Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 breakthrough infections in patients with cancer (UKCCEP): a population-based test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we aimed to conduct one of the first evaluations of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with cancer at a population level. METHODS: In this population-based test-negative case-control study of the UK Coronavirus Cancer Evaluation Project (UKCCEP), we extracted data from the UKCCEP registry on all SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results (from the Second Generation Surveillance System), vaccination records (from the National Immunisation Management Service), patient demographics, and cancer records from England, UK, from Dec 8, 2020, to Oct 15, 2021. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with cancer in the UKCCEP registry were identified via Public Health England's Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset between Jan 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021, and comprised the cancer cohort. We constructed a control population cohort from adults with PCR tests in the UKCCEP registry who were not contained within the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset. The coprimary endpoints were overall vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections after the second dose (positive PCR COVID-19 test) and vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections at 3-6 months after the second dose in the cancer cohort and control population. FINDINGS: The cancer cohort comprised 377 194 individuals, of whom 42 882 had breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. The control population consisted of 28 010 955 individuals, of whom 5 748 708 had SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 69·8% (95% CI 69·8-69·9) in the control population and 65·5% (65·1-65·9) in the cancer cohort. Vaccine effectiveness at 3-6 months was lower in the cancer cohort (47·0%, 46·3-47·6) than in the control population (61·4%, 61·4-61·5). INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 vaccination is effective for individuals with cancer, conferring varying levels of protection against breakthrough infections. However, vaccine effectiveness is lower in patients with cancer than in the general population. COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer should be used in conjunction with non-pharmacological strategies and community-based antiviral treatment programmes to reduce the risk that COVID-19 poses to patients with cancer. FUNDING: University of Oxford, University of Southampton, University of Birmingham, Department of Health and Social Care, and Blood Cancer UK.

A population-scale temporal case-control evaluation of COVID-19 disease phenotype and related outcome rates in patients with cancer in England (UKCCP).

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the SARS-CoV-2 phenotype evolution in patients with cancer since 2020 has not previously been described. We therefore evaluated SARS-CoV-2 on a UK populationscale from 01/11/2020-31/08/2022, assessing case-outcome rates of hospital assessment(s), intensive care admission and mortality. We observed that the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype has become less severe in patients with cancer and the non-cancer population. Case-hospitalisation rates for patients with cancer dropped from 30.58% in early 2021 to 7.45% in 2022 while case-mortality rates decreased from 20.53% to 3.25%. However, the risk of hospitalisation and mortality remains 2.10x and 2.54x higher in patients with cancer, respectively. Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype is less severe in 2022 compared to 2020 but patients with cancer remain at higher risk than the non-cancer population. Patients with cancer must therefore be empowered to live more normal lives, to see loved ones and families, while also being safeguarded with expanded measures to reduce the risk of transmission.

COVID-19: Third dose booster vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough coronavirus infection, hospitalisations and death in patients with cancer: A population-based study.

PURPOSE: People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at an increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated. METHODS: This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom's third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess the third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population. RESULTS: The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Patients with lymphoma had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at an increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01, respectively. p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at the increased risk of coronavirus infections even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit the disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic.

Multidisciplinary collaborative gross tumour volume definition for lung cancer radiotherapy: a prospective study.

Variability in gross tumour volume (GTV) definition is a major source of systematic error in conformal radiotherapy. This prospective study assesses the role of multidisciplinary collaboration between oncologists and radiologists in defining lung cancer volumes. Twenty patients with non-small cell lung cancer due to receive three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy formed the study population. GTVs were defined by a radiologist (GTVrad) and an oncologist (GTVonc) using available clinical information and imaging. A collaborative meeting was then held to agree on a final, common GTV (GTVfin) to be used for treatment planning, and differences analysed. The collaboration changed the GTV in 19/20 patients with a total of 50 regions being edited. Changes made were categorized as (a) differentiation of tumour from atelectasis or ground glass shadowing, (b) separation of tumour from vasculature, and (c) defining mediastinal extent of tumour. Oncologists were more confident in the GTVfin than the GTVonc. The radiologist took longer to define the GTV than the oncologist. Real-time collaborative GTV definition by a radiologist and oncologist is practical and feasible. This approach allows specific areas of uncertainty to be categorized and focussed on, reducing systematic error in GTV definition. The physician's approach to risk and decision making for each patient may also play a role.

"Two are better than one": a pilot study of how radiologist and oncologists can collaborate in target volume definition.

The purpose of this study was to explore how radiologist and oncologists may work together efficiently and effectively to define target volume for radiotherapy treatment. Ten patients were chosen at random from those needing radiotherapy between December 2004 and June 2005. Sites of primary cancer included head and neck, pelvis, lung and brain. Diagnostic scans were available on the hospital PACS system and radiotherapy planning image data sets were available on the Eclipse radiotherapy planning system. A radiologist and two oncologists (one consultant, one senior registrar) outlined separately and without initial consultation the gross tumour volume (GTV). Analysis of target volume concordance rates was undertaken to assess and explore the reasons for any differences noted. Three of ten volumes defined (all head and neck tumours) were judged to be similar based on quantitative and qualitative data. There were varying degrees of difference in volume definition for the remaining seven patients. In three of these there were differences in GTV but when the treatment volume was drawn the differences were not clinically significant, as any areas of disagreement were included anyway in the fields in both plans. The remaining four cases had showed significant differences between the volume delineated by the oncologist and the radiologist. In all cases where the GTV was easily identifiable on the diagnostic and planning scans, there was concordance. In cases where the final treatment field used was much bigger than the GTV (e.g. a four-field box for pelvic fields) then small differences were negligible, although with conformal therapy these differences could become important. There were specific radiological anatomy learning points for the oncologists and the radiologist needed to be familiar with the process of treatment planning. A larger prospective study will continue to explore the potential gains from and the practicalities of collaborative working.