Impact of pharmacist-led educational intervention on pneumococcal vaccination rates in cancer patients: a randomized controlled study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate clinical pharmacist's contribution to the pneumococcal vaccination rate by providing education to cancer patients in hospital settings. METHODS: This study was conducted in 2 tertiary-care hospitals' medical oncology outpatient clinics. Patients over 18 years of age and diagnosed with cancer for less than 2 years, in remission stage, and have not previously received the pneumococcal vaccine were included. Patients were randomized to intervention and control groups. The intervention group was provided vaccination education and recommended to receive the PCV13 vaccine. The control group received routine care. Patients' knowledge about pneumonia/pneumococcal vaccine, Vaccine Attitude Examination Scale (VAX) score, and vaccination rates were evaluated at baseline and 3 months after the education. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients (intervention: 117, control: 118) were included. The mean age ± SD was 57.86 ± 11.88 years in the control and 60.68 ± 11.18 years in the intervention groups. The numbers of correct answers about pneumonia/pneumococcal vaccine (p = 0.482) and VAX scores (p = 0.244) of the groups were similar at baseline. After the intervention, the median (IQR) number of correct answers in intervention group [10(3)] was higher than control group [8(4)] (p < 0.001). After the education, the total VAX score (mean ± SD) was less in intervention group (33.09 ± 7.018) than the control group (36.07 ± 6.548) (p = 0.007). Three months after the education, 20.2% of the patients in the intervention and 6.1% in the control groups were vaccinated with pneumococcal vaccine (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The pneumococcal vaccination rate in cancer patients has increased significantly by the education provided by a clinical pharmacist in hospital settings.

Immunogenicity of two doses of inactive COVID-19 vaccine and third booster dose mRNA vaccine in patients with cancer receiving active systemic therapy.

We aimed to evaluate the seroconversion rates after two doses of inactive COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac) and the benefit of a third dose mRNA vaccine booster in patients with cancer receiving active treatment. Patients with solid tumors receiving active treatment (n = 101) and patients with no-cancer (n = 48) as the control group were included in the study. All the patients and controls had received two doses of CoronaVac and a third booster dose of the mRNA vaccine (Bnt162b2). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor Binding Domain IgG antibody levels after the second and third dose were measured with quantitative ELISA. The median age of the patients was 66 (IQR 60-71). 79% of the patients were receiving chemotherapy, and 21% were receiving immunotherapy at the time of vaccination. Antibody levels measured after two doses of CoronaVac were significantly lower in patients with cancer than in the control group (median 0 µg/ml [IQR 0-1.17 µg/ml] vs median 0.91 µg/ml [IQR 0-2.24 µg/ml], respectively, P = .002). Seropositivity rates were 46.5% in patients with cancer and 72.9% in the control group (P = .002). Antibody measurement was performed in 26 patients after the third dose. Seroconversion rate increased from 46.5% to 88.5% (P < .001), and the antibody titers significantly increased with the third-dose booster (median 0 µg/ml [IQR 0-1.17 µg/ml] after two doses vs 12.6 µg/ml [IQR 1.8-69.1 µg/ml] after third booster dose, P < .001). Immunogenicity of CoronaVac is low in patients with cancer receiving active treatment, and administering a third dose of an mRNA vaccine is effective in terms of improving seroconversion rates.

Antibody Responses to COVID-19 Vaccination in Cancer: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: After the results of phase III vaccine studies became available, the leading oncology societies recommended two doses of COVID-19 vaccination to all patients with cancer with no specific recommendation for tumor type and active treatments. However, the data on the COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in cancer patients is limited due to exclusion of cancer patients from most vaccine clinical trials. Therefore, we systemically reviewed the available evidence evaluating the antibody responses in cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search from the Pubmed database and calculated risk differences (RD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to compare seroconversion rates between cancer patients and controls using the Review Manager software, version 5.3. RESULTS: Our systematic search retrieved a total 27 studies and we included 17 studies with control arms in the analyses. Cancer patients had significantly lower seroconversion rates (37.3%) than controls (74.1%) (RD: -0.44, 95% CI: -0.52, -0.35, p<0.001) with first vaccine dose. After two doses, the seroconversion rates were 99.6% in control arm and 78.3% in cancer patients (RD: -0.19, 95% CI: -0.28, -0.10, p<0.001). The difference in seroconversion rates was more pronounced patients with hematologic malignancies (72.6%) (RD: -0.25, 95% CI: -0.27, -0.22, p<0.001) than patients with solid tumors (91.6%) (RD: -0.09, 95% CI: -0.13, -0.04, p<0.003) and patients in remission (RD: -0.10, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.06, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccine seroconversion rates were significantly lower in patients with hematological malignancies and patients under active treatment. Further research focusing on the approaches to improve vaccine efficacy and exploration of novel treatment options is urgently needed for these patients.

Newly diagnosed cancer and the COVID-19 pandemic: tumour stage migration and higher early mortality.

