ABSTRACT
Background: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines have been demonstrated to have robust and durable humoral immune response in healthy individuals. However, their effectiveness in immunocompromised patients, particularly cancer patients, remains less known. Newer data suggests that cancer patients may not mount adequate protective immune response after vaccination. Methods: A retrospective study of patients ≥ 18 years old who had SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody (anti-S Ab) testing after 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines between 12-90 days at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2021 and May 10, 2021 was performed. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland) was used to measure the antibody response. Patients with prior COVID-19 infection and patients on immunosuppressive therapy for an indication other than cancer were excluded. Categorical variables were summarized as frequencies (percentages) and continuous variables were reported as median with range. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare continuous variables between groups and Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical variables. All tests were two-sided with p value < 0.05 considered statistically significant. The analysis was done using R program version 3.6.2. Results: Among 201 patients, 79 had breast cancer, 91 had a hematologic malignancy, 6 had other solid malignancies, and 25 had no history of cancer. All breast S cancer patients on endocrine therapy or trastuzumab ± pertuzumab without chemotherapy (n=35) had anti-S Ab titer ≥ 500 U/mL. Patients on cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) appeared to have low level of anti-S Ab with 28.6% (n=4/14) had anti-S Ab titer ≤ 500 U/mL.Patients on chemotherapy also had low levels of anti-S Ab with 47% (n=14/30) having anti-S Ab titers ≤ 500 U/mL. When combining breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy alone or anti-HER2 therapy with patients without history of cancer as an immunocompetent group, there was significantly greater proportion of immunocompetent patients (97%) who had anti-S Ab titer ≥ 500 U/mL compared with only 8% of patients with hematologic malignancy and 55% of patients with solid malignancy on chemotherapy or CDK4/6i (p < 0.001). Using multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, and vaccine type, patients with solid malignancies and treatment-related cytopenia, including chemotherapy and CDK4/6i, (OR 35.51 [95%CI 8.38-255.25, p < 0.001]) were more likely than immunocompetent patients to have a suboptimal anti-S Ab results ≤ 500 U/mL. Conclusion: A significant number of breast cancer patients on chemotherapies and CDK4/6i had poor humoral responses after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. While CDK4/6i is not commonly considered as immunosuppressive therapy, breast cancer patients on CDK4/6i appeared to have suboptimal response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. Our study also highlights the significance of assessing antibody response after COVID-19 vaccines in these vulnerable patients.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has challenged diagnostic laboratories to re-examine traditional methods for collecting specimens and sample types used in molecular testing. Our goal was to demonstrate that saliva can be used for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and correlates well with established molecular methods using nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. METHODS: We examined use of a saliva collection device in conjunction with a laboratory-developed real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (LDPCR) method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in a symptomatic population and compared results with 2 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved methods (emergency use authorization [EUA]) that use specimens from NP swabs. RESULTS: The sensitivity of LDPCR compared with the reference methods was 75.0% (21/28);specificity, 98.1% (104/106). When cycle threshold values were compared between paired specimens using the LDPCR and a EUA reverse transcription PCR method, both targeting the open-reading frame gene, the mean value for saliva was 4.66 cycles higher than for NP specimens. CONCLUSION: Use of self-collected saliva in conjunction with an LDPCR for SARS-CoV-2 compared favorably with 2 FDA EUA methods using NP swabs. The use of an alternative sample type and assay method will aid in expanding the availability of testing during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.