Clinical efficacy of the first two doses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in solid cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients are frail individuals, thus the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential. To date, vaccination is the most effective tool to prevent COVID-19. In a previous study, we evaluated the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA-based vaccines (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) in solid cancer patients. We found that seroconversion rate in cancer patients without a previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was lower than in healthy controls (66.7% vs. 95%, p = 0.0020). The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the vaccination in the same population. METHODS: This is a single-institution, prospective observational study. Data were collected through a predefined questionnaire through phone call in the period between the second and third vaccine dose. The primary objective was to describe the clinical efficacy of the vaccination, defined as the percentage of vaccinated subjects who did not develop symptomatic COVID-19 within 6 months after the second dose. The secondary objective was to describe the clinical features of patients who developed COVID-19. RESULTS: From January to June 2021, 195 cancer patients were enrolled. Considering that 7 (3.59%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 5 developed symptomatic disease, the clinical efficacy of the vaccination was 97.4%. COVID-19 disease in most patients was mild and managed at home; only one hospitalization was recorded and no patient required hospitalization in the intensive care unit. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster doses, could improve the prevention of infection, hospitalization, serious illness, and death in the frail population of cancer patients.

Immunogenicity of two doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines for solid cancer patients on treatment with or without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Previous studies on the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines showed a reduced seroconversion in cancer patients. The aim of our study is to evaluate the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA vaccines in solid cancer patients with or without a previous exposure to the virus. This is a single-institution, prospective, nonrandomized study. Patients in active treatment and a control cohort of healthy people received two doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech/Pfizer, The United States) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax, Moderna). Vaccine was administered before starting anticancer therapy or on the first day of the treatment cycle. SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels against S1, RBD (to evaluate vaccine response) and N proteins (to evaluate previous infection) were measured in plasma before the first dose and 30 days after the second one. From January to June 2021, 195 consecutive cancer patients and 20 healthy controls were enrolled. Thirty-one cancer patients had a previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Cancer patients previously exposed to the virus had significantly higher median levels of anti-S1 and anti-RBD IgG, compared to healthy controls (P = .0349) and to cancer patients without a previous infection (P < .001). Vaccine type (anti-S1: P < .0001; anti-RBD: P = .0045), comorbidities (anti-S1: P = .0274; anti-RBD: P = .0048) and the use of G-CSF (anti-S1: P = .0151) negatively affected the antibody response. Conversely, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 significantly enhanced the response to vaccination (anti-S1: P < .0001; anti-RBD: P = .0026). Vaccine immunogenicity in cancer patients with a previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 seems comparable to that of healthy subjects. On the other hand, clinical variables of immune frailty negatively affect humoral immune response to vaccination.

The emotional impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on cancer outpatients and their caregivers: results of a survey conducted in the midst of the Italian pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The study investigates the emotional discomfort of cancer patients and their caregivers, who need to access the oncology day hospital to receive treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. METHODS: This is a single-institution, prospective, cross-sectional study. From May to June 2020, the points of view of both patients and caregivers were compared through 2 different multiple-choice questionnaires, enquiring demographic characteristics, changes in emotional status, interpersonal relationships with health professionals (HCPs) and self-perception of treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-five patients and 254 caregivers were enrolled. Females were prevalent and patients were generally older than caregivers. Forty percent of patients and 25.6% of caregivers thought they were at a greater risk of contagion because lived together with a cancer patient or accessed the hospital. Both patients (86.3%) and caregivers (85.4%) considered containment measures a valid support to avoid the spread of infection. People with a lower education level were less worried about being infected with SARS-COV-2. Waiting and performing visits/treatments without caregivers had no impact on the emotional status of patients (64.4%), but generated in caregivers greater anxiety (58.8%) and fear (19.8%) of not properly managing patients at home. The majority of patients (54%) and caregivers (39.4%) thought the pandemic does not influence treatment outcomes. The relationship with HCPs was not negatively impacted for majority of patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Starting from these data, we can better understand the current psychological distress of patients and their families in order to develop potential strategies to support them in this strenuous period of crisis.

Prognostic value of CT integrated with clinical and laboratory data during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Italy: A nomogram to predict unfavorable outcome.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic role of chest computed tomography (CT), alone or in combination with clinical and laboratory parameters, in COVID-19 patients during the first peak of the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective single-center study of 301 COVID-19 patients referred to our Emergency Department (ED) from February 25 to March 29, 2020. At presentation, patients underwent chest CT and clinical and laboratory examinations. Outcomes included discharge from the ED after improvement/recovery (positive outcome), or admission to the intensive care unit or death (poor prognosis). A visual quantitative analysis was formed using two scores: the Pulmonary Involvement (PI) score based on the extension of lung involvement, and the Pulmonary Consolidation (PC) score based on lung consolidation. The prognostic value of CT alone or integrated with other parameters was studied by logistic regression and ROC analysis. RESULTS: The impact of the CT PI score [≥15 vs. ≤ 6] on predicting poor prognosis (OR 5.71 95 % CI 1.93-16.92, P = 0.002) was demonstrated; no significant association was found for the PC score. Chest CT had a prognostic role considering the PI score alone (AUC 0.722) and when evaluated with demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory data (AUC 0.841). We, therefore, developed a nomogram as an easy tool for immediate clinical application. CONCLUSIONS: Visual analysis of CT gives useful information to physicians for prognostic evaluations, even in conditions of COVID-19 emergency. The predictive value is increased by evaluating CT in combination with clinical and laboratory data.

Increased incidence of interstitial pneumonia detected on [18F]-FDG-PET/CT in asymptomatic cancer patients during COVID-19 pandemic in Lombardy: a casualty or COVID-19 infection?

PURPOSE: The study aimed to compare the incidence of interstitial pneumonia on [18F]-FDG PET/CT scans between two 6-month periods: (a) the COVID-19 pandemic peak and (b) control period. Secondly, we compared the incidence of interstitial pneumonia on [18F]-FDG PET/CT and epidemiological data from the regional registry of COVID-19 cases. Additionally, imaging findings and the intensity of [18F]-FDG PET/CT uptake in terms of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) were compared. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed [18F]-FDG PET/CT scans performed in cancer patients referred to nuclear medicine of Humanitas Gavazzeni in Bergamo from December 2019 to May 2020 and from December 2018 to May 2019. The per month incidence of interstitial pneumonia at imaging and the epidemiological data were assessed. To evaluate the differences between the two symmetric groups (period of COVID-19 pandemic and control), the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used. Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test and t test or Wilcoxon test were performed to compare the distributions of categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 1298 patients were included in the study. The two cohorts-COVID-19 pandemic (n = 575) and control (n = 723)-did not statistically differ in terms of age, disease, or scan indication (p > 0.05). Signs of interstitial pneumonia were observed in 24 (4.2%) and 14 patients (1.9%) in the COVID-19 period and the control period, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.013). The level of statistical significance improved further when the period from January to May was considered, with a peak in March (7/83 patients, 8.4% vs 3/134 patients, 2.2%, p = 0.001). The curve of interstitial pneumonia diagnosis overlapped with the COVID-19 incidence in the area of Lombardy (Spearman correlation index was equal to 1). Imaging data did not differ among the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Significant increase of interstitial lung alterations at [18F]-FDG PET/CT has been demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the incidence curve of imaging abnormalities resulted in resembling the epidemiological data of the general population. These data support the rationale to adopt [18F]-FDG PET/CT as sentinel modality to identify suspicious COVID-19 cases to be referred for additional confirmatory testing. Nuclear medicine physicians and staff should continue active surveillance of interstitial pneumonia findings, especially when new infection peak is expected.