Cardio-Oncology Care Delivered in the Non-academic Environment.

OPINION STATEMENT: It is a fact that the field of Cardio-Oncology is growing rapidly throughout the USA and abroad. Cancer and heart disease continue to be the leading causes of death in the USA, and oncologic therapies are evolving to the point that cancer survivors are increasing yearly, some living long enough to develop cardiovascular disease, and others living with sequelae from their cancer therapy. The financial burdens to the healthcare system continue to present barriers for the delivery of healthcare, especially for patients with heart disease and cancer as chronic diseases. Collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists is paramount to ensure timely cancer care while minimizing cardiotoxicity. The field of Cardio-Oncology is the perfect model for the current management of these patients, positioned to break down silos, avoid delays in cancer care, and treating potential short- and long-term sequela of cancer therapy in a cost-efficient manner. While cardio-oncology programs initially sprang from the academic and defined cancer centers, it is rapidly growing in the nonacademic settings. This paper explores reasons that occurred and explores some of the unique aspects to cancer care and cardio-oncology delivery in the nonacademic setting. The ultimate goal is to achieve the best cancer care with the least degree of disruption to therapy that also minimizes cardiotoxicity, lowering costs, and improving outcomes for patients.

Perspectives on the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cardio-oncology: results from the COVID-19 International Collaborative Network survey.

BACKGROUND: Re-allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in delays in care delivery to patients with cardiovascular disease and cancer. The ability of health care providers to provide optimal care in this setting has not been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of COVID-19 resource re-allocation on scheduling, testing, elective procedures, telemedicine access, use of new COVID-19 therapies, and providers' opinions on healthcare policies among oncology and cardiology practitioners. METHODS: An electronic survey was conducted by a cardio-oncology collaborative network through regional and state chapters of the American College of Cardiology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Descriptive statistics were reported by frequency and proportion for analyses, and stratified categorically by geographic region and specialty. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred fifteen providers (43 countries) participated: 986 cardiologists, 306 oncologists, and 118 trainees/internal medicine. 63% (195/306) of oncologists vs 92% (896/976) of cardiologists reported cancellations of treatments/elective procedures (p = 0.01). 46% (442/970) of cardiologists and 25% (76/303) of oncologists modified the scope of their practice (p = < 0.001). Academic physicians (74.5%) felt better supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE) vs non-academic (74.5% vs 67.2%; p = 0.018). Telemedicine was less common in Europe 81% (74/91), and Latin America 64% (101/158), than the United States, 88% (950/1097) (p = < 0.001). 95% of all groups supported more active leadership from medical professional societies. CONCLUSIONS: These results support initiatives to promote expanded coverage for telemedicine, increased access to PPE, better testing availability and involvement of medical professional societies to help with preparedness for future health care crisis.