BACKGROUND: We compared the new outpatient clinic referrals during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic with the year before. METHODS: We compared baseline characteristics of the 2208 new referrals in 2020 (n=922) and 2019 (n=1286) with Χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests and calculated ORs with binary logistic regression. To evaluate the expected changes in the cancer survival secondary to stage migration, we used the 5-year survival data of Survival, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program 2010-2016. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with inoperable or metastatic disease was significantly increased during the pandemic (49.8% vs 39%, OR: 1.553, 95% CI: 1.309 to 1.843, p<0.001). We observed a significant decrease in the percentage of patients diagnosed via the screening methods (18.8% vs 28.7%, OR: 1.698, 95% CI: 1.240 to 2.325, p=0.001). The 90-day mortality after the cancer diagnosis was significantly higher during the pandemic (10.5% vs 6.6%, OR: 1.661, 95% CI: 1.225 to 2.252, p=0.001). Due to the increased advanced-stage disease rate at first referral, significant decreases in 5-year survival rates were expected for breast cancer (-8.9%), colorectal cancer (-11.1%), cervix cancer (-10.3%) and melanoma (-7%). CONCLUSION: We think that collaborative efforts are paramount to prevent the pandemic of late cancer diagnoses and ensure patient safety during the pandemic.

Clinical features and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with solid tumors: Turkish National Registry Data.

We present demographic, clinical, laboratory characteristics and outcomes of the patients with solid malignancies and novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) collected from the National COVID-19 Registry of Turkey. A total of 1523 patients with a current or past diagnosis of solid tumors and diagnosed with COVID-19 (confirmed with PCR) between 11 March and 20 May 2020 were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Median age was 61 (range: 18-94), and 752 (49%) were male. The most common types of cancers were breast (19.8%), prostate (10.9%) and colorectal cancer (10.8%). 65% of the patients had at least one comorbidity. At least one COVID-19-directed therapy was given in 73% of the patients.. Hospitalization rate of the patients was 56.6% and intensive care unit admission rate was 11.4%. Seventy-seven (5.1%) patients died within 30 days of diagnosis. The first multivariate model which included only the demographic and clinical characteristics showed older age, male gender and presence of diabetes and receipt of cytotoxic therapy to be associated with increased 30-day mortality, while breast and prostate cancer diagnoses were associated with lower 30-day mortality. In the second set, we further included laboratory parameters. The presence of leukocytosis (OR 6.7, 95% CI 3.3-13.7, P < .001), lymphocytopenia (OR 3,1, 95% CI 1,6-6,1, P = .001) and thrombocytopenia (OR 3,4 95% CI 1,5-8,1, P = .005) were found to be associated with increased 30-day mortality. Relatively lower mortality compared to Western countries and China mainly results from differences in baseline risk factors but may also implicate the importance of intensive supportive care.

Perspectives, Knowledge, and Fears of Cancer Patients About COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is expected to significantly affect cancer patients due to adverse outcomes with COVID-19 and disruptions in cancer care. Another important point is the stress and anxiety burden of COVID-19, which could affect quality of life. Patient education is vital due to the vulnerability of the topic to disinformation. To determine the areas needing improvements in patient education, and coping with stress, the burden of the problem should be pictured. From this point, we aimed to assess the perspectives and fears of cancer patients about COVID-19 with resources of COVID-19 knowledge with a questionnaire. A total of 250 adult cancer patients applied to the outpatient chemotherapy unit of Hacettepe University Cancer Center between May 27, 2020, and June 9, 2020, invited to answer a questionnaire of 13 multiple-choice questions with a return rate of 78% (195/250). Most patients acquired their knowledge about COVID-19 from television (91.9%). Social media were the second most common source of knowledge (43.8%) with a predilection in younger patients, nonsmokers, targeted therapy- or immunotherapy-treated patients, and breast cancer patients (>65 vs. <65 years of age, p = 0.057; nonsmoker vs. ever-smoker, p = 0.036; targeted therapy and immunotherapy vs. chemotherapy, p = 0.004; breast cancer vs. other cancers, p = 0.019). The percentage of patients seeing the information about COVID-19 as adequate (38.9%) or inadequate (35.1%) was similar. More than 90% of the patients had a moderate to severe degree of COVID-19 fear. In addition, 27.6% of patients had false knowledge of glove using as a protective measure for COVID-19. More than half of the patients had another wrong knowledge as the need for the supplements for COVID-19 protection. A significant percentage of patients (84.7%) expected some level of disruption in oncological care with the expectation of a moderate-to-severe disruption was more common in the advanced-stage patients (p = 0.026). In our experience, most cancer patients had a significant degree of fear about both infecting COVID-19 and the disruption of cancer care by COVID-19. A significant amount of our patients had wrong information about the protection necessities, which denotes the need for better patient education about COVID-19.

Survey of the Impact of COVID-19 on Oncologists' Decision Making in Cancer.

PURPOSE: To understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision making was influenced by the pandemic. METHODS: An online survey was conducted between March 24 and April 29, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 343 oncologists from 28 countries participated. The median age was 43 years (range, 29-68 years), and the majority were male (62%). At the time of the survey, nearly all participants self-reported an outbreak in their country (99.7%). Personal protective equipment was available to all participants, of which surgical mask was the most common (n = 308; 90%). Telemedicine, in the form of phone or video encounters, was common and implemented by 80% (n = 273). Testing patients with cancer for COVID-19 via reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction before systemic treatment was not routinely implemented: 58% reported no routine testing, 39% performed testing in selected patients, and 3% performed systematic testing in all patients. The most significant factors influencing an oncologist's decision making regarding choice of systemic therapy included patient age and comorbidities (81% and 92%, respectively). Although hormonal treatments and tyrosine kinase inhibitors were considered to be relatively safe, cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were perceived as being less safe or unsafe by participants. The vast majority of participants stated that during the pandemic they would use less chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids. Although treatment in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and first-line metastatic disease was less affected, most of the participants stated that they would be more hesitant to recommend second- or third-line therapies in metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Decision making by oncologists has been significantly influenced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.