Comparison of Echocardiography and Multi-Planar Gated Acquisition Scans for Predicting Cancer-Treatment-Related Cardiovascular Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend using sequential cardiac imaging to monitor for cancer treatment-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) in patients undergoing potentially cardiotoxic chemotherapy. Multiple different imaging cardiac modalities are available and there are few prospective head-to-head comparative studies to help guide treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To perform an exploratory prospective cohort study of "real-world" CTRCD comparing multigated acquisition nuclear ventriculography (MUGA) at the referring cancer specialist's discretion with a novel echocardiographic strategy at an Australian tertiary hospital.

METHOD: Patients were recruited from haematology and oncology outpatient clinics if they were scheduled for treatment with anthracyclines and/or trastuzumab. Patients underwent simultaneous MUGA-based cardiac imaging (conventional strategy) at a frequency according to evidenced-based guidelines in addition to researcher-conducted echocardiographic imaging. The echocardiographic imaging was performed in all patients at time points recommended by international society guidelines. Outcomes included adherence to guideline recommendations, concordance between MUGA and echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measurements, and detection of cardiac dysfunction (defined as >5% LVEF decrement from baseline by three-dimensional [3D]-LVEF). A secondary end point was accuracy of global longitudinal strain in predicting cardiac dysfunction.

RESULTS: In total, 35 patients were recruited, including 15 with breast cancer, 19 with haematological malignancy, and one with gastric cancer. MUGA and echocardiographic LVEF measurements correlated poorly with limits of agreement of 30% between 3D-LVEF and MUGA-LVEF and 37% for 3D-LVEF and MUGA-LVEF. Only one case (2.9%) of CTRCD was diagnosed by MUGA, compared with 12 (34.2%) cases by echocardiography. Four (4) patients had >10% decrement in 3D-LVEF that was not detected by MUGA. Global longitudinal strain at 2 months displayed significant ability to predict CTRCD (area under the curve, 0.75, 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS: The MUGA correlates poorly with echocardiographic assessment with substantial discrepancy between MUGA and echocardiography in CTRCD diagnosis. Echocardiographic and MUGA imaging strategies should not be considered equivalent for imaging cancer patients, and a single imaging modality should ideally be used per patient to prevent misdiagnosis by inter-modality variation These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and require confirmation with larger studies.