Roxanne Gal1, Madelijn L Gregorowitsch1, Marleen J Emaus1, Erwin LA Blezer1, Femke van der Leij2, Sanne Gm van Velzen3,4, Julia J van Tol-Geerdink5, Ivana Išgum3,4,6,7, Helena M Verkooijen1. 1. Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers-location AMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboudumc, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers - Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7. Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam University Medical Centers - Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcifications (CAC) is a strong predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD), which can be automatically quantified on routine breast radiotherapy planning computed tomography (CT) scans. Around 8% of patients have (very) high CAC scores and corresponding increased risks of CVD. AIM: This study explores whether, how, and under what conditions women with breast cancer want to be informed about their CAC-based CVD risk. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted in a random sample of UMBRELLA, a prospective breast cancer cohort. Participants (n = 79) filled out a questionnaire about their knowledge on the CVD risk following breast cancer, their interest in being informed about their CVD risk based on CAC score, and preferences on how they would want to receive this information. RESULTS: Most participants (66%) were not aware that the presence of CAC indicates an increased CVD risk. Participants indicated that they were not or only slightly aware of the risk of treatment-induced cardiotoxicity (48%), and that the risk of cardiotoxicity was higher in patients with pre-existing CVD risk factors (82%). The vast majority (90%) indicated that they want to be informed about in increased CAC-based CVD risk. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with breast cancer wants to be informed about their CAC-based CVD risk. With the majority of patients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy, and with low cost and automated options for accurate CAC measurement in planning CT scans, it is important to develop strategies to manage patients with an increased CAC-based risk of CVD.
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcifications (CAC) is a strong predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD), which can be automatically quantified on routine breast radiotherapy planning computed tomography (CT) scans. Around 8% of patients have (very) high CAC scores and corresponding increased risks of CVD. AIM: This study explores whether, how, and under what conditions women with breast cancer want to be informed about their CAC-based CVD risk. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted in a random sample of UMBRELLA, a prospective breast cancer cohort. Participants (n = 79) filled out a questionnaire about their knowledge on the CVD risk following breast cancer, their interest in being informed about their CVD risk based on CAC score, and preferences on how they would want to receive this information. RESULTS: Most participants (66%) were not aware that the presence of CAC indicates an increased CVD risk. Participants indicated that they were not or only slightly aware of the risk of treatment-induced cardiotoxicity (48%), and that the risk of cardiotoxicity was higher in patients with pre-existing CVD risk factors (82%). The vast majority (90%) indicated that they want to be informed about in increased CAC-based CVD risk. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with breast cancer wants to be informed about their CAC-based CVD risk. With the majority of patients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy, and with low cost and automated options for accurate CAC measurement in planning CT scans, it is important to develop strategies to manage patients with an increased CAC-based risk of CVD.
Authors: Jose Luis Zamorano; Patrizio Lancellotti; Daniel Rodriguez Muñoz; Victor Aboyans; Riccardo Asteggiano; Maurizio Galderisi; Gilbert Habib; Daniel J Lenihan; Gregory Y H Lip; Alexander R Lyon; Teresa Lopez Fernandez; Dania Mohty; Massimo F Piepoli; Juan Tamargo; Adam Torbicki; Thomas M Suter Journal: Kardiol Pol Date: 2016 Impact factor: 3.108
Authors: Maryam Kavousi; Chintan S Desai; Colby Ayers; Roger S Blumenthal; Matthew J Budoff; Amir-Abbas Mahabadi; M Arfan Ikram; Aad van der Lugt; Albert Hofman; Raimund Erbel; Amit Khera; Marie H Geisel; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Nils Lehmann; Udo Hoffmann; Christopher J O'Donnell; Joseph M Massaro; Kiang Liu; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Hongyan Ning; Oscar H Franco; Philip Greenland Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Philip Greenland; Michael J Blaha; Matthew J Budoff; Raimund Erbel; Karol E Watson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael J Blaha; Matthew J Budoff; Andrew P DeFilippis; Ron Blankstein; Juan J Rivera; Arthur Agatston; Daniel H O'Leary; Joao Lima; Roger S Blumenthal; Khurram Nasir Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-08-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jacques H Borger; Maartje J Hooning; Liesbeth J Boersma; Antonia Snijders-Keilholz; Berthe M P Aleman; Eelke Lintzen; Sara van Brussel; Peter-Paul van der Toorn; Maitham Alwhouhayb; Flora E van Leeuwen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-07-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Paul McGale; Sarah C Darby; Per Hall; Jan Adolfsson; Nils-Olof Bengtsson; Anna M Bennet; Tommy Fornander; Bruna Gigante; Maj-Britt Jensen; Richard Peto; Kazem Rahimi; Carolyn W Taylor; Marianne Ewertz Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Sanne G M van Velzen; Nikolas Lessmann; Birgitta K Velthuis; Ingrid E M Bank; Desiree H J G van den Bongard; Tim Leiner; Pim A de Jong; Wouter B Veldhuis; Adolfo Correa; James G Terry; John Jeffrey Carr; Max A Viergever; Helena M Verkooijen; Ivana Išgum Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 29.146