Background
In the United States, nearly 90,000 individuals between the ages of 15 and 39 years, often referred to as adolescents and young adults (AYAs), are diagnosed with cancer each year.1 Renal, thyroid, and colorectal cancer are among the more commonly diagnosed malignancies in this population, and the incidence of these cancers has increased over the past 4 decades.2 VEGF inhibition (VEGFi) is often used singly or as part of combination therapy for these malignancies; however, cardiovascular toxicities can be a significant limitation of VEGFi therapy, with hypertension among the most common.3 Additionally, left ventricular dysfunction has also been observed among adult and pediatric populations receiving VEGFi.4–6 However, the incidence and factors associated with VEGFi-mediated left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and hypertension among the AYA population have not been determined.7–13
To address these knowledge gaps, we evaluated the incidence and clinical factors associated with VEGFi-mediated LVSD and hypertension among AYAs with nonmetastatic, high-risk renal cell cancer participating in a large randomized clinical trial. We hypothesized that the incidence of both LVSD and hypertension would be lower among AYAs compared with non-AYAs due to fewer comorbidities and younger age.
Methods
Data Source
This retrospective cohort analysis used data from the previously completed prospective clinical trial E2805 (ASSURE trial; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00326898), coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, given a higher prevalence of AYAs than most ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. Participants with histologically confirmed clear cell or non–clear cell renal carcinoma at high risk for recurrence (completely resected within 12 weeks prior to study entry) were randomized to receive a total of 9 six-week cycles (ie, 54 weeks) of either sunitinib, 50 mg daily for 28 days out of the 42-day cycle; sorafenib, 400 mg twice daily; or placebo therapy.
Eligibility criteria for the ASSURE trial included a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50%, no cardiac events in the 6 months prior to study entry (myocardial infarction, severe or unstable angina, coronary or peripheral arterial bypass grafting, symptomatic heart failure, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, or pulmonary embolism), a baseline blood pressure <130/90 mm Hg, a QTc interval <500 ms, and no significant arrhythmias.14 Consistent with the NCI definition and the eligibility criteria for the trial population, AYAs in our analysis included participants between the ages of 18 and 39 years.
LVEF Assessment
Per study protocol, all participants had their LVEF measured by serial multigated acquisition (MUGA) scans or echocardiograms at baseline; at 3, 6, and 12 months; or at the end of treatment. Additional MUGA scans or echocardiograms were obtained if cardiac symptoms developed or 3 months after an abnormal assessment.
Blood Pressure Assessment
Blood pressure measurements were performed in the clinic according to a standardized protocol. Home blood pressures were also accepted if a calibrated electronic device was used. Blood pressure was measured at baseline and weekly during the first cycle of therapy. For each subsequent cycle of therapy, measurements were standardized and performed on the first day of the cycle. Baseline antihypertensive medication use was also collected; however, no data regarding the initiation or titration of antihypertensive medications during the trial were available.14
Cardiac Study Endpoints
LVSD was defined per protocol as a decrease in LVEF of >15 absolute percentage points from baseline (pretreatment) to below the institutional lower limit of normal.15 Sensitivity analysis was performed using an alternative published definition of an absolute decrease from baseline LVEF by ≥10%, given the lack of strong consensus of LVSD in the setting of VEGFi therapy.16 The incidence of LVSD at any timepoint during the study treatment was determined.
Incident hypertension was defined as a systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg or a diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg at any timepoint during the study treatment. Nonphysiologic blood pressure data were defined as systolic blood pressure ≥300 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure ≤20 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure greater than systolic blood pressure, or pulse pressure <5 mm Hg. Our criteria for a plausible range of physiologic hemodynamics were based on a population study of mean blood pressure in adults.17
Statistical Analysis
Incidence of LVSD and hypertension were reported as rates with a sensitivity analysis examining rates as events per person years of follow-up while accounting for competing risks (recurrence, second primary malignancy, or death). Chi-square and Fisher exact tests (as appropriate) were used to assess relationships between groups. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between AYA status and the odds of LVSD (yes vs no) or hypertension (yes vs no). The following demographic and pretreatment clinical factors were identified a priori and considered in the univariable and multivariable models: self-reported sex, race (non-white vs white), treatment arm, baseline cardiovascular medications (including the use of aspirin, statins, β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, and α-blockers), and history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Corresponding 95% confidence intervals were reported for all estimates. SAS 9.0 (SAS Institute Inc.) was used for all analyses.
Results
Patient Characteristics
E2805 accrued 1,943 participants aged ≥18 years from April 2006 through September 2010. A total of 1,572 participants had sufficient data available to form the basis of our study population (n=493, 485, and 594 in the sunitinib, sorafenib, and placebo arms, respectively). AYAs represented 7% (103/1,572) of the population. Although most AYAs were non-Hispanic white (73% [75/103]), there were more non-Hispanic Black (6.8% vs 3.3%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (5.8% vs 1.6%) participants in the AYA group compared with the non-AYA group. Baseline LVEF was similar among AYAs and non-AYAs (median LVEF, 60% among AYAs and 61% among non-AYAs).
AYAs had fewer preexisting comorbidities. For example, a history of thromboembolic events was less common among AYAs (2% [2/103]) versus non-AYAs (4% [57/1,469]); a history of CVD was less common among AYAs (10% [10/103]) versus non-AYAs (24% [354/1,469]); and at baseline, 1 AYA and 26 non-AYAs were prescribed a cardiovascular medication (β-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, or calcium channel blocker) (Table 1). Censoring at off-treatment (given that endpoints were defined during the 54-week study treatment period), the duration of follow-up in person years accounting for competing risks was similar and estimated to be 95 (0.92 years per participant) among AYAs and 1,297 (0.88 years per participants) among non-AYAs.
Patient Characteristics
Incidence of LVSD
AYA status was not associated with a lower incidence of LVSD. During the 54-week study period and across all treatment types, the overall incidence of LVSD per the primary protocol definition (absolute LVEF decrease >15% from baseline to a value below the institutional lower limit of normal) was not different between AYAs and non-AYAs, at 3% (95% CI, 0.6%–8.3%) and 2% (95% CI, 1.2%–2.7%), respectively. These rates remained consistent in sensitivity analyses when examining incidence rate per participant years of follow-up (3% and 2%, respectively). Among AYAs, LVSD was observed only in the placebo arm. Of the 3 AYAs who developed LVSD, 1 had a borderline normal LVEF of 51% at baseline, and the other 2 had 58% and 65%. The incidence of LVSD was significantly higher among AYAs in the placebo arm at 8% (95% CI, 1.6%–20.4%) versus 1% (95% CI, 0.3%–2.1%) for non-AYAs. There was no significant difference between AYAs and non-AYAs for sunitinib, at 0% (95% CI, 0%–10.3%) versus 3% (95% CI, 1.5%–4.8%), and sorafenib, at 0% (95% CI, 0%–11.9%) versus 2% (95% CI, 0.9%–3.7%), respectively (Table 2).
Incidence of Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Among Treatment Groups
Sensitivity analysis using a definition of an absolute decrease in LVEF from baseline by ≥10% at any time during treatment suggested that the overall incidence of LVSD among AYAs and non-AYAs was not statistically significantly different, at 18% (95% CI, 10.7%–26.2%) versus 15% (95% CI, 13.3%–17.0%), respectively. The incidence between AYAs and non-AYAs was also not different according to treatment arm at 12% (95% CI, 3.3%–27.4%) versus 17% (95% CI, 13.5%–20.5%) for sunitinib; 21% (95% CI, 8.0%–39.7%) versus 15% (95% CI, 12.2%–19.0%) for sorafenib; and 20% (95% CI, 9.1%–35.7%) versus 13% (95% CI, 10.6%–16.5%) for placebo, respectively (supplemental eTable 1, available with this article at www.jnccn.org).
Association of AYA Status and LVSD, Adjusted for Clinical Factors
In both the univariable and multivariable settings, AYA status was not significantly associated with LVSD; in addition, the magnitude of effect for AYA status did not change after adjustment for the other factors. There were also no differences according to sex (Figure 1, Table 3).
Incidence of LVSD and hypertension among AYAs and females. Overall incidence of LVSD (absolute LVEF decrease >15% to a value below the institutional lower limit of normal from baseline during the 54-week study period) is not significantly different between AYAs and non-AYAs or between female and male sex. Incidence of hypertension (≥140/90 mm Hg), although prevalent overall, is lower among AYAs compared with non-AYAs and female sex compared with male sex.
Abbreviations: AYA, adolescent and young adult; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVSD, left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 21, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2023.7018
Clinical Factors Associated With LVSD
Incidence of Hypertension
AYAs had a lower incidence of hypertension compared with non-AYAs. The overall incidence of hypertension during the 54-week study period and across all treatment types was significantly less among AYAs compared with non-AYAs, at 32% (95% CI, 22.8%–42.7%) versus 52% (95% CI, 49.0%–54.3%), respectively. When examining incidence rate per participant years of follow-up in sensitivity analyses, rates of hypertension were 44% for AYAs and 89% for non-AYAs. Thus, the rate among AYAs was still substantial.
In the placebo group, the incidence of hypertension was lower among AYAs compared with non-AYAs, at 18% (95% CI, 7.5%–33.5%) versus 46% (95% CI, 41.9%–50.4%), respectively. In the VEGFi groups, the incidence for AYAs versus non-AYAs was 29% (95% CI, 15.1%–47.5%) versus 47% (95% CI, 42.3%–51.7%) with sunitinib and 54% (95% CI, 33.9%–72.5%) versus 63% (95% CI, 58.6%–67.7%) with sorafenib, respectively. Overall, hypertension was quite prevalent among AYAs (Table 4).
Incidence of Hypertension Among Treatment Groups
Association of AYA Status and Hypertension, Adjusted for Clinical Factors
In both the univariable and multivariable settings, AYA status was significantly associated with a lower odds of developing hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 0.43 [95% CI, 0.28–0.67] and 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31–0.75], respectively). Females were less likely to develop hypertension at any time relative to males (OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.57–0.88] and 0.74 [95% CI, 0.59–0.92], respectively). The odds of hypertension were similar with sunitinib (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.83–1.35] and 1.08 [95% CI, 0.85–1.39], respectively) but higher with sorafenib (OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.65–2.71] and 2.18 [95% CI, 1.69–2.80], respectively) relative to placebo, although we were not able to account for antihypertension medication use during treatment in these models (Figure 1, Table 5).
Clinical Factors Associated With Hypertension
Discussion
AYAs are an underrepresented group in cancer research, with a significant CVD burden. Our study specifically examines the influence of VEGFi therapy (sunitinib and sorafenib) on LVSD and blood pressure among AYAs undergoing adjuvant therapy for unfavorable, high-risk renal cell carcinoma. Our main findings are as follows: (1) AYA status was not associated with a reduced risk of LVSD; (2) independent of VEGFi therapy, AYAs with high-risk renal cell carcinoma had a quantifiable risk of LVSD; and (3) one-third of AYAs treated with sunitinib and one-half of AYAs treated with sorafenib developed hypertension.
Survival rates among AYAs diagnosed with cancer exceed all other age groups, with an 85% 5-year survival rate.18–20 However, survival improvement has been relatively static during the last quarter century because AYAs have not demonstrated the same improvement in survival as older or younger cohorts.21 The reasons for this limited improvement are multifactorial; cancer treatment–related diseases, such as CVD, are potential factors. The risk for CVD is >2-fold higher for AYAs when compared with age-matched peers without cancer.22,23 Among AYAs with CVD, the mortality risk is 8 to 11 times higher compared with AYAs without CVD.22,24
Left ventricular dysfunction related to VEGFi therapy has been observed in both adult and pediatric populations.4–6 Among adults, the risk for VEGFi-mediated left ventricular dysfunction is approximately 10% in the setting of metastatic renal cancer.7,9,10 In the adjuvant setting, the incidence is closer to 1%.15 A previous history of heart failure, coronary artery disease, lower body mass index, female sex, and concomitant CTCAE grade 3 hypertension have been suggested as potential risk factors in the adult population; however, this has not been confirmed across all studies.7,9–11
In this study, we found no difference in the incidence of LVSD in AYAs versus non-AYAs with either the primary definition (>15% absolute decrease in LVEF from baseline to below the lower limit of normal) or secondary definition (≥10% absolute decrease from baseline). LVSD during VEGFi therapy was not associated with baseline CVD. The incidence of LVSD was greatest among AYAs not receiving VEGFi. These results may reflect an inherently higher risk for CVD among individuals with cancer due to common pathophysiologic pathways, such as chronic inflammation and oxidative stress, that can increase the risk for CVD irrespective of the absence of other risk factors.25–27 Cancer biology may also contribute to an increased burden of CVD. For example, mutations related to clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential are associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events.28,29
Hypertension is the most common VEGFi-mediated cardiovascular toxicity, occurring in 20% to 90% of adult patients, depending on the specific VEGFi used.3 Preexisting hypertension, older age, and elevated body mass index have been identified as potential risk factors for VEGFi-mediated hypertension; however, these associations have not been found in all studies.12,13 The incidence and risk factors for VEGFi-mediated hypertension among AYAs are poorly defined. Within our population, the incidence of hypertension was influenced by traditional risk factors, including older age and male sex.30 Although these factors may identify individuals with an increased likelihood of developing hypertension during treatment with VEGFi, the large number of AYAs (29%–54%) who developed hypertension with either sunitinib or sorafenib therapy suggests that even individuals without identifiable preexisting factors are also at risk for developing VEGFi-mediated hypertension.
Another factor to consider is the molecular targets of VEGFi therapy. Small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors in particular may have several molecular targets, leading to distinct cardiovascular toxicity profiles. For example, the incidence of hypertension is lower among individuals receiving bevacizumab (a monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor A) compared with those receiving lenvatinib (a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGF receptors 1–3, FGF receptors, PDGFR-α, RET, and KIT).3
Although previous studies have suggested a similar overall incidence of hypertension among individuals treated with sunitinib and sorafenib,3 in our study, the incidence of hypertension was significantly greater among individuals treated with sorafenib, regardless of AYA status. Although it is unclear whether this observation is related to the inhibition of BRAF and MEK among individuals using sorafenib, BRAF and MEK inhibitors have been associated with hypertension.31
Limitations of our study include the relatively small size of our AYA cohort. We attempted to address these differences in cohort sizes by using proportions in our analysis and comparing the proportions using chi-square and Fisher exact tests. Although larger sample sizes would result in a greater precision in the estimate, this may not necessarily result in a greater proportion of detectable dysfunction. Nonetheless, because AYAs account for 5% of cancer cases in the United States overall, small sample sizes are a pervasive limitation in AYA research and further highlight the unmet need for AYA-focused clinical research.20,32 Complete data on cardiovascular risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and hyperlipidemia, and the use of antihypertensives during the study were not available and limit our ability to fully determine the impact of cardiovascular risk factors on VEGFi-mediated LVSD and hypertension. This needs to be considered in future prospective studies. The generalizability of these results may also be limited because all participants were screened for CVD and hypertension at baseline and were undergoing treatment in the adjuvant setting for high-risk renal carcinoma.
Conclusions
In the analysis of data from this trial, AYAs with fewer comorbidities had a similar incidence of LVSD as non-AYAs, independent of VEGFi exposure, and a significant burden of hypertension in the setting of VEGFi exposure. These results suggest that younger age and lower comorbidity burden may not reduce the incident risk for cardiovascular toxicities among AYAs receiving VEGFi therapy and suggest a need for further research to understand and mitigate the factors that influence cardiovascular risk in this population. Given the high survival rates and the anticipation of an extended survivorship period among AYAs, understanding the relationship between cancer diagnosis, treatment, and CVD is imperative to promoting cardiovascular health over the entire lifetime of AYAs.20
References
- 1.↑
American Cancer Society. Special section: cancer in adolescents and young adults. Accessed June 1, 2022. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2020/special-section-cancer-in-adolescents-and-young-adults-2020.pdf
- 2.↑
Scott AR, Stoltzfus KC, Tchelebi LT, et al. Trends in cancer incidence in US adolescents and young adults, 1973–2015. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2027738.
- 3.↑
Li W, Croce K, Steensma DP, et al. Vascular and metabolic implications of novel targeted cancer therapies: focus on kinase inhibitors. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:1160–1178.
- 4.↑
Abdel-Qadir H, Ethier JL, Lee DS, et al. Cardiovascular toxicity of angiogenesis inhibitors in treatment of malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2017;53:120–127.
- 5.↑
Fox E, Aplenc R, Bagatell R, et al. A phase 1 trial and pharmacokinetic study of cediranib, an orally bioavailable pan-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, in children and adolescents with refractory solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:5174–5181.
- 6.↑
Dubois SG, Shusterman S, Ingle AM, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of sunitinib in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors: a children’s oncology group study. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:5113–5122.
- 7.↑
Narayan V, Keefe S, Haas N, et al. Prospective evaluation of sunitinib- induced cardiotoxicity in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:3601–3609.
