Comparative effectiveness analysis of survival with first-line palbociclib or ribociclib plus AI in HR + /HER2- advanced breast cancer (CEPRA study): preliminary analysis of real-world data from Thailand.

BACKGROUND: The current standard first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR + /HER2 -) advanced breast cancer (ABC) is a combination of aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). Direct comparison trials of different CDK4/6i are scarce. This real-world study compared the effectiveness of first-line AI plus ribociclib versus palbociclib. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study, conducted in six cancer centers in Thailand, enrolled patients with HR + /HER2 - ABC treated with first-line AI, and either ribociclib or palbociclib. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), time to chemotherapy (TTC), and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 250 patients enrolled, 134 patients with ribociclib and 49 patients with palbociclib were captured after PSM. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between groups. Median PFS in patients receiving ribociclib and palbociclib were 27.9 and 31.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio: 0.87; 0.55-1.37). The median OS in the AI + ribociclib arm was 48.7 months compared to 59.1 months in the AI + palbociclib arm (hazard ratio: 0.55; 0.29-1.05). The median TTC in the AI + palbociclib group was 56 months, but not reached in the AI + ribociclib group (p = 0.42). The ORR of AI + ribociclib and AI + palbociclib were comparable (40.5% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.29). Patients receiving palbociclib demonstrated a higher proportion of neutropenia compared to those receiving ribociclib, despite a similar dose reduction rate (p = 0.28). Hepatitis rate was similar between the ribociclib (21%) and palbociclib groups (22%). Additionally, a low incidence of QT prolongation was observed in both the ribociclib (5%) and palbociclib groups (4%). CONCLUSION: This preliminary analysis of a real-world study demonstrated the comparable effectiveness of ribociclib and palbociclib with AI as an initial therapy for HR + /HER2 - ABC. No statistically significant difference in PFS, OS, and TTC was found in patients treated with AI combined with palbociclib or ribociclib. Longer follow-up and further prospective randomized head-to-head studies are warranted.

Safety Following COVID-19 Booster Vaccine with BNT162b2 Compared to mRNA-1273 in Solid Cancer Patients Previously Vaccinated with ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac.

Safety data following the COVID-19 booster mRNA vaccine in solid cancer patients are scarce. We prospectively evaluated adverse events after a booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine as compared to the mRNA-1273 vaccine in solid malignancy patients who had previously received two doses of ChAdOx1 or heterogenous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1. Data regarding solicited and unsolicited adverse events were collected using questionnaires. The primary endpoint was the difference in incidence and severity of adverse events between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines. A total of 370 subjects were enrolled, including 172 (47%) and 198 (54%) patients receiving booster doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, respectively. The overall incidence of adverse events in the two groups was comparable (BNT162b2 vs. mRNA-1273; 63% vs. 66%, p = 0.6). There was no significant difference in severity, and the majority of adverse events reported were classed as mild to moderate. Tenderness at the injection site was the only reaction that had a statistically higher reported incidence after the mRNA-1273 vaccine than after the BNT162b2 vaccine (56% vs. 41%, p = 0.003). In conclusion, a booster dose of the mRNA vaccine, either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, in solid cancer patients previously vaccinated with ChAdOx1 and CoronaVac appears safe, and no new safety concerns were observed.

Immunogenicity after a Third COVID-19 mRNA Booster in Solid Cancer Patients Who Previously Received the Primary Heterologous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 Vaccine.

No data regarding the efficacy of a third mRNA vaccine for solid cancer patients previously primed with the heterologous CoronoVac/ChAdOx1 vaccination implemented in Thailand during the shortage of vaccine supply are available. Forty-four cancer patients who previously received the heterologous CoronaVac-ChAdOx1 regimen were boosted with a third mRNA COVID vaccine, either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Anti-RBD IgG was measured immediately before, two weeks after, and four weeks after the third dose. The antibody response was compared to 87 age- and gender-matched cancer patients who were primed with the homologous ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 regimens. Post-third dose anti-RBD IgG levels significantly increased compared to pre-third dose levels. There was no statistical difference in post-third dose antibody titers or neutralization levels between these two primary series regimens. Treatment with chemotherapy was associated with a lower antibody response compared to endocrine therapy/biologics. Similar antibody levels were observed after a third booster with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 following heterologous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 vaccination. There was no statistical difference in the immune response following the third-dose vaccination between cancer patients and healthy individuals who received the same heterologous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 vaccination. In conclusion, a similar degree of enhanced immunogenicity was observed after a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in solid cancer patients who previously received the heterologous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 regimens.

Durability of Immune Response to ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 Vaccine in Solid Cancer Patients Undergoing Anticancer Treatment.

There are limited data available about the durability of the immune response after administration of the widely used adenovirus-vectored ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in cancer patients. This prospective longitudinal observational study analyzed follow-up data of immunogenic responses 12 weeks after the second dose of the ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in 290 oncological patients compared to healthy controls. The study aimed to assess the persistence of the humoral immune response three months after the second dose, and omicron neutralization was also evaluated. Three months after completion of the second vaccine dose, the geometric mean titer of SARS-CoV-2 binding total Ig statistically decreased by 42% compared to those at 4 weeks, and was lower than that of the healthy control. Six percent of patients became seronegative for anti-RBD total Ig. Only 5% (2 of 40 samples) tested positive for surrogate neutralization against SAR-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2. Across different therapy types, a waning in immunogenicity was observed within three months after the second dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, rendering it insufficient at that point to protect against the SAR-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 variant.

Vaccine-Related adverse events following AZD1222 (ChAdOx1-nCoV-19) Covid-19 vaccine in solid malignancy patients receiving cancer treatment, as compared to age-matched healthy controls.

The study aimed to evaluate vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) following ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in solid cancer patients receiving treatment compared to healthy controls. 399 cancer patients and 90 healthy volunteers were enrolled. In the overall population, the incidence of VRAEs was significantly lower in cancer patients than in healthy volunteers (57% vs 80%, P < .001). Because the mean age of the cancer patients was higher than the healthy volunteers (59 vs 48 years, P < .001), we analyzed age-matched comparison and found that there was no significant difference of VRAEs between two groups (74% vs 79%, P .32). Most VRAEs were of mild severity in both groups. The most common local VRAE was pain at the injection site in both groups, and the most common systemic VRAE was fatigue in the cancer cohort, while myalgia was the most common VRAE among the healthy controls. In the cancer cohort, fever was the only VRAE that led to interruption of the cancer treatment (in two cases). Among the cancer treatment types, patients undergoing chemotherapy-containing regimens had a lower likelihood of experiencing VRAEs. In summary, the overall incidence of VRAEs following ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in actively treated cancer patients was comparable to healthy controls after adjusting for age. The VRAEs that occurred rarely interfered with the cancer treatment. These findings substantiate that vaccination with AZD1222 is safe in cancer patients undergoing treatment.