Key result
Multimodal imaging and multi-omics show promise for predicting cardiotoxicity, but lack external validation.
Why the study?
Current cardio-oncology clinical assessment tools rely on limited clinical data, and there is potential to leverage multimodal data for personalized prediction and assessment of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity.
Integrating multimodal imaging and omics data offers a promising precision approach to predicting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity, but significant barriers to clinical implementation remain.
Multimodal predictors may refine CTR-CVT risk stratification; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity (CTR-CVT) is associated with morbidity, mortality, and interruptions to cancer treatment. Current cardio-oncology clinical assessment tools generally rely on a limited range of clinical data; however, in the era of precision medicine, it may be possible to leverage multimodal data, including imaging and multi-omic inputs, to personalise CTR-CVT prediction and assessment. In this review, we examine the genotypic and phenotypic predictors of CTR-CVT and the evidence supporting their incorporation into multimodal risk models. Most research focuses on cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD). We identify a strong evidence base for multimodal imaging-guided prediction, particularly cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)-derived global longitudinal strain measurements. Emerging evidence also supports the potential value of novel imaging parameters, including computed tomography (CT) and TTE-derived radiomic features. From the genomic and proteomic perspective, truncating titin variants and microRNA-126 may be informative predictors of cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD). At the same time, the literature also highlights potential epigenomic markers of CTR-CVT. Finally, we consider how these diverse data can be integrated into multimodal risk models and how digital innovation and advanced machine learning methods may further improve model predictive performance. However, a large implementation gap remains, with challenges such as data privacy and a lack of external validation studies preventing routine clinical implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simela et al. (2026) conducted a review in Cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity. Multimodal risk models and predictors (imaging and multi-omics) was evaluated. Multimodal approaches incorporating advanced imaging and multi-omic inputs show promise for predicting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity, though external validation is lacking.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: