Safety and immunogenicity of one versus two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 for patients with cancer: interim analysis of a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety profiles of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer is unknown. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in patients with cancer. METHODS: For this prospective observational study, we recruited patients with cancer and healthy controls (mostly health-care workers) from three London hospitals between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021. Participants who were vaccinated between Dec 8 and Dec 29, 2020, received two 30 µg doses of BNT162b2 administered intramuscularly 21 days apart; patients vaccinated after this date received only one 30 µg dose with a planned follow-up boost at 12 weeks. Blood samples were taken before vaccination and at 3 weeks and 5 weeks after the first vaccination. Where possible, serial nasopharyngeal real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) swab tests were done every 10 days or in cases of symptomatic COVID-19. The coprimary endpoints were seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein in patients with cancer following the first vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine and the effect of vaccine boosting after 21 days on seroconversion. All participants with available data were included in the safety and immunogenicity analyses. Ongoing follow-up is underway for further blood sampling after the delayed (12-week) vaccine boost. This study is registered with the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (REC ID 20/HRA/2031). FINDINGS: 151 patients with cancer (95 patients with solid cancer and 56 patients with haematological cancer) and 54 healthy controls were enrolled. For this interim data analysis of the safety and immunogenicity of vaccinated patients with cancer, samples and data obtained up to March 19, 2021, were analysed. After exclusion of 17 patients who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (detected by either antibody seroconversion or a positive rRT-PCR COVID-19 swab test) from the immunogenicity analysis, the proportion of positive anti-S IgG titres at approximately 21 days following a single vaccine inoculum across the three cohorts were 32 (94%; 95% CI 81-98) of 34 healthy controls; 21 (38%; 26-51) of 56 patients with solid cancer, and eight (18%; 10-32) of 44 patients with haematological cancer. 16 healthy controls, 25 patients with solid cancer, and six patients with haematological cancer received a second dose on day 21. Of the patients with available blood samples 2 weeks following a 21-day vaccine boost, and excluding 17 participants with evidence of previous natural SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 18 (95%; 95% CI 75-99) of 19 patients with solid cancer, 12 (100%; 76-100) of 12 healthy controls, and three (60%; 23-88) of five patients with haematological cancers were seropositive, compared with ten (30%; 17-47) of 33, 18 (86%; 65-95) of 21, and four (11%; 4-25) of 36, respectively, who did not receive a boost. The vaccine was well tolerated; no toxicities were reported in 75 (54%) of 140 patients with cancer following the first dose of BNT162b2, and in 22 (71%) of 31 patients with cancer following the second dose. Similarly, no toxicities were reported in 15 (38%) of 40 healthy controls after the first dose and in five (31%) of 16 after the second dose. Injection-site pain within 7 days following the first dose was the most commonly reported local reaction (23 [35%] of 65 patients with cancer; 12 [48%] of 25 healthy controls). No vaccine-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with cancer, one dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine yields poor efficacy. Immunogenicity increased significantly in patients with solid cancer within 2 weeks of a vaccine boost at day 21 after the first dose. These data support prioritisation of patients with cancer for an early (day 21) second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. FUNDING: King's College London, Cancer Research UK, Wellcome Trust, Rosetrees Trust, and Francis Crick Institute.

Systemic Therapy for Hereditary Breast Cancers.

Approximately 5% to 10% of all breast cancers are hereditary; many of which are caused by pathogenic variants in genes required for homologous recombination, including BRCA1 and BRCA2. Here we discuss systemic treatment for such breast cancers, including approved chemotherapeutic approaches and also targeted treatment approaches using poly-(ADP ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We also discuss experimental approaches to treating hereditary breast cancer, including new small molecule DNA repair inhibitors and also immunomodulatory agents. Finally, we discuss how drug resistance emerges in patients with hereditary breast cancer, how this might be delayed or prevented, and how biomarker-adapted treatment is molding the future management of hereditary breast cancer.