- 8.↑
Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, et al. Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007;356:115–124.
- 9.↑
Telli ML, Witteles RM, Fisher GA, et al. Cardiotoxicity associated with the cancer therapeutic agent sunitinib malate. Ann Oncol 2008;19:1613–1618.
- 10.↑
Di Lorenzo G, Autorino R, Bruni G, et al. Cardiovascular toxicity following sunitinib therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter analysis. Ann Oncol 2009;20:1535–1542.
- 11.↑
Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Cella D, et al. Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2013;369:722–731.
- 12.↑
Hamnvik OP, Choueiri TK, Turchin A, et al. Clinical risk factors for the development of hypertension in patients treated with inhibitors of the VEGF signaling pathway. Cancer 2015;121:311–319.
- 13.↑
Maitland ML, Kasza KE, Karrison T, et al. Ambulatory monitoring detects sorafenib-induced blood pressure elevations on the first day of treatment. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:6250–6257.
- 14.↑
Haas NB, Manola J, Uzzo RG, et al. Adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib for high-risk, non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (ECOG-ACRIN E2805): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2016;387:2008–2016.
- 15.↑
Haas NB, Manola J, Ky B, et al. Effects of adjuvant sorafenib and sunitinib on cardiac function in renal cell carcinoma patients without overt metastases: results from ASSURE, ECOG 2805. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21:4048–4054.
- 16.↑
Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N, et al. Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1273–1283.
- 17.↑
Wright JD, Hughes JP, Ostchega Y, et al. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure in adults aged 18 and over in the United States, 2001–2008. Natl Health Stat Report 2011;35:1–22, 24.
- 18.↑
Keegan TH, Ries LA, Barr RD, et al. Comparison of cancer survival trends in the United States of adolescents and young adults with those in children and older adults. Cancer 2016;122:1009–1016.
- 19.↑
Liu L, Moke DJ, Tsai KY, et al. A reappraisal of sex-specific cancer survival trends among adolescents and young adults in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2019;111:509–518.
- 20.↑
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cancer stat facts: cancer among adolescents and young adults (AYAs) (ages 15–39). Accessed June 1, 2022. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/aya.html
- 21.↑
Close AG, Dreyzin A, Miller KD, et al. Adolescent and young adult oncology—past, present, and future. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:485–496.
- 22.↑
Chao C, Xu L, Bhatia S, et al. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles in survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer: the Kaiser Permanente AYA Cancer Survivors study. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:1626–1633.
- 23.↑
Tai E, Buchanan N, Townsend J, et al. Health status of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. Cancer 2012;118:4884–4891.
- 24.↑
Keegan THM, Kushi LH, Li Q, et al. Cardiovascular disease incidence in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: a retrospective cohort study. J Cancer Surviv 2018;12:388–397.
- 25.↑
Koene RJ, Prizment AE, Blaes A, et al. Shared risk factors in cardiovascular disease and cancer. Circulation 2016;133:1104–1114.
- 26.↑
Singh-Manoux A, Shipley MJ, Bell JA, et al. Association between inflammatory biomarkers and all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer-related mortality. CMAJ 2017;189:E384–390.
- 27.↑
Leiva O, AbdelHameid D, Connors JM, et al. Common pathophysiology in cancer, atrial fibrillation, atherosclerosis, and thrombosis: JACC: CardioOncology state-of-the-art review. JACC CardioOncol 2021;3:619–634.
- 28.↑
Calvillo-Argüelles O, Schoffel A, Capo-Chichi JM, et al. Cardiovascular disease among patients with AML and CHIP-related mutations. JACC CardioOncol 2022;4:38–49.
- 29.↑
Hatakeyama K, Hieda M, Semba Y, et al. TET2 clonal hematopoiesis is associated with anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity in patients with lymphoma. JACC CardioOncol 2022;4:141–143.
- 30.↑
Everett B, Zajacova A. Gender differences in hypertension and hypertension awareness among young adults. Biodemogr Soc Biol 2015;61:1–17.
- 31.↑
Mincu RI, Mahabadi AA, Michel L, et al. Cardiovascular adverse events associated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2019;2:e198890.
- 32.↑
Roth ME, Unger JM, O’Mara AM, et al. Enrollment of adolescents and young adults onto SWOG cancer research network clinical trials: a comparative analysis by treatment site and era. Cancer Med 2020;9:2146–2152.
