Humoral and T-Cell Immune Response After 3 Doses of Messenger RNA Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccines in Fragile Patients: The Italian VAX4FRAIL Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with solid or hematological tumors or neurological and immune-inflammatory disorders are potentially fragile subjects at increased risk of experiencing severe coronavirus disease 2019 and an inadequate response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. METHODS: We designed a prospective Italian multicenter study to assess humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients (n = 378) with solid tumors (ST), hematological malignancies (HM), neurological disorders (ND), and immunorheumatological diseases (ID). A group of healthy controls was also included. We analyzed the immunogenicity of the primary vaccination schedule and booster dose. RESULTS: The overall seroconversion rate in patients after 2 doses was 62.1%. Significantly lower rates were observed in HM (52.4%) and ID (51.9%) than in ST (95.6%) and ND (70.7%); a lower median antibody level was detected in HM and ID versus ST and ND (P < .0001). Similar rates of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response were found in all disease groups, with a higher level observed in ND. The booster dose improved the humoral response in all disease groups, although to a lesser extent in HM patients, whereas the T-cell response increased similarly in all groups. In the multivariable logistic model, independent predictors of seroconversion were disease subgroup, treatment type, and age. Ongoing treatment known to affect the immune system was associated with the worst humoral response to vaccination (P < .0001) but had no effect on T-cell responses. CONCLUSIONS: Immunosuppressive treatment more than disease type per se is a risk factor for a low humoral response after vaccination. The booster dose can improve both humoral and T-cell responses.

Neutralizing antibodies to Omicron after the fourth SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose in immunocompromised patients highlight the need of additional boosters.

Introduction: Immunocompromised patients have been shown to have an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Here we compared the B-cell, T-cell and neutralizing antibody response to WT and Omicron BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 virus after the fourth dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies (HM, n=71), solid tumors (ST, n=39) and immune-rheumatological (IR, n=25) diseases. The humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were analyzed by quantifying the anti-RBD antibodies, their neutralization activity and the IFN-γ released after spike specific stimulation. Results: We show that the T-cell response is similarly boosted by the fourth dose across the different subgroups, while the antibody response is improved only in patients not receiving B-cell targeted therapies, independent on the pathology. However, 9% of patients with anti-RBD antibodies did not have neutralizing antibodies to either virus variants, while an additional 5.7% did not have neutralizing antibodies to Omicron BA.2, making these patients particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The increment of neutralizing antibodies was very similar towards Omicron BA.2 and WT virus after the third or fourth dose of vaccine, suggesting that there is no preferential skewing towards either virus variant with the booster dose. The only limited step is the amount of antibodies that are elicited after vaccination, thus increasing the probability of developing neutralizing antibodies to both variants of virus. Discussion: These data support the recommendation of additional booster doses in frail patients to enhance the development of a B-cell response directed against Omicron and/or to enhance the T-cell response in patients treated with anti-CD20.

mRNA-COVID19 Vaccination Can Be Considered Safe and Tolerable for Frail Patients.

Background: Frail patients are considered at relevant risk of complications due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and, for this reason, are prioritized candidates for vaccination. As these patients were originally not included in the registration trials, fear related to vaccine adverse events and disease worsening was one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Herein, we report the safety profile of the prospective, multicenter, national VAX4FRAIL study (NCT04848493) to evaluate vaccines in a large trans-disease cohort of patients with solid or hematological malignancies and neurological and rheumatological diseases. Methods: Between March 3 and September 2, 2021, 566 patients were evaluable for safety endpoint: 105 received the mRNA-1273 vaccine and 461 the BNT162b2 vaccine. Frail patients were defined per protocol as patients under treatment with hematological malignancies (n = 131), solid tumors (n = 191), immune-rheumatological diseases (n = 86), and neurological diseases (n = 158), including multiple sclerosis and generalized myasthenia. The impact of the vaccination on the health status of patients was assessed through a questionnaire focused on the first week after each vaccine dose. Results: The most frequently reported moderate-severe adverse events were pain at the injection site (60.3% after the first dose, 55.4% after the second), fatigue (30.1%-41.7%), bone pain (27.4%-27.2%), and headache (11.8%-18.9%). Risk factors associated with the occurrence of severe symptoms after vaccine administration were identified through a multivariate logistic regression analysis: age was associated with severe fever presentation (younger patients vs. middle-aged vs. older ones), female individuals presented a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and bone pain; and the mRNA-1237 vaccine was associated with a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site and fever. After the first dose, patients presenting a severe symptom were at a relevant risk of recurrence of the same severe symptom after the second one. Overall, 11 patients (1.9%) after the first dose and 7 (1.2%) after the second one required postponement or suspension of the disease-specific treatment. Finally, two fatal events occurred among our 566 patients. These two events were considered unrelated to the vaccine. Conclusions: Our study reports that mRNA-COVID-19 vaccination is safe also in frail patients; as expected, side effects were manageable and had a minimum impact on patient care path.

Lessons learned from COVID-19 for clinical research operations in Italy: what have we learned and what can we apply in the future?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has stressed the importance of health research as never before. In the specific domain of clinical research, the effort to rapidly find responses to health challenges and therapeutic hypotheses has highlighted the need for efficient, timely, ethically correct research. The guidelines published by the Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco have shown that some useful changes are feasible: simple and rapid methods have been implemented to conduct clinical research in the emergency conditions of the pandemic, maintaining high levels of quality. In this perspective, four Italian scientific associations operating in clinical research have worked together to evaluate which measures, among the ones implemented during the pandemic, have been particularly significant and potentially effective under normal conditions or in case of emergencies, and that therefore will be useful in the future as well.

