SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in the First Year After Hematopoietic Cell Transplant or Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of vaccination with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines after cellular therapy is incompletely understood. The objectives of this study are to determine whether humoral and cellular responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination differ if initiated <4 months versus 4-12 months after cellular therapy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study at 30 cancer centers in the United States. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was administered as part of routine care. We obtained blood prior to and after vaccinations at up to 5 time points and tested for SARS-CoV-2 spike (anti-S) IgG in all participants and neutralizing antibodies for Wuhan D614G, Delta B.1.617.2, and Omicron B.1.1.529 strains, as well as SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell receptors, in a subgroup. RESULTS: We enrolled 466 allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) (n = 231), autologous HCT (n = 170), and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T-cell) therapy (n = 65) recipients between April 2021 and June 2022. Humoral and cellular responses did not significantly differ among participants initiating vaccinations <4 months versus 4-12 months after cellular therapy. Anti-S IgG ≥2500 U/mL was correlated with high neutralizing antibody titers and attained by the last time point in 70%, 69%, and 34% of allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, and CAR-T-cell recipients, respectively. SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses were attained in 57%, 83%, and 58%, respectively. Pre-cellular therapy SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination and baseline B-cell count were key predictors of post-cellular therapy immunity. CONCLUSIONS: These data support mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination prior to, and reinitiation 3 to 4 months after, cellular therapies with allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, and CAR-T-cell therapy.

Cultural and linguistic adaptation of a telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention to treat depression and anxiety in Hispanic cancer survivors.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to transcreate a manualized cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention to address depression and anxiety among Hispanic cancer survivors. DESIGN/RESEARCH APPROACH: Stakeholders reviewed the CBT workbook for language, content, and cultural relevance. We designed semi-structured interview guides to elicit intervention feedback. SAMPLE/PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholder participants were Hispanic cancer survivors (n = 4), bilingual mental health providers (n = 2), and oncology professionals (n = 4). METHODS: Transcreation was conducted by initial translation of the workbook followed by incorporation of stakeholder feedback. A bilingual (Spanish and English) interviewer conducted stakeholder interviews. The study team discussed themes/suggestions before refining the workbook. FINDINGS: Stakeholders reported enthusiasm for the intervention. We gathered significant feedback regarding wording, images, and resources for the workbook. CONCLUSION: Development of culturally appropriate mental health resources for Hispanic cancer survivors is critical. IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL PROVIDERS OR POLICY: By broadening research on psychosocial care to the Hispanic population, we increase the reach of evidence-based psychological care. Future research should fully evaluate the adapted CBT intervention among Hispanic survivors.

Asking the "Right" Questions about Financial Hardship: Using Cognitive Interviews with Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer and Their Caregivers to Inform Measure Development.

Purpose: Financial hardship as a result of cancer treatment can have a significant and lasting negative impact on adolescents and young adults (AYAs) and their families. To address a lack of developmentally informed and psychometrically sound measures of financial hardship for AYAs and their caregivers, we used rigorous measurement development methods recommended by the National Institutes of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) to determine comprehensibility and relevance of measure content. Methods: Our multi-step approach involved item identification, refinement, and generation; translatability and reading level review; and cognitive interviews. A purposive sample of 25 AYAs and 10 caregivers participated, ensuring representation across age, education, gender, race/ethnicity, and cancer type. Results: Fifty patient-reported and caregiver-reported items were developed across material, psychosocial, and behavioral subdomains of financial hardship. Translatability and reading level reviews resulted in 22 patient-reported and 25 caregiver-reported items being rewritten. Eighty-eight percent of patients and all caregivers described the items as easy to answer. Younger AYAs (15 to 25 years of age) were more likely to say the items were less relevant for them. Forty-six patient-reported and 48 caregiver-reported items were recommended for further testing. Conclusion: This study is the first to use in-depth qualitative methods to center AYA patient and caregiver experiences in the creation of new measures of financial hardship. Data support the comprehensibility and content validity of these preliminary item banks. Future large-scale, quantitative testing will lead to additional refinements and support the use of short forms and computer-adaptive testing for a diverse sample of AYAs and their caregivers.

In Pursuit of Optimal Outcomes: A Framework for Quality Standards in Immune Effector Cell Therapy.

Immune effector cell (IEC) therapy represents a transformative advancement in oncology, leveraging the immune system to combat various malignancies. This article outlines a comprehensive framework for establishing and maintaining quality standards in IEC therapy amidst rapid scientific and clinical advancements. We emphasize the integration of structured process measures, robust quality assurance, and meticulous outcome evaluation to ensure treatment efficacy and safety. Key components include multidisciplinary expertise, stringent accreditation protocols, and advanced data management systems, which facilitate standardized reporting and continual innovation. The collaborative effort among stakeholders-ranging from patients and healthcare providers to regulatory bodies-is crucial in delivering high-quality IEC therapies. This framework aims to enhance patient outcomes and cement the role of IEC therapy as a cornerstone of modern oncology, promoting continuous improvement and adherence to high standards across the therapeutic spectrum.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the first year after hematopoietic cell transplant or chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy: A prospective, multicenter, observational study (BMT CTN 2101).

Background: The optimal timing of vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines after cellular therapy is incompletely understood. Objective: To describe humoral and cellular responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination initiated <4 months versus 4-12 months after cellular therapy. Design: Multicenter prospective observational study. Setting: 34 centers in the United States. Participants: 466 allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT; n=231), autologous HCT (n=170), or chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T cell) therapy (n=65) recipients enrolled between April 2021 and June 2022. Interventions: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination as part of routine care. Measurements: We obtained blood prior to and after vaccinations at up to five time points and tested for SARS-CoV-2 spike (anti-S) IgG in all participants and neutralizing antibodies for Wuhan D614G, Delta B.1.617.2, and Omicron B.1.1.529 strains, as well as SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell receptors (TCRs), in a subgroup. Results: Anti-S IgG and neutralizing antibody responses increased with vaccination in HCT recipients irrespective of vaccine initiation timing but were unchanged in CAR-T cell recipients initiating vaccines within 4 months. Anti-S IgG ≥2,500 U/mL was correlated with high neutralizing antibody titers and attained by the last time point in 70%, 69%, and 34% of allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, and CAR-T cell recipients, respectively. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were attained in 57%, 83%, and 58%, respectively. Humoral and cellular responses did not significantly differ among participants initiating vaccinations <4 months vs 4-12 months after cellular therapy. Pre-cellular therapy SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination were key predictors of post-cellular therapy anti-S IgG levels. Limitations: The majority of participants were adults and received mRNA vaccines. Conclusions: These data support starting mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination three to four months after allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, and CAR-T cell therapy. Funding: National Marrow Donor Program, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, Novartis, LabCorp, American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and the National Institutes of Health.