| Literature DB >> 36010197 |
Xiaoting Wei1, Ling Lin1, Guizhi Zhang1, Xuhui Zhou1.
Abstract
The significant progress in cancer treatment, including chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiotherapy, and combination therapies, has led to higher long-term survival rates in cancer patients, while the cardiotoxicity caused by cancer treatment has become increasingly prominent. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a non-invasive comprehensive imaging modality that provides not only anatomical information, but also tissue characteristics and cardiometabolic and energetic assessment, leading to its increased use in the early identification of cardiotoxicity, and is of major importance in improving the survival rate of cancer patients. This review focused on CMR techniques, including myocardial strain analysis, T1 mapping, T2 mapping, and extracellular volume fraction (ECV) calculation in the detection of early myocardial injury induced by cancer therapies. We summarized the existing studies and ongoing clinical trials using CMR for the assessment of subclinical ventricular dysfunction and myocardial changes at the tissue level. The main focus was to explore the potential of clinical and preclinical CMR techniques for continuous non-invasive monitoring of myocardial toxicity associated with cancer therapy.Entities:
Keywords: cardiotoxicity; cardiovascular magnetic resonance; mapping; strain
Year: 2022 PMID: 36010197 PMCID: PMC9406931 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12081846
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Diagnostic criteria for cardiotoxicity.
| Society | Diagnostic Criteria of Cardiotoxicity | Year of Publication |
|---|---|---|
|
| Decrease in LVEF of >10%, to LVEF < 53% | 2014 [ |
|
| Decrease in LVEF of >10% from baseline, to LVEF < 50% | 2016 [ |
|
| LVEF drop by ≥10–15%, or to <50% | 2020 [ |
|
| For asymptomatic patients: | 2021 [ |
ASE = American Society of Echocardiography; EACVI = European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging; ESC = European Society of Cardiology; ESMO = European Society of Cardiology; IC-OS = International Cardio-Oncology Society; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; GLS = global longitudinal strain; BNP = B-type natriuretic peptide; NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro-BNP.
Figure 1Overview of the pathological changes of cardiomyocytes in cardiotoxicity induced by cancer therapies, the resulting morphological and functional changes of the heart, and CMR assessments that have been performed in previous studies. Different CMR parameters may increase (red arrows) or decrease (blue arrows) or be positive (red plus) in cardiotoxicity. LV = left ventricular; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESV = LV end-systolic volume; LVEDV = LV end-diastolic volume; GLS = global longitudinal strain; RVEF = right ventricular ejection fraction; T1WI = T1-weighted imaging; T2WI = T2-weighted imaging; LGE = late gadolinium enhancement; ECV = extracellular volume fraction.
Figure 2(A–C) A 61-year-old man with multiple myeloma who had undergone 4 cycles of chemotherapy within 5 months (bortezomib 2.25 mg, lenalidomide 25 mg, and dexamethasone 40 mg). (A) LVEF calculated from cine images was normal (68.2%). (B) LGE image showing an intramural, slightly hyperintense signal in the ventricular septum (arrow). (C) Native T1 mapping showing a larger T1 value for the ventricular septum than that of the lateral wall (1274 ms and 1173 ms, respectively). (D,E) A 62-year-old woman with multiple myeloma for 6 years. The chemotherapy regimen included 5 cycles of CTD (cyclophosphamide 1.2 g, thalidomide 200 mg, and dexamethasone 20 mg), 2 cycles of VTD (bortezomib 2.3 mg, thalidomide 100 mg, and dexamethasone 17 mg), and 2 cycles of VRD (bortezomib 2.3 mg, lenalidomide 25 mg, and dexamethasone 17 mg). The electrocardiogram showed a prolonged QT interval. (D) LGE image demonstrating a slightly hyperintense lesion in the LV inferior wall (arrow). (E) Native T1 mapping showing a significantly larger T1 value for the lesion compared to that of lateral wall (1568 ms and 1232 ms, respectively). (F) No significant increase in the T2 value was found in the T2 mapping, suggesting no significant edema (41 ms and 37 ms, respectively). LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; LGE = late gadolinium enhancement.
Figure 3Animal model of anthracycline cardiotoxicity. (A) Time course of CMR imaging studies in pig model that received 5 biweekly doxorubicin injections and follow-up to week 16. Data are represented as mean ± SD (bars); (B) Individual animal data at selected time points for LVEF, T2, and ECV. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences compared with week 0: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [40]. 2019, Elsevier.
Advantages and limitations of different imaging techniques in the diagnosis of cardiotoxicity.
| Imaging Techniques | Monitoring Index or Characteristic | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| MUGA | LVEF | Reproducibility | Radiation exposure |
| Echocardiography | LVEF | Wide availability | Suboptimal acoustic window |
| CMR | LVEF | Reproducibility | Limited availability |
MUGA = multi-gated radionuclide angiography; CMR = cardiovascular magnetic resonance; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; RVEF = right ventricular ejection fraction; GLS = global longitudinal strain; GCS = global circumferential strain; GRS = global radial strain.