Since the late 1990s, there has been a steady decline in cancer-related mortality, in part related to the introduction of so-called targeted therapies. Intended to interfere with a specific molecular pathway, these therapies have, paradoxically, led to a number of effects off their intended cancer tissue or molecular targets. The latest examples are tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the Philadelphia Chromosome mutation product, which have been associated with progressive atherosclerosis and acute vascular events. In addition, agents designed to interfere with the vascular growth factor signaling pathway have vascular side effects ranging from hypertension to arterial events and cardiomyocyte toxicity. Interestingly, the risk of cardiotoxicity with drugs such as trastuzumab is predicted by preexisting cardiovascular risk factors and disease, posing the question of a vascular component to the pathophysiology. The effect on the coronary circulation has been the leading explanation for the cardiotoxicity of 5-fluorouracil and may be the underlying the mechanism of presentation of apical ballooning syndrome with various chemotherapeutic agents. Classical chemotherapeutic agents such as cisplatin, often used in combination with bleomycin and vinca alkaloids, can lead to vascular events including acute coronary thrombosis and may be associated with an increased long-term cardiovascular risk. This review is intended to provide an update on the evolving spectrum of vascular toxicities with cancer therapeutics, particularly as they pertain to clinical practice, and to the conceptualization of cardiovascular diseases, as well. Vascular toxicity with cancer therapy: the old and the new, an evolving avenue.

In the United States alone, there are currently approximately 14.5 million cancer survivors, and this number is expected to increase to 20 million by 2020. Cancer therapies can cause significant injury to the vasculature, resulting in angina, acute coronary syndromes (ACS), stroke, critical limb ischemia, arrhythmias, and heart failure, independently from the direct myocardial or pericardial damage from the malignancy itself. Consequently, the need for invasive evaluation and management in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) for such patients has been increasing. In recognition of the need for a document on special considerations for cancer patients in the CCL, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) commissioned a consensus group to provide recommendations based on the published medical literature and on the expertise of operators with accumulated experience in the cardiac catheterization of cancer patients.

In the United States alone, there are currently approximately 14.5 million cancer survivors, and this number is expected to increase to 20 million by 2020. Cancer therapies can cause significant injury to the vasculature, resulting in angina, acute coronary syndromes (ACS), stroke, critical limb ischemia, arrhythmias, and heart failure, independently from the direct myocardial or pericardial damage from the malignancy itself. Consequently, the need for invasive evaluation and management in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) for such patients has been increasing. In recognition of the need for a document on special considerations for cancer patients in the CCL, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) commissioned a consensus group to provide recommendations based on the published medical literature and on the expertise of operators with accumulated experience in the cardiac catheterization of cancer patients.

Aging is associated with an increased prevalence of both cancer and heart disease. The progression of aortic valve calcification to aortic stenosis may be accelerated by both cardiovascular risk factors and cancer treatments, such as radiotherapy with mediastinal involvement. Symptomatic aortic stenosis is occasionally diagnosed in cancer patients undergoing cardiovascular evaluation; likewise, cancer is often recognized during assessment preceding aortic valve interventions. In these complex cases, physicians face difficult treatment decisions. Due to a myriad of clinical presentations of cancer and valve disease, specific guidelines for this patient population are not currently in place. Management is currently based on clinical judgment, on an individual basis.

Patients with cancer in remission or with a favorable prognosis should be treated according to current cardiovascular guidelines. In these patients, aortic valve replacement can be performed either by surgery or transcatheter. Significant challenges arise in patients with active cancer, especially those receiving anti-cancer treatment. Recent data suggests that these patients can be offered aortic valve replacement, with a trend of favoring the transcatheter route in order to minimize perioperative risk and complications associated with major surgery. Patients with advanced cancer and severe aortic stenosis should be offered palliative care and can benefit from aortic balloon valvuloplasty if indicated. Modern cancer treatments associated with improved long-term prognosis may allow the appropriate cure of aortic stenosis. We discuss the protocol, outcomes, and evolving recommendations of aortic valve replacement in cancer patients with aortic stenosis.

Recent data suggest that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) is viable in cancer patients. TAVR may be preferred in cancer patients due to its minimally invasive nature and smaller impact on oncologic therapies compared to SAVR. Objectives We sought to determine if TAVR is an acceptable alternative to SAVR in cancer patients and whether TAVR allows for earlier initiation or resumption of anti-cancer therapies.

Cancer patients in a tertiary cancer center diagnosed with severe AS were retrospectively included. Patients accepted by the heart team underwent either TAVR or SAVR, while remaining patients received medical therapy alone. Time intervals to initiation of cancer treatment and the impact of cancer treatment on the replaced valves were recorded. Logistic regression was performed to determine the impact of treatment strategy on overall survival (OS) in all 3 subgroups.

One hundred and eighty-seven cancer patients diagnosed with severe AS were identified. AVR was associated with better OS compared to medical therapy alone (p < 0.0001). TAVR was associated with better OS at 72 months (HR = 0.468, p < 0.001) compared to medical therapy alone, with no difference in OS observed between SAVR and TAVR. Time intervals to initiation of cancer treatments were shorter in the TAVR group, with no valve deterioration or infection observed in all groups.

Cancer patients with severe AS benefit from AVR. TAVR is a viable alternative to SAVR in high-risk cancer patients to prolong survival and allow for earlier administration or resumption of anti-neoplastic therapies.