New Roles of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in the Treatment of Breast Cancer.

ABSTRACT: Since the proof of concept of synthetic lethality between poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition and loss of BRCA1/2 homologous recombination (HR) function in preclinical models and early phase clinical trials, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are increasing part of standard-of-care treatment for advanced breast cancers with BRCA gene mutations. The field has also recently seen benefits for PARPi in early breast cancer in those with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic mutations, and signals that synthetic lethal affects may occur in tumors with deficiencies in HR caused by germline, somatic, or epigenetic dysregulation of a number of HR genes. Despite the evidence of the synthetic lethal effects of PARPi, they are not always effective in HR defective cancers, and as they become part of standard of care in breast cancer, the study of prevalence of distinct mechanisms of resistance to PARPi and cross-resistance with other DNA-damaging agents such as platinum in breast cancer will be important and may inform therapy choices.

Real-world outcomes associated with new cancer medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: A retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Real-World Data (RWD) studies are increasingly used to support regulatory approvals, reimbursement decisions, and changes in clinical practice for novel cancer drugs. However, few studies have systematically appraised their quality or compared outcomes to pivotal trials. METHODS: All RWD studies (2010-2019) for drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2010 to 2015 for solid organ tumours in the non-curative setting were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Survival differences between each RWD study and the pivotal trial were determined using a related sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: 293 RWD studies for 45 of the 57 drug indications approved by the FDA/EMA were identified. The most common tumour types were prostate cancer (29%, n = 86) and melanoma (15%, n = 43). A quarter of the studies had industry funding. No high-quality studies were identified, and 78% were low quality. Comparative survival analysis between RWD and pivotal trials was possible for 224 studies (37 drug indications). Differences in median survival between the RWD studies and their corresponding trial ranged from -32 months to 21 months (IQR -4·2 months to 1·6 months). Low-quality studies were more likely to report superior survival outcomes (23%) compared to higher quality studies (8%) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: RWD study quality for novel cancer drugs is low and of insufficient rigour to inform reimbursement decisions and clinical practice. RWD studies seeking publication should provide a completed quality assessment tool on submission. Greater investment in properly designed RWD studies is required.

The impact of national non-pharmaceutical interventions ('lockdowns') on the presentation of cancer patients.

One of the most ignored aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the impact of public health measures by governments on wider health and welfare. From March 2020, hospitals in the UK saw a dramatic reduction in patients with cancer presenting due to multifactorial reasons. The impact of the pandemic on patients with cancer in the South East London Cancer Alliance was studied. The specific aims were (1) to examine the reduction in cancer diagnoses during the first wave of the pandemic and (2) to examine the stage of diagnosis of patients with cancer presenting during the pandemic compared with that of patients presenting before the pandemic. There was an 18.2% reduction in new cancer diagnoses (an estimate of 987 cancers), when compared with 2019. This fall in cancer diagnoses was most marked in patients with prostate (51.4%), gynaecological (29.7%), breast (29.5%) and lung (23.4%) cancers. There was an overall 3.9% increase in advanced stage presentation (Stages 3 and 4), with an overall 6.8% increase in Stage 4 cancers during this period. The greatest shifts were seen in lung (increase of 6.3%, with an 11.2% increase in Stage 4 cancer alone) and colorectal (5.4%) cancers. For prostate cancer, there was an increase in 3.8% in those presenting with Stage 4 disease. For breast cancer, there was an 8% reduction in patients diagnosed with Stage 1 cancer with commensurate increases in the proportion of those with Stage 2 disease. The experiences in cancer are a salient warning that pandemic control measures and policy need to balance all health and welfare. Alternative strategies need to be adopted during further waves of the current and any future pandemic to ensure that patients with cancer are prioritised for diagnosis and treatment to prevent late-stage presentation and an increase in avoidable deaths.

Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association of cancer treatment delay and mortality for each four week increase in delay to inform cancer treatment pathways. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Published studies in Medline from 1 January 2000 to 10 April 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Curative, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant indications for surgery, systemic treatment, or radiotherapy for cancers of the bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck were included. The main outcome measure was the hazard ratio for overall survival for each four week delay for each indication. Delay was measured from diagnosis to first treatment, or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next. The primary analysis only included high validity studies controlling for major prognostic factors. Hazard ratios were assumed to be log linear in relation to overall survival and were converted to an effect for each four week delay. Pooled effects were estimated using DerSimonian and Laird random effect models. RESULTS: The review included 34 studies for 17 indications (n=1 272 681 patients). No high validity data were found for five of the radiotherapy indications or for cervical cancer surgery. The association between delay and increased mortality was significant (P<0.05) for 13 of 17 indications. Surgery findings were consistent, with a mortality risk for each four week delay of 1.06-1.08 (eg, colectomy 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.12; breast surgery 1.08, 1.03 to 1.13). Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range 1.01-1.28). Radiotherapy estimates were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery (0.98, 0.88 to 1.09), and cervix cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (1.23, 1.00 to 1.50). A sensitivity analysis of studies that had been excluded because of lack of information on comorbidities or functional status did not change the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer treatment delay is a problem in health systems worldwide. The impact of delay on mortality can now be quantified for prioritisation and modelling. Even a four week delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality across surgical, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy indications for seven cancers. Policies focused on minimising system level delays to cancer treatment initiation could improve population level survival outcomes.

Safety and Efficacy of Pazopanib Therapy Prior to Planned Nephrectomy in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cancer in the era of targeted therapy is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To establish the safety and efficacy of upfront pazopanib therapy prior to cytoreductive nephrectomy in previously untreated patients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-arm phase 2 study of 104 previously untreated patients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer recruited between June 2008 and October 2012 at cancer treatment centers with access to nephrectomy services. The minimum follow-up was 30 months. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received 12 to 14 weeks of preoperative pazopanib therapy prior to planned cytoreductive nephrectomy and continued pazopanib therapy after surgery. Treatment was stopped at disease progression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was clinical benefit (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) prior to surgery (at 12-14 weeks). Secondary end points included surgical complications, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and biomarker analysis. RESULTS: Of 104 patients recruited, 100 patients were assessable for clinical benefit prior to planned nephrectomy; 80 of 104 (76.9%) were men; median [interquartile range] age, 64 [56-71] years). Overall, 84 of 100 (84% [95% CI, 75%-91%]) gained clinical benefit before planned nephrectomy. The median reduction in the size of the primary tumor was 14.4% (interquartile range, 1.4%-21.1%). No patients were unable to undergo surgery as a result of local progression of disease. Nephrectomy was performed in 63 (61%) of patients; 14 (22%) reported surgical complications. The 2 most common reasons for not undergoing surgery were progression of disease (n = 13) and patient choice (n = 9). There was 1 postoperative surgical death. The median PFS and OS for the whole cohort were 7.1 (95% CI, 6.0-9.2) and 22.7 (95% CI, 14.3-not estimable) months, respectively. Patients with MSKCC poor-risk disease or progressive disease prior to surgery had a poor outcome (median OS, 5.7 [95% CI, 2.6-10.8] and 3.9 [95% CI, 0.5-9.1] months, respectively). Surgical complications were observed in 14 (22%) of the nephrectomies. Biomarker analysis from sequential tissue samples revealed a decrease in CD8 expression (20.00 vs 13.75; P = .05) and significant reduction in expression of von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor (100 vs 40; P < .001) and C-MET (300 vs 100; P < .001) and increased programmed cell death ligand 1 expression (0 vs 1.5; P < .001) in the immune component. No on-treatment biomarker correlated with response. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nephrectomy after upfront pazopanib therapy could be performed safely and was associated with good outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk metastatic clear cell renal cancer.