Why the study?
Cardio-oncology research faces challenges in data generalizability, comparability, and granularity, and the Cardio-Oncology Core Outcome Set (COS-CO) has never been formally validated.
Does the Cardio-Oncology Core Outcome Set (COS-CO) provide accurate and feasible diagnostic performance for detecting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in cancer patients?
Observational (n=144)
Does the Cardio-Oncology Core Outcome Set (COS-CO) provide accurate and feasible diagnostic performance for detecting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in cancer patients?
The Cardio-Oncology Core Outcome Set (COS-CO) is a clinically feasible tool with acceptable sensitivity and negative predictive value for detecting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support COS-CO 'Red Flag' screening in cardio-oncology; hypothesis-generating pending prospective validation.
Background & Aims Cardio-oncology research faces particular practical challenges, many originating from its multidisciplinarity, tracing back to data generalizability, comparability and granularity. A Cardio-Oncology Core Outcome Set (COS-CO) has been developed to facilitate standardized data collection and comparison, but has never formally undergone validation. Methods This retrospective observational study assessed construct validity and diagnostic performance of COS-CO for cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity (CTR-CVT) detection in a real-world cancer patient population who underwent standard-of-care surveillance at a cardio-oncology clinic. We identified Red Flag parameters to highlight high-risk patients and compared these to CTR-CVT diagnoses, and calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Registration completeness of COS-CO parameters was evaluated to assess feasibility. Results We included 144 patients (54.2% male, mean age 61.2(±15.2)y). Most common cancers were breast (20.8%), melanoma (18.1%) and prostate cancer (13.2%). Pre-existing cardiovascular disease was present in 32.6%. We diagnosed 66 CTR-CVT cases and 99 patients were flagged as high-risk in COS-CO (≥1 Red Flag parameter) of whom 57 were CTR-CVT cases. Sensitivity of this 'Red Flag' approach was 86.4%, specificity 46.2%, PPV 57.6% and NPV 80.0%. We observed a positive likelihood ratio of 1.61 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.29. For standalone COS-CO parameters, high specificity was observed but sensitivity was low. In standard-of-care, 82.8% of COS-CO parameters were registered (average 12.4, median 13/15). Conclusion COS-CO appears to be a feasible clinical tool, fit for universal application at cardio-oncology clinics with acceptable sensitivity and NPV for CTR-CVT detection using a multiparametric approach. Further research is required to identify the most prognostically relevant COS-CO parameters and the subpopulation where COS-CO is most predictive. Clinical feasibility of COS-CO registration is high, allowing incorporation in standard care without significant additional time investment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kemp et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Cancer patients under cardio-oncology surveillance (n=144). Cardio-Oncology Core Outcome Set (COS-CO) 'Red Flag' parameters vs. Clinical diagnosis (reference standard) was evaluated on Detection of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity (CTR-CVT) (Sensitivity 86.4%, Specificity 46.2%, PPV 57.6%, NPV 80.0%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: