Key result
Dexrazoxane was associated with a reduced risk of lower left ventricular function among long-term childhood cancer survivors treated with doxorubicin (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.08-0.96).
Why the study?
Dexrazoxane shows cardioprotective effects in doxorubicin-treated childhood cancer survivors up to 5 years after therapy, but longer-term data are lacking.
Does dexrazoxane improve long-term left ventricular function and biomarkers in childhood cancer survivors treated with doxorubicin?
RCT (n=173)
Masked
Randomly assigned
Yes
Does dexrazoxane improve long-term left ventricular function and biomarkers in childhood cancer survivors treated with doxorubicin?
Odds Ratio: 0.27 (95% CI 0.08–0.96)
Dexrazoxane provides long-term cardioprotection, preserving LV systolic function and reducing myocardial wall stress >17 years after doxorubicin treatment in childhood cancer survivors.
May support long-term LV preservation with dexrazoxane in survivors; extends observational data but leaves open need for prospective confirmation.
10513 Background: Dexrazoxane (DRZ) has cardioprotective effects among doxorubicin (DOX) treated childhood cancer survivors up to 5 years after therapy. However, longer-term data are lacking. Methods: P9404, P9425, P9426, and DFCI 95-01 were randomized trials of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Hodgkin lymphoma, where patients were randomly assigned to DOX±DRZ. P9754 enrolled osteosarcoma patients who all received DOX+DRZ. In all studies, DRZ was given as an intravenous bolus before DOX (10:1mg ratio). DOX doses ranged from 100-600 mg/m 2 across these 5 trials. A subset of COG institutions prospectively assessed cardiac function in long-term survivors from these trials, plus a matched group of osteosarcoma survivors treated with DOX alone. Echocardiograms (left ventricular [LV] Biplane ejection fraction [EF], shortening fraction [SF]) and blood biomarkers (b-type natriuretic peptides [BNP], N-terminal [NT] proBNP) were all analyzed centrally, with DRZ status masked. Lower LV function was defined as EF<50% or SF<30%. T-test, rank-sum, and multivariate regression adjusted for sex, cancer diagnosis age, current age, DOX dose, and chest radiotherapy were used to examine differences and associations by DRZ status. Results: Among 173 participants assessed (52% DRZ+; 54% male; mean DOX 294±96 mg/m 2 ) 17.6±2.4y since cancer diagnosis, DRZ+ participants were slightly younger (27.8 vs 29.6y, p=0.02), but baseline characteristics otherwise did not differ significantly by DRZ status. DRZ status was associated with higher FS (34.7±3.6% vs 33.4±4.3%, p=0.04) and EF (63.4±5.4% vs 61.4±5.5%, p=0.01), and lower BNP (median 10.4 pg/mL [IQR 6.0-18.0] vs 13.0 [IQR 6.0-28.2], p=0.03) and NT-proBNP (median 30.8 pg/mL [IQR 18.9-58.2] vs 47.1 [IQR 23.0-83.1], p<0.01). In stratified analyses, the cardioprotective effects associated with DRZ tended to be more pronounced in females (vs males) and those who received DOX ≥300 mg/m 2 (vs <300mg/m 2 ). Results from multivariate models were similar: DRZ was associated with higher SF (1.4% [95% CI 0.2, 2.6]) and EF (2.7% [95% CI 0.8, 4.6]), and reduced BNP (-4.0 pg/mL [95% CI -7.6, -0.4]) and NT-proBNP (-20.7 pg/mL [95% CI -33.5, -7.9]). Overall, DRZ was associated with a reduced risk of having lower LV function (odds ratio 0.27 [95% CI 0.08-0.96]). Conclusions: After >17y, childhood cancer survivors treated with DOX+DRZ had better LV systolic function and less myocardial wall stress compared with those treated with DOX alone. DRZ may preferentially benefit females and those treated with greater DOX doses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chow et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Childhood cancer survivors (n=173). Dexrazoxane vs. Doxorubicin alone was evaluated on Lower left ventricular function (ejection fraction <50% or shortening fraction <30%) (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.96). Dexrazoxane was associated with a reduced risk of lower left ventricular function among long-term childhood cancer survivors treated with doxorubicin (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.08-0.96).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: