Cardiovascular Considerations Before Cancer Therapy: Gaps in Evidence and JACC: CardioOncology Expert Panel Recommendations.

Baseline cardiovascular assessment before the initiation of potentially cardiotoxic cancer therapies is a key component of cardio-oncology, aiming to reduce cardiovascular complications and morbidity in patients and survivors. Recent clinical practice guidelines provide both general and cancer therapy-specific recommendations for baseline cardiovascular toxicity risk assessment and management, including the use of dedicated risk scores, cardiovascular imaging, and biomarker testing. However, the value of such interventions in altering disease trajectories has not been established, with many recommendations based on expert opinion or Level of Evidence: C, studies with a potential for high risk of bias. Advances in understanding underlying mechanisms of cardiotoxicity and the increased availability of genetic and immunologic profiling present new opportunities for personalized risk assessment. This paper evaluates the existing evidence on cardiovascular care of cancer patients before cardiotoxic cancer therapy and highlights gaps in evidence and priorities for future research.

The impact of continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment on people living with multiple myeloma-a single-centre, qualitative service evaluation study.

PURPOSE: Continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment after autologous stem cell transplantation delivers improvement in progression free and overall survival among newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients and has been the standard of care in the UK since March 2021. However, there is scant information about its impact on patients' day-to-day lives. This service evaluation aimed to qualitatively assess patients receiving lenalidomide treatment at a cancer centre in London, in order that the service might better align with needs and expectations of patients. METHODS: We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews among myeloma patients who were on continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment at a specialist cancer centre in London. Members of the clinical team identified potentially eligible participants to take part, and convenience sampling was used to select 10 male and 10 female patients, median age of 58 (range, 45-71). The median treatment duration was 11 months (range, 1-60 months). Participants were qualitatively interviewed following the same semi-structured interview guide, which was designed to explore patient experience and insights of lenalidomide. Reflexive thematic analysis was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Four overarching themes were as follows: (i) lenalidomide: understanding its role and rationale; (ii) reframing the loss of a treatment-free period to a return to normal life; (iii) the reality of being on lenalidomide: balancing hopes with hurdles; (iv) gratitude and grievances: exploring mixed perceptions of care and communication. Results will be used to enhance clinical services by tailoring communication to better meet patients' preferences when making treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that most patients feel gratitude for being offered continuous lenalidomide and perceive it as alleviating some fears concerning relapse. It reveals variations in side effects in different age groups; younger patients reported no/negligible side effects, whilst several older patients with comorbidities described significant symptom burden, occasionally leading to treatment discontinuation which caused distress at the perceived loss of prolonged remission. Future research should prioritise understanding the unique needs of younger patients living with multiple myeloma.

Impact of timing of stem cell return following high dose melphalan in multiple myeloma patients with renal impairment: a single center experience.

High dose melphalan (HDM) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains the standard consolidation in transplant eligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. The timing between HDM administration and hematopoietic stem cell return (HSCR) varies among institutions, with a 'rest period' of 48 hours (h) employed by some for patients with renal impairment (RI). We investigated the differences in hematopoietic recovery and HDM toxicity between MM patients with RI who had HSCR after 24 vs 48 h from HDM. Fifty MM patients with RI (48 h group; n = 31 and 24 h group; n = 19) were included. No statistically significant differences were noted in surrogates for hematopoietic recovery and HDM toxicity between both groups. Only one death occurred in the 24 h group. No patients required renal replacement therapy. Therefore, a 24 h period between HDM and AHSC infusion appears safe for MM patients with RI.