Key result
Circulating cardiac biomarkers are promising for detecting cardiotoxicity in cancer patients and will likely change the approach for identifying patients at risk.
Why the study?
Do circulating cardiac biomarkers improve the early detection of cardiotoxicity in cancer patients compared to standard LVEF assessment?
Do circulating cardiac biomarkers improve the early detection of cardiotoxicity in cancer patients compared to standard LVEF assessment?
Circulating cardiac biomarkers offer a promising approach for the early identification of cardiotoxicity in cancer patients, potentially overcoming the limitations of relying solely on LVEF reduction.
Heightened vigilance for LVEF decline is warranted with cardiotoxic cancer therapies; leaves open optimal monitoring strategies.
Improvements in therapies have significantly changed survival of cancer patients. However, the clinical history and oncologic treatment put cancer patients at higher risk for developing cardiovascular problems. Anthracyclines, but also the targeted therapy and angiogenesis inhibitors, are all treatments associated with cardiotoxicity. The most common adverse event is a reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction that may progress to overt heart failure. Recognition of a cardiac impairment during or after a potential cardiotoxic treatment requires a stringent assessment of clinical symptoms and signs of heart failure associated with an evaluation of the left ventricular ejection fraction, which, however, detects the damage already installed. Circulating cardiac biomarkers are promising in detecting cardiotoxicity and will likely change the approach for identifying patients at risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salvatici et al. (2015) conducted a review in Cardiotoxicity in cancer patients. Circulating cardiac biomarkers was evaluated. Circulating cardiac biomarkers are promising for detecting cardiotoxicity in cancer patients and will likely change the approach for identifying patients at risk.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: