively measured sedentary behavior and cancer mortality, as well as the association with physical activity.OBJECTIVE To examine the association between accelerometer-measured sedentary behavior (total volume and accrual in prolonged, uninterrupted bouts) and cancer mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA prospective cohort study conducted in the contiguous US included 8002 black and white adults aged 45 years or older enrolled in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study. The present analysis was performed from April 18, 2019, to April 21, 2020.EXPOSURES Sedentary time, light-intensity physical activity (LIPA), and moderate-to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) were measured using a hip-mounted accelerometer worn for 7 consecutive days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Cancer mortality.RESULTS Of the 8002 study participants, 3668 were men (45.8%); mean (SD) age was 69.8 (8.5) years. Over a mean (SD) follow-up of 5.3 (1.5) years, 268 participants (3.3%) died of cancer. In multivariable-adjusted models, including MVPA, greater total sedentary time was associated with a greater risk of cancer mortality (tertile 2 vs tertile 1: hazard ratio [HR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.00-2.11; tertile 3 vs tertile 1: HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.01-2.27). Longer sedentary bout duration was not significantly associated with greater cancer mortality risk: after adjustment for MVPA (tertile 2 vs tertile 1: HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.90-1.78; tertile 3 vs tertile 1: HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.96-1.93). Replacing 30 minutes of sedentary time with LIPA was significantly associated with an 8% (per 30 minutes: HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97) lower risk of cancer mortality; MVPA was significantly associated with a 31% (per 30 minutes: HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97) lower risk of cancer mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this cohort study, greater sedentary time, as measured with accelerometry, appeared to be independently associated with cancer mortality risk. Replacing sedentary time with either LIPA or MVPA may be associated with a lower risk of cancer mortality. These findings suggest that the total volume of sedentary behavior is a potential cancer mortality risk factor and support the public health message that adults should sit less and move more to promote longevity.

Among 29,701 Black and White participants aged 45 years and older in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Difference in Stroke (REGARDS) study, allostatic load (AL) was defined as the sum score of established baseline risk-associated biomarkers for which participants exceeded a set cutoff point. Cox proportional hazard regression was utilized to determine the association of AL score with all-cause and cancer-specific mortality, with analyses stratified by body-mass index, age group, and race. At baseline, Blacks had a higher AL score compared with Whites (Black mean AL score: 2.42, SD: 1.50; White mean AL score: 1.99, SD: 1.39; p < 0.001). Over the follow-up period, there were 4622 all-cause and 1237 cancer-specific deaths observed. Every unit increase in baseline AL score was associated with a 24% higher risk of all-cause (HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.22, 1.27) and a 7% higher risk of cancer-specific mortality (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.12). The association of AL with overall- and cancer-specific mortality was similar among Blacks and Whites and across age-groups, however the risk of cancer-specific mortality was higher among normal BMI than overweight or obese participants. In conclusion, a higher baseline AL score was associated with increased risk of all-cause and cancer-specific mortality among both Black and White participants. Targeted interventions to patient groups with higher AL scores, regardless of race, may be beneficial as a strategy to reduce all-cause and cancer-specific mortality.

In a large cohort of generally healthy men, there is an attenuation of CVD risk at all CAC levels with higher CRF.

A new diagnosis of cancer is associated with a substantially increased short-term risk of cerebrovascular events.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment in outpatients with cancer and pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in selected patients at high risk for VTE. Although validated risk stratification tools are available, < 10% of oncologists use a risk assessment tool, and rates of VTE prophylaxis in high-risk patients are low in practice. We hypothesized that implementation of a systems-based program that uses the electronic health record (EHR) and offers personalized VTE prophylaxis recommendations would increase VTE risk assessment rates in patients initiating outpatient chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTEPACC) was a multidisciplinary program implemented by nurses, oncologists, pharmacists, hematologists, advanced practice providers, and quality partners. We prospectively identified high-risk patients using the Khorana and Protecht scores (≥ 3 points) via an EHR-based risk assessment tool. Patients with a predicted high risk of VTE during treatment were offered a hematology consultation to consider VTE prophylaxis. Results of the consultation were communicated to the treating oncologist, and clinical outcomes were tracked. RESULTS: A total of 918 outpatients with cancer initiating cancer-directed therapy were evaluated. VTE monthly education rates increased from < 5% before VTEPACC to 81.6% (standard deviation [SD], 11.9; range, 63.6%-97.7%) during the implementation phase and 94.7% (SD, 4.9; range, 82.1%-100%) for the full 2-year postimplementation phase. In the postimplementation phase, 213 patients (23.2%) were identified as being at high risk for developing a VTE. Referrals to hematology were offered to 151 patients (71%), with 141 patients (93%) being assessed and 93.8% receiving VTE prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: VTEPACC is a successful model for guideline implementation to provide VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis to prevent cancer-associated thrombosis in outpatients. Methods applied can readily translate into practice and overcome the current implementation gaps between guidelines and clinical practice.

Background Cardio‐oncology is a clinical discipline focused primarily on the early detection of anticancer therapy–related cardiomyopathy. However, there is growing evidence that the direct adverse consequences extend beyond the myocardium to affect the vasculature, but this evidence remains limited. In addition, there remains a paucity of clinically based strategies for monitoring vascular toxicity in these patients. Importantly, arterial stiffness is increasingly recognized as a surrogate end point for cardiovascular disease and may be an important vascular outcome to consider. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to summarize evidence of increased arterial stiffening with anticancer therapy and evaluate the effect of treatment modifiers. Methods and Results A total of 19 longitudinal and cross‐sectional studies that evaluated arterial stiffness both during and following anticancer therapy were identified using multiple databases. Two separate analyses were performed: baseline to follow‐up (12 studies) and control versus patient groups (10 studies). Subgroup analysis evaluated whether stiffness differed as a function of treatment type and follow‐up time. Standard mean differences and mean differences were calculated using random effect models. Significant increases in arterial stiffness were identified from baseline to follow‐up (standard mean difference, 0.890; 95% CI , 0.448–1.332; P <0.0001; mean difference, 1.505; 95% CI , 0.789–2.221; P ≤0.0001) and in patient versus control groups (standard mean difference, 0.860; 95% CI , 0.402–1.318; P =0.0002; mean difference, 1.437; 95% CI , 0.426–2.448; P =0.0052). Subgroup analysis indicated differences in arterial stiffness between anthracycline‐based and non‐anthracycline‐based therapies (standard mean difference, 0.20; 95% CI , 0.001–0.41; P =0.048), but not follow‐up time. Conclusions Significant arterial stiffening occurs following anticancer therapy. Our findings support the use of arterial stiffness as part of a targeted vascular imaging strategy for the identification of early cardiovascular injury during treatment and for the detection of long‐term cardiovascular injury into survivorship.