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.

Ralstonia mannitolilytica infections in an oncologic day ward: description of a cluster among high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Ralstonia spp, an environmental microorganism, has been occasionally associated with healthcare infections. The aim of this study was to investigate an outbreak caused by Ralstonia mannitolilytica in oncology patients. METHODS: Case definition: Oncology outpatients attending a day ward, with positive blood and/or central venous catheter (CVC) culture for Ralstonia spp from September 2013 - June 2014. We analysed medical records, procedures and environmental samples. R. mannitolilytica was identified by 16S rRNA sequencing, and typed by Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE); resistance to carbapenemes was investigated by phenotypic and molecular methods. RESULTS: The patients (N = 22) had different malignancies and received different therapy; all had a CVC and 16 patients presented chills and/or fever. R. mannitolilytica was isolated from both blood and CVC (n = 12) or only blood (n = 6) or CVC tips (n = 4). The isolates had indistinguishable PFGE profile, and showed resistance to carbapenems. All the isolates were negative for carbapenemase genes while phenotypic tests suggests the presence of an AmpC ß-lactamase activity,responsible for carbapenem resistance. All patients had had CVC flushed with saline to keep the venous access pervious or before receiving chemotherapy at various times before the onset of symptoms. After the first four cases occurred, the multi-dose saline bottles used for CVC flushing were replaced with single-dose vials; environmental samples were negative for R. mannitolilytica. CONCLUSIONS: Although the source of R. mannitolilytica remains unidentified, CVC flushing with contaminated saline solution seems to be the most likely origin of R. mannitolilytica CVC colonization and subsequent infections. In order to prevent similar outbreaks we recommend removal of any CVC that is no longer necessary and the use of single-dose solutions for any parenteral treatment of oncology patients.