Hand grip strength in patients with advanced cancer: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Hand grip strength (HGS) is a widely used functional test for the assessment of strength and functional status in patients with cancer, in particular with cancer cachexia. The aim was to prospectively evaluate the prognostic value of HGS in patients with mostly advanced cancer with and without cachexia and to establish reference values for a European-based population. METHODS: In this prospective study, 333 patients with cancer (85% stage III/IV) and 65 healthy controls of similar age and sex were enrolled. None of the study participants had significant cardiovascular disease or active infection at baseline. Repetitive HGS assessment was performed using a hand dynamometer to measure the maximal HGS (kilograms). Presence of cancer cachexia was defined when patients had ≥5% weight loss within 6 months or when body mass index was <20.0 kg/m2 with ≥2% weight loss (Fearon's criteria). Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to assess the relationship of maximal HGS to all-cause mortality and to determine cut-offs for HGS with the best predictive power. We also assessed associations with additional relevant clinical and functional outcome measures at baseline, including anthropometric measures, physical function (Karnofsky Performance Status and Eastern Cooperative of Oncology Group), physical activity (4-m gait speed test and 6-min walk test), patient-reported outcomes (EQ-5D-5L and Visual Analogue Scale appetite/pain) and nutrition status (Mini Nutritional Assessment). RESULTS: The mean age was 60 ± 14 years; 163 (51%) were female, and 148 (44%) had cachexia at baseline. Patients with cancer showed 18% lower HGS than healthy controls (31.2 ± 11.9 vs. 37.9 ± 11.6 kg, P < 0.001). Patients with cancer cachexia had 16% lower HGS than those without cachexia (28.3 ± 10.1 vs. 33.6 ± 12.3 kg, P < 0.001). Patients with cancer were followed for a mean of 17 months (range 6-50), and 182 (55%) patients died during follow-up (2-year mortality rate 53%) (95% confidence interval 48-59%). Reduced maximal HGS was associated with increased mortality (per -5 kg; hazard ratio [HR] 1.19; 1.10-1.28; P < 0.0001; independently of age, sex, cancer stage, cancer entity and presence of cachexia). HGS was also a predictor of mortality in patients with cachexia (per -5 kg; HR 1.20; 1.08-1.33; P = 0.001) and without cachexia (per -5 kg; HR 1.18; 1.04-1.34; P = 0.010). The cut-off for maximal HGS with the best predictive power for poor survival was <25.1 kg for females (sensitivity 54%, specificity 63%) and <40.2 kg for males (sensitivity 69%, specificity 68%). CONCLUSIONS: Reduced maximal HGS was associated with higher all-cause mortality, reduced overall functional status and decreased physical performance in patients with mostly advanced cancer. Similar results were found for patients with and without cancer cachexia.

Cardiovascular health-related quality of life in cancer: a prospective study comparing the ESC HeartQoL and EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

AIMS: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is highly relevant in cancer and often assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30. Cardiovascular HRQoL in cancer can be measured with the ESC HeartQoL questionnaire. We compared these instruments and examined their prognostic value. METHODS AND RESULTS: Summary scores for EORTC QLQ-C30 (0-100 points) and ESC HeartQoL (0-3 points) questionnaires were prospectively assessed in 290 patients with mostly advanced cancer (stage 3/4: 81%, 1-year mortality: 36%) and 50 healthy controls (similar age and sex). Additionally, physical function and activity assessments were performed. Both questionnaires demonstrated reduced HRQoL in patients with cancer versus controls (EORTC QLQ-C30: 67 ± 20 vs. 91 ± 11, p < 0.001; ESC HeartQoL: 1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 2.7 ± 0.4, p < 0.001). The instruments were strongly correlated with each other (summary scores [r = 0.76], physical [r = 0.81], and emotional subscales [r = 0.75, all p < 0.001]) and independently associated with all-cause mortality (best cut-offs: EORTC QLQ-C30 <82.69: hazard ratio [HR] 2.33, p = 0.004; ESC HeartQoL <1.50: HR 1.85, p = 0.004 - adjusted for sex, age, left ventricular ejection fraction, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP], high-sensitivity troponin T, cancer stage/type), with no differences in the strength of the association by sex (p-interaction > 0.9). Combining both questionnaires identified three risk groups with highest mortality in patients below both cut-offs (vs. patients above both cut-offs: HR 3.60, p < 0.001). Patients with results below both cut-offs, showed higher NT-proBNP and reduced physical function and activity. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC QLQ-C30 and ESC HeartQoL - assessing cancer and cardiovascular HRQoL - are both associated with increased mortality in cancer patients, with even greater stratification by combing both. Reduced HRQoL scores were associated with elevated cardiovascular biomarkers and decreased functional status.

Cardiovascular and metabolic determinants of quality of life in patients with cancer.

AIMS: Maintaining quality of life (QoL) in patients with cancer has gathered significant interest, but little is known about its major determinants. We sought to identify determinants of QoL in patients undergoing cancer treatment as well as in treatment-naïve patients about to commence such therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: QoL was assessed in 283 patients with cancer using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 questionnaire. All patients underwent a battery of tests including physical examination, resting electrocardiogram, hand grip strength, and biochemistry assessment. Using multivariable logistic regression, we found that age [odds ratio (OR) 0.954, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.916-0.994], resting heart rate (OR 1.036, 95% CI 1.004-1.068), hand grip strength (OR 0.932, 95% CI 0.878-0.990), and the presence of cachexia (OR 4.334, 95% CI 1.767-10.631) and dyspnoea (OR 3.725, 95% CI 1.540-9.010; all P < 0.05) remained independently predictive of reduced QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, it may be reasonable to address circumstances that are affecting muscle mass, body weight, and heart rate to maintaining QoL; however, prospective studies to test these endpoints are required.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction according to the HFA-PEFF score in COVID-19 patients: clinical correlates and echocardiographic findings.

AIMS: Viral-induced cardiac inflammation can induce heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)-like syndromes. COVID-19 can lead to myocardial damage and vascular injury. We hypothesised that COVID-19 patients frequently develop a HFpEF-like syndrome, and designed this study to explore this. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cardiac function was assessed in 64 consecutive, hospitalized, and clinically stable COVID-19 patients from April-November 2020 with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50% (age 56 ± 19 years, females: 31%, severe COVID-19 disease: 69%). To investigate likelihood of HFpEF presence, we used the HFA-PEFF score. A low (0-1 points), intermediate (2-4 points), and high (5-6 points) HFA-PEFF score was observed in 42%, 33%, and 25% of patients, respectively. In comparison, 64 subjects of similar age, sex, and comorbidity status without COVID-19 showed these scores in 30%, 66%, and 4%, respectively (between groups: P = 0.0002). High HFA-PEFF scores were more frequent in COVID-19 patients than controls (25% vs. 4%, P = 0.001). In COVID-19 patients, the HFA-PEFF score significantly correlated with age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), haemoglobin, QTc interval, LVEF, mitral E/A ratio, and H2 FPEF score (all P < 0.05). In multivariate, ordinal regression analyses, higher age and hsTnT were significant predictors of increased HFA-PEFF scores. Patients with myocardial injury (hsTnT ≥14 ng/L: 31%) vs. patients without myocardial injury, showed higher HFA-PEFF scores [median 5 (interquartile range 3-6) vs. 1 (0-3), P < 0.001] and more often showed left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (75% vs. 27%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients frequently show high likelihood of presence of HFpEF that is associated with cardiac structural and functional alterations, and myocardial injury. Detailed cardiac assessments including echocardiographic determination of left ventricular diastolic function and biomarkers should become routine in the care of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

ECG Scoring for the Evaluation of Therapy-Naïve Cancer Patients to Predict Cardiotoxicity.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new electrocardiographic (ECG) score reflecting domains of electrical and structural alterations in therapy-naïve cancer patients to assess their risk of cardiotoxicity. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 134 therapy-naïve consecutive cancer patients in our two university hospitals concerning four ECG score parameters: Contiguous Q-waves, markers of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, QRS duration and JTc prolongation. Cardiotoxicity was assessed after a short-term follow-up (up to 12 months). RESULTS: Of all the patients (n = 25), 19% reached 0 points, 50% (n = 67) reached 1 point, 25% (n = 33) reached 2 points, 5% (n = 7) reached 3 points and 0.7% reached 4 or 5 points (n = 1 respectively). The incidence of cardiotoxicity (n = 28 [21%]) increased with the ECG score, with 0 points at 0%, 1 point 7.5%, 2 points 55%, 3 points 71% and ≥3 points 50%. In the ROC (Receiver operating curves) analysis, the best cut-off for predicting cardiotoxicity was an ECG score of ≥2 points (sensitivity 82%, specificity 82%, AUC 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.92, p < 0.0001) which was then defined as a high-risk score. High-risk patients did not differ concerning their age, LV ejection fraction, classical cardiovascular risk factors or cardiac biomarkers compared to those with a low-risk ECG score. CONCLUSION: ECG scoring prior to the start of anti-cancer therapies may help to identify therapy-naïve cancer patients at a higher risk for the development of cardiotoxicity.