SARS-CoV-2 Serology Monitoring of a Cancer Center Staff in the Pandemic Most Infected Italian Region.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, Cancer Centers adopted specific procedures both to protect patients and to monitor the possible spread of SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare personnel (HCP). In April 2020 at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, one of the three oncologic hubs in Lombardy where the Health Regional Authorities referred all the cancer patients of the region, we implemented a prospective longitudinal study aimed at monitoring the serological response to SARS-Cov-2 in HCP. One hundred and ten HCP answered a questionnaire and were screened by nasopharyngeal swabs as well as for IgM/IgG levels; seropositive HCPs were further screened every 40-45 days using SARS-CoV-2-specific serology. We identified a fraction of HCP with long-term anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses, though negative for viral RNA, and thus probably able to safely approach fragile cancer patients. Monitoring asymptomatic HCP might provide useful information to organize the healthcare service in a Cancer Center, while waiting for the effectiveness of the active immunization by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, which will provide protection from infection.

Phase I Study of Rucaparib in Combination with Bevacizumab in Ovarian Cancer Patients: Maximum Tolerated Dose and Pharmacokinetic Profile.

BACKGROUND: Targeted agents, such as antiangiogenic drugs (e.g., bevacizumab) and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (e.g., rucaparib), have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent ovarian cancer. Evidence suggests that combinations of these two classes of targeted agents may result in synergistic antitumor activity. OBJECTIVE: The phase I portion of MITO 25 was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose, pharmacokinetics, and the safety profile of rucaparib when administered in combination with bevacizumab as maintenance treatment for patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. METHODS: This was a single-arm, phase I dose-escalation study. Cohorts of three patients were recruited to receive increasing rucaparib doses of 400 mg, 500 mg, or 600 mg twice daily for 28 days. Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg was administered at day 1 every 21 days. RESULTS: We enrolled nine patients. Two patients in the rucaparib 600-mg group had four grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events: increased in alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels, depression, and hallucinations. These were deemed to be dose-limiting toxicities related to rucaparib. Because these dose-limiting toxicities occurred in the 600-mg group and affected more than one in three patients, the maximum tolerated dose for rucaparib was considered 500 mg twice daily when combined with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg at day 1 every 21 days. There were no new safety concerns from using the combination. No substantial difference in pharmacokinetic parameters was found between the cohorts or in the pharmacokinetic profiles of rucaparib administered alone or with bevacizumab with respect to historical controls. CONCLUSIONS: The maximum tolerated dose of rucaparib is 500 mg twice daily when co-administered with bevacizumab. The plasma concentration-time profiles of rucaparib in combination with bevacizumab suggest no pharmacokinetic interactions between the drugs. The randomized phase II portion of MITO 25 will further investigate rucaparib maintenance treatment with or without bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed stage III-IV ovarian cancer who responded to carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03462212; registered March 2018.

Emerging toxicities in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: ocular disorders.

The treatment of advanced disease (stage IIIb and IV) of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is based on systemic treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy or biological compounds depending on the disease molecular profile. In the last few years, intensive investigational efforts in anticancer therapy have led to the registration of new active chemotherapeutic agents, combination regimens, and biological drugs, expanding choices for customizing individual treatment. However, the introduction of new drugs in the clinical setting has led to several new toxicities, creating some difficulties in daily management. Among these, ocular toxicity is generally overlooked as more common toxicities such as myelosuppression, stomatitis, diarrhea, vomiting, "hand-foot syndrome", and neurological alterations attract greater attention. Ophthalmic complications from cytotoxic chemotherapeutics are rare, transient, and of mild/moderate intensity but irreversible acute disorders are possible. The best way to prevent potential irreversible visual complications is an awareness of the potential for ocular toxicity because dose reductions or early drug cessation can prevent serious ocular complications in the majority of cases. However, given the novelty of many therapeutic agents and the complexity of ocular pathology, oncologists may be unfamiliar with these adverse effects of anticancer therapy. Although toxicities from chemotherapy are generally intense but short lasting, toxicities related to targeted drugs are often milder but longer lasting and can persist throughout treatment. Here we review the principal clinical presentations of ocular toxicity arising from chemotherapy [1-3], target therapies [4], and newly developed drugs and provide some recommendations for monitoring and management of ocular toxicity.

Features and prognostic factors of large node-negative non-small-cell lung cancers shifted to stage II.

BACKGROUND: During the period that randomized clinical trials were establishing the role of adjuvant therapy in tumors larger than 5 cm without lymph-node invasion, which shifted from stage IB (6th TNM) to stage II (7th TNM), we derived the rate of shifted patients in our series and analyzed the relationship between specific patient- and tumor- characteristics, and clinical outcome, to identify putative prognostic factors. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data (age, sex, smoking status, type of surgery grading, and histological type) from 467 patients who underwent radical surgery for primary 6th TNM-T2N0 non-small cell lung cancer patients between 1998 and 2009 at our institute. Categorical variables were cross-tabulated by tumor staging according to the 7th TNM edition, and they were tested both for association with stage and survival. RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients shifted to stage II, mainly older patients and patients with a sarcomatoid or a poorly differentiated carcinoma. Median overall survival time was significantly different across stages. Among the factors investigated, only the tumor dimension resulted in being statistically significant in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly a quarter of patients shifted from stage I (6th TNM) to stage II (7th TNM), raising a major need for information on the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in this group of patients. Our findings suggest that randomized clinical trials aimed at addressing this topic should consider only tumor dimensions as principal selection criteria.