Short-term safety and immunogenicity of inactivated and peptide-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with endocrine-related cancer.

Background: The aim of this study was to explore the short-term safety and immunogenicity of inactivated and peptide-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with endocrine-related cancer (ER). Methods: Eighty-eight patients with ER cancer and 82 healthy controls who had completed a full course of inactivated or peptide-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were recruited. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Responses to receptor-binding domain IgG antibody (anti-RBD-IgG), neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and RBD+ memory B cells (MBCs) were evaluated. Results: Approximately 26.14% (23/88) of patients with ER cancer reported AEs within 7 days, which was comparable to that reported by healthy controls (24.39%, 20/82). Both the overall seroprevalence of anti-RBD-IgG and NAbs was obviously lower in the cancer group (70.45% vs. 86.59%, P < 0.05; 69.32% vs. 82.93%, P < 0.05, respectively). Anti-RBD-IgG and NAbs titers exhibited similar results, and dropped gradually over time. Patients with ongoing treatment had an attenuated immune response, especially in patients receiving active chemotherapy. The frequency of overall RBD+ MBCs was similar between the two groups, but the percentage of active MBCs was remarkably reduced in patients with ER cancer. Unlike antibody titers, MBCs responses were relatively constant over time. Conclusion: Inactivated and peptide-based COVID-19 vaccines were well tolerated, but with lower immunogenicity for ER cancer patients. More intensive antibody monitoring and timely booster immunization is recommended for patients with ER cancer presenting disordered subpopulations of RBD+ MBCs.

Antibody response to a third booster dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in adults with haematological and solid cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients living with cancer are at a significantly increased risk of morbidity and mortality after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This systematic review aims to investigate the current available evidence about the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccines in patients living with cancer. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken for studies published until March 1, 2022. A systematic narrative review was undertaken to include all studies that evaluated the efficacy of booster vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer. RESULTS: Fifteen studies encompassing 1205 patients with cancer were included. We found that a booster vaccine dose induced a higher response in patients with solid cancer as compared to haematological malignancies. Recent systemic anticancer therapy does not appear to affect seroconversion in solid organ malignancies, however, there is an association between B-cell depleting therapies and poor seroconversion in haematological patients. CONCLUSIONS: Third booster vaccination induces an improved antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in adults with haematological and solid cancer, relative to patients who only receive two doses. Access to vaccination boosters should be made available to patients at risk of poor immunological responses, and the provision of fourth doses may be of benefit to this vulnerable population. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42021270420.

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.

Immunogenicity and risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection after Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are considered a priority group for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination given their high risk of contracting severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, limited data exist regarding the efficacy of immunisation in this population. In this study, we assess the immunologic response after COVID-19 vaccination of cancer versus non-cancer population. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases were searched from 01st March 2020 through 12th August 12 2021. Primary end-points were anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroconversion rates, T-cell response, and documented SARS-CoV-2 infection after COVID-19 immunisation. Data were extracted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Overall effects were pooled using random-effects models. RESULTS: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 35 original studies. Overall, 51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-62) and 73% (95% CI, 64-81) of patients with cancer developed anti-S IgG above the threshold level after partial and complete immunisation, respectively. Patients with haematologic malignancies had a significantly lower seroconversion rate than those with solid tumours after complete immunisation (65% vs 94%; P < 0.0001). Compared with non-cancer controls, oncological patients were less likely to attain seroconversion after incomplete (risk ratio [RR] 0.45 [95% CI 0.35-0.58]) and complete (RR 0.69 [95% CI 0.56-0.84]) COVID-19 immunisation schemes. Patients with cancer had a higher likelihood of having a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection after partial (RR 3.21; 95% CI 0.35-29.04) and complete (RR 2.04; 95% CI 0.38-11.10) immunisation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer have an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccination compared with controls. Strategies that endorse the completion of vaccination schemes are warranted. Future studies should aim to evaluate different approaches that enhance oncological patients' immune response.

Coordination and optimization of FDG PET/CT and COVID-19 vaccination; Lessons learned in the early stages of mass vaccination.

As the world embarks on mass vaccination for COVID-19, we are beginning to encounter unintended dilemmas in imaging oncology patients; particularly with regards to FDG PET/CT. In some cases, vaccine-related lymphadenopathy and FDG uptake on PET/CT can mimic cancer and lead to confounding imaging results. These cases where findings overlap with cancer pose a significant dilemma for diagnostic purposes, follow-up, and management leading to possible treatment delays, unnecessary repeat imaging and sampling, and patient anxiety. These cases can largely be avoided by optimal coordination between vaccination and planned imaging as well as preemptive selection of vaccine administration site. This coordination hinges on patient, oncologist, and radiologists' awareness of this issue and collaboration. Through close communication and patient education, we believe this will eliminate significant challenges for our oncology patients as we strive to end this pandemic.