Hospital-Based Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination for Cancer Patients on Active Treatment and Their Family Members during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: A Single-Center Experience.

In patients with cancer, tumor- and treatment-induced immunosuppression are responsible for a four-fold increase in morbidity and mortality caused by influenza and invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae infections compared to the general population. The main oncology societies strongly recommend vaccination in patients with cancer to prevent these infections. However, vaccine hesitancy is a main concern in this population. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of in-hospital vaccination for patients under anticancer treatment and their family members (FMs) against influenza and pneumococcal infections during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to increase vaccine coverage. This was a single-center, prospective, observational study conducted at the Department of Oncology of Luigi Sacco University Hospital (Milan, Italy) between October 2020 and April 2021. The main primary outcome was the incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) and pneumococcal infections. The main secondary outcome was safety. A total of 341 subjects were enrolled, including 194 patients with cancer and 147 FMs. The incidence of ILI was higher among patients than among FMs (9% vs. 2.7%, OR 3.92, p = 0.02). Moreover, two subjects were diagnosed with pneumococcal pneumonia. The most frequent vaccine-related AEs were pain in the injection site (31%) and fatigue (8.7%). In conclusion, this hospital-based vaccination strategy was feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic, representing a potential model to maximize vaccine coverage during a public health emergency.

Antibody response to three-dose anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-vaccination in treated solid cancer patients.

Solid cancer patients are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe complications. Moreover, vaccine-induced antibody response is impaired in patients on anticancer treatment. In this retrospective, observational, hypothesis-generating, cohort study, we assessed the antibody response to the third dose of mRNA vaccine in a convenience sample of patients on anticancer treatment, comparing it to that of the primary two-dose cycle. Among 99 patients included, 62.6% were ≥60 years old, 32.3% males, 67.7% with advanced disease. Exactly 40.4% were receiving biological therapy, 16.2% chemotherapy only and 7.1% both treatments. After the third dose, seroconversion rate seems to increase significantly, especially in non-responders to two doses. Heterologous vaccine-type regimen (two-dose mRNA-1273 and subsequent tozinameran or vice versa) results in higher antibody levels. This explorative study suggests that repeated doses of mRNA-vaccines could be associated with a better antibody response in this population. Furthermore, heterologous vaccine-type three-dose vaccination seems more effective in this population. Since this is a hypothesis-generating study, adequately statistically powered studies should validate these results.

Clinical efficacy of the first two doses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in solid cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients are frail individuals, thus the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential. To date, vaccination is the most effective tool to prevent COVID-19. In a previous study, we evaluated the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA-based vaccines (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) in solid cancer patients. We found that seroconversion rate in cancer patients without a previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was lower than in healthy controls (66.7% vs. 95%, p = 0.0020). The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the vaccination in the same population. METHODS: This is a single-institution, prospective observational study. Data were collected through a predefined questionnaire through phone call in the period between the second and third vaccine dose. The primary objective was to describe the clinical efficacy of the vaccination, defined as the percentage of vaccinated subjects who did not develop symptomatic COVID-19 within 6 months after the second dose. The secondary objective was to describe the clinical features of patients who developed COVID-19. RESULTS: From January to June 2021, 195 cancer patients were enrolled. Considering that 7 (3.59%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 5 developed symptomatic disease, the clinical efficacy of the vaccination was 97.4%. COVID-19 disease in most patients was mild and managed at home; only one hospitalization was recorded and no patient required hospitalization in the intensive care unit. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster doses, could improve the prevention of infection, hospitalization, serious illness, and death in the frail population of cancer patients.

Host-Related Factors in the Interplay among Inflammation, Immunity and Dormancy in Breast Cancer Recurrence and Prognosis: An Overview for Clinicians.

A significant proportion of patients treated for early breast cancer develop medium-term and late distant recurrence. The delayed manifestation of metastatic disease is defined as "dormancy". This model describes the aspects of the clinical latency of isolated metastatic cancer cells. Dormancy is regulated by extremely complex interactions between disseminated cancer cells and the microenvironment where they reside, the latter in turn influenced directly by the host. Among these entangled mechanisms, inflammation and immunity may play leading roles. This review is divided into two parts: the first describes the biological underpinnings of cancer dormancy and the role of the immune response, in particular, for breast cancer; the second provides an overview of the host-related factors that may influence systemic inflammation and immune response, subsequently impacting the dynamics of breast cancer dormancy. The aim of this review is to provide physicians and medical oncologists a useful tool to understand the clinical implications of this relevant topic.

Immunogenicity of two doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines for solid cancer patients on treatment with or without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Previous studies on the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines showed a reduced seroconversion in cancer patients. The aim of our study is to evaluate the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA vaccines in solid cancer patients with or without a previous exposure to the virus. This is a single-institution, prospective, nonrandomized study. Patients in active treatment and a control cohort of healthy people received two doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech/Pfizer, The United States) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax, Moderna). Vaccine was administered before starting anticancer therapy or on the first day of the treatment cycle. SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels against S1, RBD (to evaluate vaccine response) and N proteins (to evaluate previous infection) were measured in plasma before the first dose and 30 days after the second one. From January to June 2021, 195 consecutive cancer patients and 20 healthy controls were enrolled. Thirty-one cancer patients had a previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Cancer patients previously exposed to the virus had significantly higher median levels of anti-S1 and anti-RBD IgG, compared to healthy controls (P = .0349) and to cancer patients without a previous infection (P < .001). Vaccine type (anti-S1: P < .0001; anti-RBD: P = .0045), comorbidities (anti-S1: P = .0274; anti-RBD: P = .0048) and the use of G-CSF (anti-S1: P = .0151) negatively affected the antibody response. Conversely, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 significantly enhanced the response to vaccination (anti-S1: P < .0001; anti-RBD: P = .0026). Vaccine immunogenicity in cancer patients with a previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 seems comparable to that of healthy subjects. On the other hand, clinical variables of immune frailty negatively affect humoral immune response to vaccination.

