Current Knowledge and Implementation of Therapeutic Strategies in Cardio-Oncology: A National Physician-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND

Cardio-oncology has developed as an intersection science and practice, balancing the risks and benefits of chemotherapy treatment. Implementing a cardio-oncology program in practice is currently one of the most challenging areas of clinical medicine. In Romania, there are scarce cardio-oncology centers and no dedicated training programs. Thus, the care of these patients is highly heterogeneous and empirical, often without following guideline recommendations.

STUDY QUESTION

This study evaluates the awareness and knowledge of cardio-oncology diagnosis and treatment strategies among Romanian physicians.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional validated online survey was sent to clinicians treating oncological patients with cardiovascular (CV) risk or associated CV pathology.

MEASURES AND OUTCOME

The survey covered formal training, knowledge of basic cardio-oncology concepts, and therapy.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety professionals responded to our questionnaire, most being cardiologists (73.2%), 20.5% oncologists/hematologists, and the remaining had other specialties. Only 21 respondents mentioned the availability of dedicated cardio-oncology teams. Eighty percent would not prescribe prophylactic medication before starting a potentially cardiotoxic oncological treatment in patients with a normal left ventricular ejection fraction and low CV risk. Even in patients with high CV risk, 34.7% would still not prescribe medication for primary prevention of cardiotoxicity. However, most respondents (63.2%) did not consider chemotherapy in patients at high risk of CV events. Most respondents (90.5%) recommend direct oral anticoagulants for CV pathology if indicated. For acute coronary syndromes under fluoropyrimidine treatment, the responses are heterogeneous for all specialties, with a tendency to stop chemotherapy for cardiologists. Sixty-four respondents considered long QT secondary to oncologic treatment a reason to interrupt treatment, with cardiologists more likely to consider it.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey highlights the heterogeneity in understanding, preventing, and treating CV toxicity. It emphasizes the lack of clear, well-implemented clinical practice algorithms in the population studied. Our survey underlines the gap between guidelines and clinical practice.