Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 18(Supplement 3):91, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2136590

ABSTRACT

Background: Adults and childrenwith cancer are susceptible to severe SARS-CoV-2 disease. Vaccination is protective;data beyond initial response and regarding effect of booster doses are lacking in cancer patients. Method(s): The SerOzNET study assesses SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in haematological and solid cancer patients aged 5 and older. Patients are recruited pre dose 1 and receive standard BNT162b2 (Pfizer) or ChadOx1-S (AstraZeneca) vaccine. Blood is taken at baseline and after each dose. Neutralizing antibody (NAb) titre, absolute antibody titre (Abbott), T cell response (IFN-gamma) and epigenetics are analysed. Clinical data are collected. Patients are followed for up to 3 months beyond dose 5. Result(s): 105 children (64% haem, 36% solid cancers) and 399 adults (35% haem, 65% solid cancers) were enrolled. In adults, NAb response rate increased after dose 3 (Post 2: 40% haem, 87%solid;Post 3:70%haem,97%solid). Post dose 2, predictors of nonresponse were ChadOx1-S vaccine (OR 3 p = .02), haem cancer (OR 14 p < .001), ECOG >=1 (OR 2.6 p = .01) and steroids (OR 5 p = .01). Post dose 3, only haem cancer predicted non-response (OR 16). IFN-gamma response is available for a subset, detectable in 41/90 (46%) postdose 1, 78/96 (81%) post-dose 2 and 35/42 (83%) post-dose 3;without significant difference between haem and solid cancer. In children, NAb response post dose 2 is available for 50 patients. Response rate between haem (19/31, 61%) and solid patients (13/19, 68%) was similar. IFN-gamma response post dose 2 was also similar: (14/22, 63%) vs solid patients (12/14, 85%) (p = .25). Analysis is ongoing. Conclusion(s): Response to two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is suboptimal in patients with cancer. The third priming dose is integral, with significantly higher response rates observed. 36% of children did not develop neutralizing antibodies post dose 2;subsequent doses are likely to be important for young patients.

3.
Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 40(17), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1987091

ABSTRACT

Background: COVID-19 infection has poor outcomes for patients (pts) with cancer. Understanding vaccine response as a correlate of protection from severe infection is essential to advise pts regarding protective behaviours and optimal vaccine schedule. This Australian cohort is unique due to low rates of COVID-19 exposure at study entry (July-November 2021). and use of a 3 dose schedule. Pts initially received 2 doses of either BNT162b2 (Pf) at a 3 week interval, or ChadOx1-S (AZ) at a 6 week interval, all then received a 3rd dose, either mRNA-1273 (Mod) or Pf after 2-4 months, and finally a 4th dose at an interval of a further 3 months, for a subset. Methods: SerOzNET (ACTRN12621001004853) has enrolled pts with solid and haematological (haem) cancers prior to initial vaccination. Serial blood samples were processed for serum, PBMC and PMN at timepoints: 0, then 3-4 weeks post dose 1 then 2 then 3 then 4 (where administered). We report here neutralizing antibodies (nAb) against wild type (wt) and delta and omicron variants of concern (VOC);quantitative S-protein IgG antibody (Abbott);Tcell correlates measured by levels of interferon-g (IFN g), tumour necrosis factor-a, interleukins (IL-) 2/ 4/5/13;and epigenetic profiling of T cells. Results: The cohort consists of 401 pts with median age 58 (range 18-85);59% female;128 (32%) haem cancers. 377 (94%) are on current or recent (< 12 months) systemic therapy: 162 (43%) chemotherapy, 62 (16%) immunotherapy, 40 (10%) combined chemo/immunotherapy, 113 (29%) hormonal or targeted therapy. 42 (10%) received anti-CD20 therapy < 12 months, 6 (1.4%) had allogeneic stem cell transplant. NAb levels against wt are available for 256 pts post dose 1, 245 pts post dose 2 and 159 pts post dose 3 (will be updated). Response rates post dose were respectively 27%, 77% and 88%. Pts with haem cancer were less likely to respond to vaccination at any time compared to pts with solid cancer (p < 0.001, chi-squared test). After 3 doses, 3.8% of pts with solid cancer and 27.8% with haem cancer lacked NAb. NAb results to VOC delta are available for 92 pts post dose 2: 25/92 (27%) were negative, compared with a non-response rate to wt of 15% at same time in same pts. IFN-γ-Spike response was detectable in 18/31 (58%) and 24/30 (80%) pts post dose 1 and 2 respectively. 101 pts to date have received a 4th dose;data will be available at the meeting, as will epigenetic profiles and detailed clinicopathological correlations. Conclusions: This interim analysis shows that a significant proportion of pts with haem cancers (27.8%) lack protective Sars-CoV-2 antibodies following 3 vaccinations, whereas only 3.8% of solid cancer pts lack detectable response. Results from other B and T cell parameters may also be important in identifying pts less well protected by vaccination. Follow up is ongoing, response rate post 4th dose will be presented at the meeting.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL