Key result
Multimodal risk stratification refines cardio-oncology assessment, but randomized hard-outcome evidence remains limited.
Why the study?
Conventional cardiovascular risk scores do not fully capture treatment-related cardiovascular risk in oncology populations, limiting effective risk stratification.
A precision cardio-oncology approach that integrates biomarkers and multimodality imaging provides complementary information to refine cardiovascular risk stratification and detect subclinical dysfunction in cancer patients.
Should not yet guide routine surveillance in cancer patients; leaves open whether integrated assessment improves hard outcomes.
Cardiovascular disease and cancer frequently coexist, and cardiovascular toxicity can limit the delivery of effective anticancer therapy and influence long-term outcomes. Conventional cardiovascular risk scores were not designed for oncology populations and do not fully capture treatment-related risk. This narrative review examines how clinical assessment, circulating biomarkers, and multimodality imaging can be combined to refine cardiovascular risk stratification before, during, and after cancer treatment. High-sensitivity cardiac troponins and natriuretic peptides provide complementary information on myocardial injury and hemodynamic stress, whereas echocardiography with global longitudinal strain enables detection of subclinical dysfunction before a fall in left ventricular ejection fraction. Cardiac magnetic resonance, cardiac computed tomography, and selected nuclear imaging techniques provide additional tissue, coronary, vascular, and inflammatory characterization when clinically indicated. Recent validation studies support treatment-specific risk assessment, but important limitations remain, including variable biomarker thresholds, incomplete external validation of risk models, inter-vendor variability in strain measurements, and limited randomized evidence that surveillance strategies improve hard clinical outcomes. A practical precision cardio-oncology approach should therefore integrate baseline risk, treatment exposure, serial biomarker trends, and appropriately selected imaging rather than rely on a single test.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sabouret et al. (2026) conducted a review in Cardiovascular disease and cancer. Integrating biomarkers and multimodality imaging was evaluated. Integrating clinical assessment, biomarkers, and multimodality imaging refines cardiovascular risk stratification in cancer patients, though randomized evidence for hard outcomes is limited.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: