Key result
Cardio-oncology referral is linked to ~67% lower CAC prevalence versus conventional cardiology clinics.
Why the study?
The utility of coronary artery calcium detected on routine chest CT for coronary artery disease screening in cancer patients with heart disease was uncertain.
Does the presence and burden of coronary artery calcium on routine chest CT differ between patients referred to a cardio-oncology clinic compared to general cardiology and general clinic populations?
Observational (n=249)
Readers blinded to clinical information
No
Does the presence and burden of coronary artery calcium on routine chest CT differ between patients referred to a cardio-oncology clinic compared to general cardiology and general clinic populations?
Odds Ratio: 0.334 (95% CI 0.12–0.96)
Absolute Event Rate: 42% vs 48%
p-value: p=0.04
Patients referred to a cardio-oncology clinic have a similar or lower burden of coronary artery calcium on routine chest CT compared to general clinic and conventional cardiology patients, respectively.
Lower CAC burden in cardio-oncology vs cardiology referrals; leaves open whether CAC screening utility differs in cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: The presence and burden of coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a strong predictor of cardiovascular events. In an effort to gain insight into the utility of CAC for coronary artery disease (CAD) screening in cancer patients with heart disease, we sought to determine the presence and burden of CAC detected on routine chest CT in patients referred to a cardio-oncology clinic, comparing them to a conventional cardiology clinic with the general population as controls. METHODS: Patients from the cardio-oncology clinic, general cardiology clinic, and the general clinic population at Rush University Medical Center who had a chest CT as part of their previous treatment were identified. Each CT scan was evaluated for presence, extent, and severity of CAC by 3 independent readers. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, when compared with cardio-oncology clinic, CAC was more prevalent in the CT scans of cardiology patients (p = 0.04), but not the general clinic population (p = 0.5); CAC extent (p = 0.05) and severity (p = 0.05) was significantly higher in the cardiology patients but the extent (p = 0.05) and severity (p = 0.92) was similar in the general clinic population. CONCLUSION: Despite being matched by age and sex, controlling for other major cardiovascular risk factors, patients referred to our cardio-oncology clinic had similar and less prevalent/severe CAC burden compared with the general population and conventional cardiology clinics respectively. Whether this translates to less utility of CAC for CAD screening, or to less overall coronary events in a cardio-oncology clinic, is of interest.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brann et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Cancer with cardiovascular risk or disease (n=249). Cardio-oncology clinic referral vs. Conventional cardiology clinic was evaluated on Presence of coronary artery calcium (CAC) on chest CT (OR 0.334, 95% CI 0.12-0.96, p=0.04). Patients referred to a cardio-oncology clinic had a significantly lower prevalence of coronary artery calcium compared to a conventional cardiology clinic (OR 0.334), but similar prevalence to the general clinic population.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: