Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
J Clin Oncol ; 40(1): 12-23, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1724717

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The immunogenicity and reactogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with cancer are poorly understood. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of adults with solid-organ or hematologic cancers to evaluate anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin A/M/G spike antibodies, neutralization, and reactogenicity ≥ 7 days following two doses of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or one dose of Ad26.COV2.S. We analyzed responses by multivariate regression and included data from 1,638 healthy controls, previously reported, for comparison. RESULTS: Between April and July 2021, we enrolled 1,001 patients; 762 were eligible for analysis (656 had neutralization measured). mRNA-1273 was the most immunogenic (log10 geometric mean concentration [GMC] 2.9, log10 geometric mean neutralization titer [GMT] 2.3), followed by BNT162b2 (GMC 2.4; GMT 1.9) and Ad26.COV2.S (GMC 1.5; GMT 1.4; P < .001). The proportion of low neutralization (< 20% of convalescent titers) among Ad26.COV2.S recipients was 69.9%. Prior COVID-19 infection (in 7.1% of the cohort) was associated with higher responses (P < .001). Antibody titers and neutralization were quantitatively lower in patients with cancer than in comparable healthy controls, regardless of vaccine type (P < .001). Receipt of chemotherapy in the prior year or current steroids were associated with lower antibody levels and immune checkpoint blockade with higher neutralization. Systemic reactogenicity varied by vaccine and correlated with immune responses (P = .002 for concentration, P = .016 for neutralization). In 32 patients who received an additional vaccine dose, side effects were similar to prior doses, and 30 of 32 demonstrated increased antibody titers (GMC 1.05 before additional dose, 3.17 after dose). CONCLUSION: Immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are modestly impaired in patients with cancer. These data suggest utility of antibody testing to identify patients for whom additional vaccine doses may be effective and appropriate, although larger prospective studies are needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Neoplasms/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies
2.
J Clin Oncol ; 40(1): 12-23, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506497

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The immunogenicity and reactogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with cancer are poorly understood. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of adults with solid-organ or hematologic cancers to evaluate anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin A/M/G spike antibodies, neutralization, and reactogenicity ≥ 7 days following two doses of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or one dose of Ad26.COV2.S. We analyzed responses by multivariate regression and included data from 1,638 healthy controls, previously reported, for comparison. RESULTS: Between April and July 2021, we enrolled 1,001 patients; 762 were eligible for analysis (656 had neutralization measured). mRNA-1273 was the most immunogenic (log10 geometric mean concentration [GMC] 2.9, log10 geometric mean neutralization titer [GMT] 2.3), followed by BNT162b2 (GMC 2.4; GMT 1.9) and Ad26.COV2.S (GMC 1.5; GMT 1.4; P < .001). The proportion of low neutralization (< 20% of convalescent titers) among Ad26.COV2.S recipients was 69.9%. Prior COVID-19 infection (in 7.1% of the cohort) was associated with higher responses (P < .001). Antibody titers and neutralization were quantitatively lower in patients with cancer than in comparable healthy controls, regardless of vaccine type (P < .001). Receipt of chemotherapy in the prior year or current steroids were associated with lower antibody levels and immune checkpoint blockade with higher neutralization. Systemic reactogenicity varied by vaccine and correlated with immune responses (P = .002 for concentration, P = .016 for neutralization). In 32 patients who received an additional vaccine dose, side effects were similar to prior doses, and 30 of 32 demonstrated increased antibody titers (GMC 1.05 before additional dose, 3.17 after dose). CONCLUSION: Immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are modestly impaired in patients with cancer. These data suggest utility of antibody testing to identify patients for whom additional vaccine doses may be effective and appropriate, although larger prospective studies are needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Neoplasms/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies
4.
J Immunother Cancer ; 9(7)2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318086

ABSTRACT

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%-12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.


Subject(s)
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/diagnosis , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Immunotherapy/adverse effects , Nervous System Diseases/diagnosis , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Consensus , Humans , Nervous System Diseases/chemically induced , Nervous System Diseases/immunology , Neurologists/statistics & numerical data , Oncologists/statistics & numerical data , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Patient Care Team/statistics & numerical data
5.
Oncologist ; 26(8): e1427-e1433, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1210191

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted health care systems. However, to date, the trend of hospitalizations in the oncology patient population has not been studied, and the frequency of nosocomial spread to patients with cancer is not well understood. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on inpatient oncology census and determine the nosocomial rate of COVID-19 in patients with cancer admitted at a large academic center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted were reviewed to evaluate the temporal trends in inpatient oncology census during pre-COVID-19 (January 2019 to February 2020), COVID-19 (March to May 2020), and post-COVID-19 surge (June to August 2020) in the region. In addition, nosocomial infection rates of SARS-CoV-2 were reviewed. RESULTS: Overall, the daily inpatient census was steady in 2019 (median, 103; range, 92-118) and until February 2020 (median, 112; range, 102-114). However, there was a major decline from March to May 2020 (median, 68; range, 57-104), with 45.4% lower admissions during April 2020. As the COVID-19 surge eased, the daily inpatient census over time returned to the pre-COVID-19 baseline (median, 103; range, 99-111). One patient (1/231, 0.004%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 13 days after hospitalization, and it is unclear if it was nosocomial or community spread. CONCLUSION: In this study, inpatient oncology admissions decreased substantially during the COVID-19 surge but over time returned to the pre-COVID-19 baseline. With aggressive infection control measures, the rates of nosocomial transmission were exceedingly low and should provide reassurance to those seeking medical care, including inpatient admissions when medically necessary. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on the health care system, and cancer patients are a vulnerable population. This study observes a significant decline in the daily inpatient oncology census from March to May 2020 compared with the same time frame in the previous year and examines the potential reasons for this decline. In addition, nosocomial rates of COVID-19 were investigated, and rates were found to be very low. These findings suggest that aggressive infection control measures can mitigate the nosocomial infection risk among cancer patients and the inpatient setting is a safe environment, providing reassurance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Neoplasms , Censuses , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Humans , Inpatients , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
6.
J Immunother Cancer ; 9(1)2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1038424

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer who are infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to develop severe illness and die compared with those without cancer. The impact of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) on the severity of COVID-19 illness is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether ICI confers an additional risk for severe COVID-19 in patients with cancer. METHODS: We analyzed data from 110 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 while on treatment with ICI without chemotherapy in 19 hospitals in North America, Europe and Australia. The primary objective was to describe the clinical course and to identify factors associated with hospital and intensive care (ICU) admission and mortality. FINDINGS: Thirty-five (32%) patients were admitted to hospital and 18 (16%) died. All patients who died had advanced cancer, and only four were admitted to ICU. COVID-19 was the primary cause of death in 8 (7%) patients. Factors independently associated with an increased risk for hospital admission were ECOG ≥2 (OR 39.25, 95% CI 4.17 to 369.2, p=0.0013), treatment with combination ICI (OR 5.68, 95% CI 1.58 to 20.36, p=0.0273) and presence of COVID-19 symptoms (OR 5.30, 95% CI 1.57 to 17.89, p=0.0073). Seventy-six (73%) patients interrupted ICI due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, 43 (57%) of whom had resumed at data cut-off. INTERPRETATION: COVID-19-related mortality in the ICI-treated population does not appear to be higher than previously published mortality rates for patients with cancer. Inpatient mortality of patients with cancer treated with ICI was high in comparison with previously reported rates for hospitalized patients with cancer and was due to COVID-19 in almost half of the cases. We identified factors associated with adverse outcomes in ICI-treated patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/immunology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
7.
Clin Cancer Res ; 27(10): 2678-2697, 2021 05 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1015729

ABSTRACT

Five years ago, the Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) conducted an assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the melanoma research community and patients with melanoma. Since then, remarkable progress has been made on both the basic and clinical research fronts. However, the incidence, recurrence, and death rates for melanoma remain unacceptably high and significant challenges remain. Hence, the MRF Scientific Advisory Council and Breakthrough Consortium, a group that includes clinicians and scientists, reconvened to facilitate intensive discussions on thematic areas essential to melanoma researchers and patients alike, prevention, detection, diagnosis, metastatic dormancy and progression, response and resistance to targeted and immune-based therapy, and the clinical consequences of COVID-19 for patients with melanoma and providers. These extensive discussions helped to crystalize our understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the broader melanoma community today. In this report, we discuss the progress made since the last MRF assessment, comment on what remains to be overcome, and offer recommendations for the best path forward.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Medical Oncology/methods , Melanoma/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Skin Neoplasms/therapy , Biomedical Research/methods , Biomedical Research/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Medical Oncology/trends , Melanoma/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Skin Neoplasms/diagnosis
8.
Circulation ; 142(24): 2299-2311, 2020 12 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1011038

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treat an expanding range of cancers. Consistent basic data suggest that these same checkpoints are critical negative regulators of atherosclerosis. Therefore, our objectives were to test whether ICIs were associated with accelerated atherosclerosis and a higher risk of atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular events. METHODS: The study was situated in a single academic medical center. The primary analysis evaluated whether exposure to an ICI was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular events in 2842 patients and 2842 controls matched by age, a history of cardiovascular events, and cancer type. In a second design, a case-crossover analysis was performed with an at-risk period defined as the 2-year period after and the control period as the 2-year period before treatment. The primary outcome was a composite of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and ischemic stroke). Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome. In addition, in an imaging substudy (n=40), the rate of atherosclerotic plaque progression was compared from before to after the ICI was started. All study measures and outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS: In the matched cohort study, there was a 3-fold higher risk for cardiovascular events after starting an ICI (hazard ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.0-5.5]; P<0.001). There was a similar increase in each of the individual components of the primary outcome. In the case-crossover, there was also an increase in cardiovascular events from 1.37 to 6.55 per 100 person-years at 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.8 [95% CI, 3.5-6.5]; P<0.001). In the imaging study, the rate of progression of total aortic plaque volume was >3-fold higher with ICIs (from 2.1%/y before 6.7%/y after). This association between ICI use and increased atherosclerotic plaque progression was attenuated with concomitant use of statins or corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular events were higher after initiation of ICIs, potentially mediated by accelerated progression of atherosclerosis. Optimization of cardiovascular risk factors and increased awareness of cardiovascular risk before, during, and after treatment should be considered among patients on an ICI.


Subject(s)
Atherosclerosis/epidemiology , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Ischemic Stroke/epidemiology , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Plaque, Atherosclerotic , Academic Medical Centers , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Aged , Atherosclerosis/diagnostic imaging , Atherosclerosis/drug therapy , Boston/epidemiology , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Ischemic Stroke/diagnostic imaging , Ischemic Stroke/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/diagnostic imaging , Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Myocardial Revascularization , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors
9.
J Immunother Cancer ; 8(1)2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-346978

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 infections are characterized by inflammation of the lungs and other organs that ranges from mild and asymptomatic to fulminant and fatal. Patients who are immunocompromised and those with cardiopulmonary comorbidities appear to be particularly afflicted by this illness. During pandemic conditions, many aspects of cancer care have been impacted. One important clinical question is how to manage patients who need anticancer therapy, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) during these conditions. Herein, we consider diagnostic and therapeutic implications of using ICI during this unprecedented period of COVID-19 infections. In particular, we consider the impact of ICI on COVID-19 severity, decisions surrounding continuing or interrupting therapy, diagnostic measures in patients with symptoms or manifestations potentially consistent with either COVID-19 or ICI toxicity, and resumption of therapy in infected patients. While more robust data are needed to guide clinicians on management of patients with cancer who may be affected by COVID-19, we hope this commentary provides useful insights for the clinical community.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Neoplasms/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/adverse effects , COVID-19 , Humans , Molecular Targeted Therapy , Pandemics , Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor/antagonists & inhibitors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL