Immunogenicity after two and three doses of mRNA vaccine in patients with cancer treated with exclusive radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Data on immunoresponse after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for patients treated with exclusive radiotherapy (RT) are scarce. Since RT may affect the immune system, we conducted the MORA trial (Antibody response and cell-mediated immunity of MOderna mRNA-1273 vaccine in patients treated with RAdiotherapy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding humoral and cellular immune response of patients treated with RT were prospectively collected after the second and third dose of mRNA vaccines. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were enrolled. With a median of 147 days after the second dose, the median SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer was 300 BAU/mL: six patients were seronegative (Spike IgG titer ≤ 40 BAU/mL), whereas 24, 46 and 16 were poor responders (Spike IgG titer:41-200 BAU/mL), responders (Spike IgG titer:201-800 BAU/mL) and ultraresponders (Spike IgG titer > 800 BAU/mL), respectively. Among seronegative patients, two patients were negative also for cell mediated response, as tested with IFN-γ release Assay (IGRA) test. With a median of 85 days after the third dose, the median SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer was 1632 BAU/mL in 81 patients: only two patients were seronegative, whereas 16 and 63 patients were responders and ultraresponders, respectively. Among the 2 persistently seronegative patients, IGRA test was negative in one who had previously received anti-CD20 therapy. Documented paucisymptomatic (n = 3) or asymptomatic (n = 4) infection occurred after the third dose, during the Omicron wave. CONCLUSION: In patients treated with exclusive RT, even during the Omicron breakthrough, robust humoral response and clinical protection from severe SARS-CoV-2 disease were achievable with three doses of mRNA vaccine.

The Relationship Between Covid-19 Risk Perception and Vaccine Hesitancy in Cancer Patients: The Moderating Role of Externalizing Traits.

Objective: This mixed-methods study aimed to explore the role of externalizing traits in moderating the relationship between COVID-19 risk perception and vaccine hesitancy in patients diagnosed with cancer. A community-based participatory approach - comprising a preliminary qualitative inquiry and a subsequent cross-sectional research - was used to promote effective vaccination campaigns. Method: 12 people diagnosed with cancer and 7 cancer professionals were recruited for the qualitative inquiry, 356 people either under cancer treatment or in follow-up care for the cross-sectional research.A phenomenological analysis explored the transcripts of two focus groups. The cross-sectional research tested the hypothesis emerged during the previous qualitative inquiry through self-reported questionnaires and moderated regression. Results: Phenomenological analysis suggested a pivotal role of externalizing traits in vaccine hesitancy. Moderated regression revealed how the association between risk perception and vaccine hesitancy is moderated by externalizing traits, even when controlled for treatment adherence. Conclusions: In the present study we found a stronger relationship between risk perception and vaccine hesitancy for patients with higher levels of externalizing traits. We suggest that vaccination campaigns should be personality-informed to offer individualized and effective solutions. Patients with externalizing traits may cope dysfunctionally with vaccination campaigns.

The national COVID-19 vaccination campaign targeting the extremely vulnerable: the Florence Medical Oncology Unit experience in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: International and national oncology societies had released recommendations in favor of COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients. In the context of the national vaccination campaign targeting the so called extremely vulnerable, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines in a cohort of 623 patients. METHODS: Between March 26 and April 04, 2021, the Pfizer and BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA and the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines were given as a two-dose prime-boost regimen. Starting on September 25th 2021 a third dose was offered to patients in whom a suboptimal immunogenicity with COVID-19 vaccination could be expected. Safety assessments were performed by phone call 7 days after each dose. Electronic health records were accessed to review demographic information, disease history, treatment detail, and outcome events of participants patients'. FINDINGS: No toxicities were reported in 63.7%, 54%, and in 48.7% patients with cancer after each dose. Mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site was the most commonly adverse event. After the second dose, 46% of the 610 patients reported toxicity, with more systemic side-effects observed. Fever was reported in 45% of patients, with a temperature ≥ 38 °C in 21.4% of them. Of the 335 patients receiving a third vaccine dose, 51% reported toxicity, with 13% of patients reporting more than one effect. Logistic regression analysis reported mixed results, with limited variables or categories reporting a significant odd ratio. The type of vaccine reported a significant value at first dose (OR = 0.12; CI 0.52, 0.26; p = 0.00). Thirty-four cases of COVID-19 infection were reported with only one patient requiring a short-term hospitalization for monitoring. INTERPRETATION: The safety profile of the mRNA vaccines does not raise any specific concerns and support prioritization of vaccination for cancer patients.

Evaluation of Three Immunoassays for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens.

Three assays for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in nasopharyngeal swabs (Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag [LPG], STANDARDTM F COVID-19 Ag FIA [STF] and AFIAS COVID-19 Ag [AFC] were evaluated. Compared to RT-PCR, LPG, AFC and STF showed a variable sensitivity (87.9%, 37.5%, and 35.7%, respectively) and an overall high specificity (> 95%).

Body composition assessment in a sample of eight-year-old children.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the body composition of 8-y-old children living in Livorno through the integration of bioelectrical and anthropometric evaluations. METHODS: The study, conducted during December 2005, involved 8-y-old third graders of Livorno, Italy. We collected for each subject (449 children, 210 female and 239 male) anthropometric parameters and carried out bioelectrical impedance test with a STA/BIA Soft Tissue Analyzer. Data were processed with SPSS 14.0. RESULTS: According to anthropometric parameters, a statistically significant difference between genders was found only for height. Percentages of overweight and obese children by gender were 13.9 and 2.4 for girls and 21.3 and 2.1 for boys (P<0.05). No significant differences were observed for weight, height, and body mass index percentiles from national reference values, whereras significant differences were found in mid-upper arm circumference between our sample and-lacking national data-the reference (U.S.) population for age and gender. With regard to bioelectrical impedance analysis, a common trend of distribution was observed in both genders toward the left and the area above the spatial ellipses and a statistically significant difference between genders for all parameters with the exception of phase angle. A gradual mean impedance shortening vector was observed with an increase of body mass index or mid-upper arm circumference. The comparison of the two techniques showed a good relation between anthropometric and bioelectrical parameters. CONCLUSION: An integrated interpretation of bioelectrical impedance analysis and anthropometry, demonstrated by the correlation of many parameters between the two techniques, seems to emerge as a good indication of nutritional status for most children of both genders.