Abstract Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment but are associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including potentially life-threatening cardiovascular (CV) complications. Despite class IIa guideline recommendations for follow-up troponin monitoring, the predictive value of high-sensitivity troponin I (hs-TnI) remains underexplored. Objective To evaluate the predictive value of follow-up hs-TnI for clinical outcomes in patients treated with ICIs. Methods A retrospective, single-center, observational study including patients treated with ICIs and performing hs-TnI measurements following the 1st ICIs cycle. A hs-TnI level 50ng/L was considered abnormal, adopted by Siemens recommendations cutoff. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoint was CV irAEs, defined as the composite of myocarditis, pericarditis, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and arrhythmias. Results The cohort included 621 patients, with a mean age of 69±12 years, and was predominantly male (64%). Lung cancer was the most common malignancy (20%), and pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) was the most frequently used ICIs (65%). Baseline cardiovascular (CV) risk factors were common, including hypertension (48%), diabetes mellitus (24%), and hyperlipidemia (38%), while ischemic heart disease was present in 22% of patients. Sixty-two patients (10%) presented with abnormal follow-up hs-TnI. During follow-up, abnormal hs-TnI was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.816 95% CI = 1.302-2.532, p 0.001) and increased incidence of CV irAEs (adjusted HR 2.395 95% CI = 1.277-4.492, p = 0.006). Conclusions Follow-up hs-TnI emerged as a significant independent predictor for all-cause mortality and CV irAEs in patients treated with ICIs. These findings highlight the clinical utility of serial hs-TnI monitoring for early risk stratification. Prospective, multicenter studies are warranted to validate these results and optimize CV monitoring strategies in this population.
Perelman et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: