Why the study?
Cancer treatments frequently induce cardiovascular toxicity that impacts clinical outcomes and patient well-being, necessitating multifaceted cardioprotective strategies to mitigate adverse effects.
This review comprehensively describes the mechanisms of cancer therapy-induced cardiotoxicity and highlights the role of cardio-oncology in implementing cardioprotective strategies to improve patient outcomes.
Urges integrated cardio-oncology monitoring during cancer therapy; extends mechanistic understanding but leaves prevention strategies open.
Cancer treatments like chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and combined immunotherapies have significantly increased patient survival. However, these treatments are frequently linked to cardiovascular toxicity, which has a significant impact on clinical outcomes and patient well-being. Chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and radiotherapy induce significant cellular stress in cardiomyocytes and endothelial cells, causing DNA damage, activating pro-inflammatory and pro-apoptotic signalling pathways. Cumulative damage causes cardiomyocyte loss, followed by fibrosis, resulting in pathological structural and functional remodelling of the myocardium. Endothelial cell damage disrupts vascular integrity, increasing the risk of atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease, and ischaemia. Over time, these changes can lead to clinical conditions like dilated and restrictive cardiomyopathy, which are frequently accompanied by arrhythmias and can result in heart failure and sudden cardiac death. To overcome this problem, the novel field of cardio-oncology aims to provide effective cancer treatments with a multifaceted cardioprotection approach involving pharmacological, diagnostic, natural compounds, and lifestyle interventions during and after cancer therapy. In this review, we cover the important cancer therapies, and their cardiotoxic mechanisms and detail different cardioprotective strategies aimed at mitigating these adverse effects and improve patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: