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.

Prophylactic surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC CO2) versus standard surgery in colorectal carcinoma at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis: short-term and long-term outcomes from the CHECK study - protocol for a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

INTRODUCTION: Up to one-fifth of patients with colorectal cancer will develop peritoneal metastases, frequently without other districts' involvement. Despite the recent unsuccesses of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases treatment, the rationale in the prophylactic setting remains strong. Several clinical and pharmacokinetic data suggest that the efficacy of intraperitoneal chemotherapy is highest when the disease is microscopic. However, robust evidence demonstrating whether the addition of HIPEC for high-risk colorectal cancers offers better control of local recurrence is lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre randomised phase 3 trial comparing prophylactic surgery plus HIPEC CO2 with mitomycin, over standard surgical excision in patients with colorectal cancer at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis; 388 patients will be included in this study. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy of prophylactic surgery (radical colorectal resection, omentectomy, appendectomy, round ligament of the liver resection and bilateral adnexectomy) plus HIPEC CO2 with mitomycin and standard surgery in terms of local recurrence-free survival. The main secondary endpoints are disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. The primary endpoint will be described with a cumulative incidence function and will be analysed with Grey test to take account of the competing risks. DFS and OS will be described with the Kaplan-Meier method. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been evaluated by the Italian Medicines Agency, local ethics committees and will be submitted to the Ministry of Health to notify the start of the trial according to the regulation of trials on devices with CE mark/certification.The results will be submitted for presentation at academic meetings and for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, whatever the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03914820.

High-dose ivermectin for early treatment of COVID-19 (COVER study): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial.

High concentrations of ivermectin demonstrated antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of high-dose ivermectin in reducing viral load in individuals with early SARS-CoV-2 infection. This was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial. Participants were adults recently diagnosed with asymptomatic/oligosymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Exclusion criteria were: pregnant or lactating women; CNS disease; dialysis; severe medical condition with prognosis <6 months; warfarin treatment; and antiviral/chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine treatment. Participants were assigned (ratio 1:1:1) according to a randomised permuted block procedure to one of the following arms: placebo (arm A); single-dose ivermectin 600 µg/kg plus placebo for 5 days (arm B); and single-dose ivermectin 1200 µg/kg for 5 days (arm C). Primary outcomes were serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) and change in viral load at Day 7. From 31 July 2020 to 26 May 2021, 32 participants were randomised to arm A, 29 to arm B and 32 to arm C. Recruitment was stopped on 10 June because of a dramatic drop in cases. The safety analysis included 89 participants and the change in viral load was calculated in 87 participants. No SADRs were registered. Mean (S.D.) log10 viral load reduction was 2.9 (1.6) in arm C, 2.5 (2.2) in arm B and 2.0 (2.1) in arm A, with no significant differences (P = 0.099 and 0.122 for C vs. A and B vs. A, respectively). High-dose ivermectin was safe but did not show efficacy to reduce viral load.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse events in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: an observational prospective study.

BACKGROUND: In ambulatory patients with cancer with asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the safety of targeted therapies (TTs), chemotherapy (CT) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy is still unknown. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From the start of the first epidemic wave of SARS-CoV-2 in Bergamo, Italy, we have prospectively screened all consecutive outpatients who presented for treatment to the Oncology Division of the Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo for SARS-CoV-2 antigen expression. We identified patients treated with ICIs and compared these to patients with the same cancer subtypes treated with TTs or CT. RESULTS: Between March 5 and May 18, 293 consecutive patients (49% melanoma, 34% non-small cell lung cancer, 9% renal cell carcinoma, 8% other) were included in this study: 159 (54%), 50 (17%) and 84 (29%) received ICIs, CT or TTs, respectively. Overall 89 patients (30.0%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. Mortality of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients was statistically significantly higher compared with SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (8/89 vs 3/204, respectively, Fisher's exact test p=0.004). All deaths were due to COVID-19. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were more frequent in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative cases (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test p=0.0008). The incidence of SAEs in SARS-CoV-2 positive compared with SARS-CoV-2 negative patients was similar in ICI and CT patients (17.3% and 3.7% for positive and negative patients in ICIs and 15.4% and 2.7% in CT, Breslow-Day test p=0.891). No COVID-19-related SAEs were observed in the TTs patients. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of SAEs was higher for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients treated with ICIs and CT, mostly in advanced disease. No SAEs were observed in patients treated with TTs. SAEs were COVID-19 related rather than treatment related. Treatment with ICIs does not appear to significantly increase risk of SAEs compared with CT. This information should be considered when determining treatment options for patients.