Background
The immune-related adverse effects after immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treatment have always been a hot topic. Although the incidence of myocarditis is not high among the related adverse effects, the mortality rate is extremely high once it occurs. In the past, the risk of cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) after drug treatment was evaluated based on imaging examinations, but this evaluation still had certain limitations. Currently, the extracellular volume (ECV) score measurement calculated using cardiac magnetic resonance T1 mapping has become a reliable method for evaluating myocardial toxicity and computed tomography (CT) examination may become an alternative. This study aimed to longitudinally evaluate the cardiac toxicity of patients treated with ICIs using myocardial ECV derived from contrast-enhanced chest CT.
Methods
A total of 500 patients with III–IV lung cancer and esophageal cancer treated with ICIs were evaluated. Participants underwent baseline examination and at least 1 follow-up examination after treatment. Contrast-enhanced chest CT-ECV, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and measurement of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) were conducted before the first treatment, 3–6 months after the first treatment, and about 12 months after the first treatment, respectively. The ECV value of the middle part of the left ventricular septum was evaluated on CT venography and plain scan, the LVEF value was evaluated by color Doppler ultrasound, and the quantity of cTnT was detected by chemiluminescence. Cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction was recorded.
Results
The mean baseline LVEF value was 68.51%±4.81% (N
0
=500), and those of LVEF
1
, LVEF
2
, and LVEF
3
were 68.77%±4.30%, 68.16%±3.59%, and 66.23%±4.20%, respectively (N
1
=500, N
2
=467, and N
3
=361, respectively). There was no significant difference between LVEF
1
, LVEF
2
, and LVEF
0
(P
1
=0.095, P
2
=0.062), whereas LVEF
3
was significantly lower than LVEF
0
(P<0.001). The average baseline cTnT
0
value was 7.42±3.95 (N
0
=500). The values of cTnT
1
, cTnT
2
, and cTnT
3
were 10.05±11.40, 12.24±13.59, and 14.54±14.49, respectively (N
1
=500, N
2
=467, N
3
=361). The values of cTnT
1
, cTnT
2
, and cTnT
3
were significantly higher than cTnT
0
(P
...