Topical chlormethine gel in the treatment of mycosis fungoides: A single-center real-life experience and systematic review of the literature.

Gel formulation of chlormethine (CG) has gained a preeminent role among therapies available for mycosis fungoides (MF). To evaluate the frequency of use of CG for MF treatment and to determine the limits and potentialities of CG in a real-world setting. A systematic review of articles published prior to October 2021 was performed. Articles were included in the review if a full-text English version was available. MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science were each queried from their date of inception with the following terms: "mechlorethamine gel", "chlormethine gel", and "mycosis fungoides". The reference lists of the studies retrieved were searched manually. Moreover, this study included all consecutive patients with different stages of MF (from IA to IIB) who started treatment with CG gel between July 2020 and May 2021. Data of the literature were compared to our single-center real-life experience. Of the surveyed literature, 11 publications were included in the final analysis describing a total of 548 patients with MF. Eleven patients with a median (standard deviation) age of 66 years (15.1) were enrolled and followed up, receiving CG (0.02% chlormethine HCl). Response to treatment resulted higher (90.1%) in our study population than in other real-world experiences published in literature. This systematic review supports the role of CG for MF treatment, showing its limits and potentialities. Our single-center real-life experience revealed an elevated percentage of clinical response with high safety and tolerance, demonstrating its versatile use with dose and application rate adaptability.

COV-BT Ire study: safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in patients with brain tumors.

BACKGROUND: The BNT162b2 vaccine conferred 95% protection against COVID-19 in people aged 16 years or older. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this observational study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of vaccine in patients affected by primary brain tumor (PBT). METHODS: We proposed COVID-19 vaccine to all patients affected by PBT followed by Neuroncology Unit of National Cancer Institute Regina Elena. RESULTS: 102 patients received the first dose, 100 the second, and 73 patients received the booster dose. After first dose, we observed one patient with fever and severe fatigue, while after the second one, we recorded adverse events in ten patients. No correlation was observed between adverse events and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 vaccine is safe and well tolerated in PBT patients.

Immunogenicity and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccine BNT162b2 for Patients with Solid Cancer: A Large Cohort Prospective Study from a Single Institution.

PURPOSE: We assessed the immunogenicity and safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine in a large cohort of patients with cancer (CP). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: From March 1, 2021 to March 20, 2021, this prospective cohort study included 816 CP afferent to our institution and eligible for the vaccination. A cohort of 274 health care workers (HCW) was used as age- and sex-matched control group. BNT162b2 was administered as a two-dose regimen given 21 days apart. Blood samples to analyze anti-Spike (S) IgG antibodies (Ab) were collected prevaccination [timepoint (TP) 0], and at 3 weeks (TP1) and 7 weeks (TP2) after the first dose. RESULTS: Patients characteristics: median age 62 (range, 21-97); breast/lung cancer/others (31/21/48%); active treatment/follow-up (90/10%). In the whole CP cohort, the serologic response rate (RR) and the titre of anti-S IgG significantly increased across the TPs; at TP2, the responders (IgG >15 AU/mL) were 94.2%. Active chemotherapy and chronic use of steroids were independent predictors of lower RR. Adverse events (AE) after the booster predicted higher likelihood of response (OR, 4.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-9.99; P = 0.003). Comparing the matched cohorts, the responders were significantly lower in CP than in HCW at TP1 (61.2% vs. 93.2%) and TP2 (93.3% vs. 100%), while the geometric mean concentration of IgG did not significantly differ at TP2 being significantly lower in CP (23.3) than in HCW (52.1) at TP1. BNT162b2 was well tolerated in CP; severe-grade AEs were 3.5% and 1.3% after the first and second doses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BNT162b2 assures serologic immunization without clinically significant toxicity in CP. The second dose is needed to reach a satisfactory humoral response.

The first report on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine refusal by patients with solid cancer in Italy: Early data from a single-institute survey.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with cancer have an increased risk of complications from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, including death, and thus, they were considered as high-priority subjects for COVID-19 vaccination. We report on the compliance with the COVID-19 vaccine of patients affected by solid tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with cancer afferent to Medical Oncology 1 Unit of Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome were considered eligible for vaccination if they were receiving systemic immunosuppressive antitumor treatment or received it in the last 6 months or having an uncontrolled advanced disease. The Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine was proposed to all candidates via phone or during a scheduled visit. The reasons for refusal were collected by administrating a 6-item multiple-choice questionnaire. RESULTS: From 1st March to 20th March 2021, of 914 eligible patients, 102 refused vaccination (11.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-13.2). The most frequent (>10%) reasons reported were concerns about vaccine-related adverse events (48.1%), negative interaction with concomitant antitumor therapy (26.7%), and the fear of allergic reaction (10.7%). The refusal rate (RR) after 15th March (date of AstraZeneca-AZD1222 suspension) was more than doubled compared with the RR observed before (19.7% versus 8.6%, odds ratio [OR] 2.60, 95% CI 1.69-3.99; P < 0.0001). ECOG-PS 2 was associated with higher RR compared with ECOG-PS 0-1 (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.04-8.34; P = 0.04). No statistically significant differences in RR according to other clinical characteristics were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience represents the first worldwide report on the adherence of patients with cancer to COVID-19 vaccination and underlines how regulatory decisions and media news spreading could influence the success of the campaign.