Loading
Cancer Survivorship and Care / Chemotherapy-induced Cardiotoxicity and Mitigation · Review
Healthcare · August 18, 2026
A consensus or society position rather than new primary data.
This narrative review summarizes evidence for cardio-oncology rehabilitation (CORE) centered on exercise prescription, multimodal monitoring, and implementation pathways. Clinical trials support improvements in fitness and functional outcomes in some settings, but effects on cancer-therapy-related cardiac dysfunction and mortality remain uncertain. The authors propose a risk-adaptive, individualized framework that is conceptual and awaits prospective validation.
Narrative review. Adult cancer survivors with cardiovascular toxicity or pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Intervention: Risk-adaptive cardio-oncology rehabilitation centered on exercise prescription, multimodal monitoring, and implementation pathways.
Clinical trials support improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, selected cardiovascular risk factors, and functional outcomes in some settings Effects on cancer-therapy-related cardiac dysfunction, cardiovascular events, and mortality remain uncertain Direct evidence is dominated by breast-cancer cohorts and women, although mixed-cancer, lymphoma, and lung-cancer studies broaden the evidence base
Effects on cancer-therapy-related cardiac dysfunction, cardiovascular events, and mortality remain uncertain
Clinicians should regard CORE as exercise-centered care linked to guideline-based risk assessment and clinically indicated reassessment, individualizing aerobic and resistance exercise to treatment context, symptoms, functional capacity, and clinical stability. The proposed risk-adaptive framework is conceptual and has not yet been prospectively validated.
A narrative review synthesizing current evidence and proposing a non-validated, author-derived clinical framework for cardio-oncology rehabilitation, grounded in existing trials but not itself presenting new clinical data or meeting criteria for practice-changing or strong evidence.
As stated by the source record.
Clinicians should regard CORE as exercise-centered care linked to guideline-based risk assessment and clinically indicated reassessment, individualizing aerobic and resistance exercise to treatment context, symptoms, functional capacity, and clinical stability. The proposed risk-adaptive framework is conceptual and has not yet been prospectively validated.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
What is missing. This record has no reported figures. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background/Objectives: Cardiovascular toxicity and pre-existing cardiovascular disease can affect cancer-treatment tolerance, functional recovery, and survivorship. This narrative review aimed to summarize current evidence and propose an author-derived risk-adaptive clinical framework for adult cardio-oncology rehabilitation (CORE), organized around exercise prescription, multimodal monitoring, and implementation. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE and the Web of Science Core Collection were searched from database inception through 27 July 2026. Guidelines, systematic reviews, randomized and non-randomized clinical studies, feasibility studies, and selected mechanistic sources were prioritized according to their relevance to the three review domains. Evidence was classified as direct clinical, guidance/synthesis, feasibility/implementation, or mechanistic/conceptual; no PRISMA protocol, formal risk-of-bias assessment, or meta-analysis was undertaken. Results: Clinical trials support improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, selected cardiovascular risk factors, and functional outcomes in some settings, but effects on cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction, cardiovascular events, and mortality remain uncertain. Direct evidence is dominated by breast-cancer cohorts and women, although mixed-cancer, lymphoma, and lung-cancer studies broaden the functional evidence base. An evidence-informed approach is to individualize aerobic and resistance exercise to treatment context, symptoms, functional capacity, and clinical stability, with reassessment linked to actionable findings; the proposed pathway remains conceptual and non-validated. Artificial intelligence, digital twins, omics, and monitoring-guided exercise-dose adjustment remain investigational. Conclusions: CORE is best regarded as exercise-centered care linked to guideline-based risk assessment and clinically indicated reassessment. Prospective studies should test therapy-specific timing, risk-stratified delivery, monitoring-guided dose adjustment, clinical endpoints, equity, and cost-effectiveness.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.