Efficacy of Retreatment with Oxaliplatin-Based Regimens in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: The RETROX-CRC Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: oxaliplatin with fluoropyrimidine is a "mainstay" regarding the upfront treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In contrast, the efficacy and safety of oxaliplatin-based regimens in late-care settings have been poorly reported. METHODS: we identified a real-world mCRC patient cohort who were re-treated with oxaliplatin, and in which clinicopathological features were retrospectively analyzed to identify efficacy-predictive determinants (RETROX-CRC study). RESULTS: of 2606 patients, 119 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Oxaliplatin retreatment response rate (RR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 21.6% (CI 14.4-31.0%), and 57.8% (CI 47.7-67.4). A trend towards better RR and DCR was observed among patients who had first oxaliplatin in an adjuvant setting; a poorer outcome was observed if two or more intervening treatments were delivered. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.1 months (95%CI 4.3-6.1), reducing to 4.0 months (95%CI 3.07-5.13) if oxaliplatin was readministered beyond third-line (HR 2.02; 1.25-3.25; p = 0.004). Safety data were retrieved in 65 patients (54.6%); 18.5% (12/65) and 7.7% (5/65) had G3-4 toxicities. Toxicities led to discontinuation in 34/119 (28.6%). CONCLUSIONS: oxaliplatin retreatment produced further RR in around one-fifth of patients and DCR 57.8%. Efficacy decreased in more pre-treated patients and around one-third of patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Translational studies improving patient selection are warranted.

Liquid Biopsy for Small Cell Lung Cancer either De Novo or Transformed: Systematic Review of Different Applications and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The potential added value of liquid biopsy (LB) is not well determined in the case of small cell lung cancer (SCLC), an aggressive tumor that can occur either de novo or from the histologic transformation of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A systematic review of studies adopting LB in patients with SCLC have been performed to assess the clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) or circulating tumor cells (CTCs). RESULTS: After a screening of 728 records, 62 studies (32 evaluating CTCs, 27 ctDNA, and 3 both) met predetermined eligibility criteria. Only four studies evaluated LB in the diagnostic setting for SCLC, while its prognostic significance was evaluated in 38 studies and prominently supported by both ctDNA and CTCs. A meta-analysis of 11 studies as for CTCs enumeration showed an HR for overall survival of 2.63 (1.71-4.05), with a potential publication bias. The feasibility of tumor genomic profiling and the predictive role of LB in terms of response/resistance to chemotherapy was assessed in 11 and 24 studies, respectively, with greater consistency for those regarding ctDNA. Intriguingly, several case reports suggest that LB can indirectly capture the transition to SCLC in NSCLC treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: While dedicated trials are needed, LB holds potential clinical roles in both de novo and transformed SCLC. CtDNA analysis appears the most valuable and practicable tool for both disease monitoring and genomic profiling.

Oxaliplatin retreatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: Systematic review and future research opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin represents a main component of cytotoxic treatment regimens in colorectal cancer (CRC). Given its efficacy, oxaliplatin is frequently re-administered in the context of the continuum of care in metastatic CRC (mCRC). However, efficacy and tolerability of this therapeutic strategy has not been comprehensively assessed. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature on September 19th 2020, according to PRISMA criteria 2009. The research was performed on PubMed, ASCO Meeting Library, ESMO library and ClinicalTrials.gov for citations or ongoing trials. RESULTS: 64 records were retrieved and 13 included in the systematic review: 8 full-text articles, 4 abstracts and 1 ongoing clinical trial. According to readministration timing, studies were classified as rechallenge/reintroduction (n = 8) or stop & go/intermittent therapeutic strategies (n = 4). The studies presented wide heterogeneity in terms of efficacy (Response Rate 6-31%; Disease Control Rate 39-79%; median Progression-Free Survival 3.1-7 months). Those patients who received retreatment after prior adjuvant oxaliplatin or exploiting a stop-&-go strategy appeared to achieve better outcomes. However, no formal comparisons on treatment outcomes were feasible. The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events were hematologic toxicities (5-27%), peripheral neuropathy (5-14%) and hypersensitivity reactions (5-20%). CONCLUSIONS: Retreatment with oxaliplatin for mCRC is practiced based on scarce and heterogeneous data indicating efficacy and manageable toxicity. The best strategy to exploit this approach remains to be defined, and the most promising research avenue to improve therapeutic index of oxaliplatin is represented by selection of responder patients whose tumors harbor molecular defects in the DNA damage repair pathway.

Association of Steroids use with Survival in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can elicit toxicities by inhibiting negative regulators of adaptive immunity. Sometimes, management of toxicities may require systemic glucocorticoids. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate the correlation between steroids use, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) in cancer patients treated with ICIs. Publications that compared steroids with non-steroid users in cancer patients treated with ICIs from inception to June 2019 were identified by searching the EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Patients (studies, n = 16; patients, n = 4045) taking steroids were at increased risk of death and progression compared to those not taking steroids (HR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.24-1.91; p = 0.01 and HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.02-1.76; p = 0.03, respectively). The main negative effect on OS was associated with patients taking steroids for supportive care (HR = 2.5, 95% CI 1.41-4.43; p < 0.01) or brain metastases (HR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.87; p < 0.01). In contrast, steroids used to mitigate adverse events did not negatively affect OS. In conclusion, caution is needed when steroids are used for symptom control. In these patients, a negative impact of steroid use was observed for both OS and PFS.