Key result
Developing a cardio-oncology program at a stand-alone cancer center presents unique opportunities and challenges regarding resource allocation, testing availability, and provider education.
This review provides practical guidance on establishing a cardio-oncology program at an independent cancer center based on the Moffitt Cancer Center experience.
Clinicians at stand-alone cancer centers should weigh local resources before program launch; this review leaves open optimal implementation models.
Cardio-oncology is a multidisciplinary field focusing on the management and prevention of cardiovascular complications in cancer patients and survivors. While the initial focus of this specialty was on heart failure associated with anthracycline use, novel anticancer agents are increasingly utilized and are associated with many other cardiotoxicities including hypertension, arrhythmias and vascular disease. Since its inception, the field has developed at a rapid pace with the establishment of programs at many major academic institutions and community practices. Given the complexities of this patient population, it is important for providers to possess knowledge of not only cardiovascular disease but also cancer subtypes and their specific therapeutics. Developing a cardio-oncology program at a stand-alone cancer center can present unique opportunities and challenges when compared to those affiliated with other institutions including resource allocation, cardiovascular testing availability and provider education. In this review, we present our experiences establishing the cardio-oncology program at Moffitt Cancer Center and provide guidance to those individuals interested in developing a program at a similar independent cancer institution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fradley et al. (2017) conducted a review in Cardiovascular complications in cancer patients. Cardio-oncology program development was evaluated. Developing a cardio-oncology program at a stand-alone cancer center presents unique opportunities and challenges regarding resource allocation, testing availability, and provider education.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: