ABSTRACT
Few data are available about the immune response to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with breast cancer receiving cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). We conducted a prospective, single-center study of patients with breast cancer treated with CDK4/6i who received mRNA-1273 vaccination, as well as a comparative group of healthcare workers. The primary endpoint was to compare the rate and magnitude of humoral and T-cell response after full vaccination. A better neutralizing antibody and anti-S IgG level was observed after vaccination in the subgroup of women receiving CDK4/6i, but a trend toward a reduced CD4 and CD8 T-cell response in the CDK4/6i group was not statistically significant. There were no differences in the rate of COVID-19 after vaccination (19% vs. 12%), but breakthrough infections were observed in those with lower levels of anti-S IgG and neutralizing antibodies after the first dose. A lower rate of CD4 T-cell response was also found in those individuals with breakthrough infections, although a non-significant and similar level of CD8 T-cell response was also observed, regardless of breakthrough infections. The rate of adverse events was higher in patients treated with CDK4/6i, without serious adverse events. In conclusion, there was a robust humoral response, but a blunted T-cell response to mRNA vaccine in women receiving CDK4/6i, suggesting a reduced trend of the adaptative immune response.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Patients with cancer (PC) are at high risk of acquiring COVID-19 and can develop more serious complications. Deeper understanding of vaccines immunogenicity in this population is crucial for adequately planning vaccines programs. The ONCOVac study aimed to comprehensively assess the immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 vaccine in terms of humoral and cellular response. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-center study including patients with solid tumours treated with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), immunotherapy (IT) or chemotherapy (CT). Patients were enrolled previously to vaccination with mRNA-1273. We also involved health care workers (HCW) to serve as a control group. We took blood samples before first dose administration (BL), after first dose (1D), and after second dose (2D). The primary objective was to compare the rate and magnitude of T cell response after second dose whereas safety and humoral response were defined as secondary objectives. We also collected patient reported outcomes after both the first and second vaccine dose and a six-month follow-up period to diagnose incident COVID-19 cases was planned. RESULTS: The rate of specific anti-S serologic positivity (anti-S IgG cut-off point at 7,14 BAU/mL) was significantly higher in HCW compared to PC after 1D (100% versus 83.8%; p = 0.04), but similar after 2D (100% versus 95.8%; p = 0.5). This difference after 1D was driven by PC treated with CT (100% versus 64.5%; p = 0.001). Cellular response after 2D was significantly lower in PC than in HCW for both CD4+ (91.7% versus 59.7%; p = 0.001) and CD8+ (94.4% versus 55.6%; p < 0.001) T cells. We found a difference on pre-existing CD4+ T cell response in HCW comparing to PC (36% and 17%, p = 0.03); without difference in pre-existing CD8+ T cell response (31% and 23%, p = 0.5). After excluding patients with pre-existing T cell response, PC achieved even lower CD4+ (50.9% versus 95.5%, p < 0.001) and CD8+ (45.5% versus 95.5%, p < 0.001) T cell response compared with HCW. Regarding safety, PC reported notably more adverse events than HCW (96.6% versus 69.2%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that PC showed a similar humoral response but a lower T cell response following two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccination. Further studies are needed to complement our results and determine the implication of low T cell response on clinical protection of PC against COVID-19.