Reducedhumoral response against variants of concern in childhood solid cancer patients compared to adult patients and healthy children after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Introduction: Although there is extended research on the response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines in adult cancer patients (ACP), the immunogenicity to the variants of concern (VOCs) in childhood cancer patients (CCP) and safety profiles are now little known. Methods: A prospective, multi-center cohort study was performed by recruiting children with a solid cancer diagnosis and childhood healthy control (CHC) to receive standard two-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. An independent ACP group was included to match CCP in treatment history. Humoral response to six variants was performed and adverse events were followed up 3 months after vaccination. Responses to variants were compared with ACP and CHC by means of propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. Results: The analysis included 111 CCP (27.2%, median age of 8, quartile 5.5-15 years), 134 CHC (32.8%), and 163 ACP (40.0%), for a total 408 patients. Pathology included carcinoma, neural tumors, sarcoma, and germ cell tumors. Median chemotherapy time was 7 (quartile, 5-11) months. In PSM sample pairs, the humoral response of CCP against variants was significantly decreased, and serology titers (281.8 ± 315.5 U/ml) were reduced, as compared to ACP (p< 0.01 for the rate of neutralization rate against each variant) and CHC (p< 0.01 for the rate of neutralization against each variant) groups. Chemotherapy time and age (Pearson r ≥ 0.8 for all variants) were associated with the humoral response against VOCs of the CHC group. In the CCP group, less than grade II adverse events were observed, including 32 patients with local reactions, and 29 patients had systemic adverse events, including fever (n = 9), rash (n = 20), headache (n = 3), fatigue (n = 11), and myalgia (n = 15). All reactions were well-managed medically. Conclusions: The humoral response against VOCs after the CoronaVac vaccination in CCP was moderately impaired although the vaccine was safe. Age and chemotherapy time seem to be the primary reason for poor response and low serology levels.

Parent Acceptance toward Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccination in Children with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: The Power of Oncologist and Alliance.

Objectives: The current study aims to survey the willingness of parents to vaccinate their children, who are childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia survivors (CALLS), and identify factors associated with vaccine acceptance. Methods: Parents of CALLS on/off treatment, with the general condition of being amendable to vaccination, were recruited for interviews with attending oncologists about COVID-19 vaccination acceptance from July to November 2021 in China. After controlling for socioeconomic factors, the Association of Oncologists' recommendations and parent−oncologist alliance with acceptance status were investigated. For validation, propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was used. Results: A total of 424 families were included in the study, with CALLS mean remission age of 5.99 ± 3.40 years. Among them, 91 (21.4%) agreed, 168 (39.6%) hesitated, and 165 (38.9%) parents disagreed with the vaccination. The most common reason that kept parents from vaccinating their children was lack of recommendations from professional personnel (84/165, 50.9%), and massive amounts of internet information (78/175, 44.6%) was the main nonhealthcare resource against vaccination. Logistic regression analysis showed that only the recommendation from the oncologist was associated with parents' vaccine acceptance (OR = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.93−5.20), as demonstrated by PSM comparison (42 in recommendation group vs. 18 in nonrecommendation group among 114 pairs, p < 0.001). An exploratory analysis revealed that parents with a better patient−oncologist alliance had a significantly higher level of acceptance (65.6% in alliance group vs. 15.6% in nonalliance group among 32 pairs, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Due to a lack of professional recommendation resources and the potential for serious consequences, parents were generally reluctant to vaccinate their CALLS. The recommendation of oncologists, which was influenced by the parent−oncologist alliance, significantly increased acceptance. This study emphasizes the critical role of oncologists in vaccinating cancer survivors and can be used to promote COVID-19 vaccines among vulnerable populations.

Serial negative response after standard and third (Booster) dose of COVID-19 inactivated vaccine is associated with low vitamin D levels in patients with solid cancers.

Introduction: The response is poorly understood to the third dose in patients with cancer who failed the standard dose of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (CoronaVac). We aim to assess the immune response to the third dose and identify whether vitamin D deficiency is associated with serial serologic failure in patients with cancer. Methods: Solid cancer patients (SCP-N) and healthy controls (HCs) who were seronegative after the standard-dose vaccines in our previous study were prospectively recruited, from October 2021 to February 2022, to receive the third dose vaccines and anti-SARS-CoV-2S antibodies were measured. SCP-N who failed the third dose (serial seronegative group, SSG) were matched by propensity scores with the historical standard-dose positive cancer patient group (robust response group, RRG). An exploratory analysis was carried out to validate the role of vitamin D on the serology response. Results: The multi-center study recruited 97 SCP-N with 279 positive controls as RRG and 82 negative controls as HC group. The seroconversion rate after third-dose vaccination was higher in SCP-N than in HC (70.6% vs. 29.4%, p < 0.01). The matched comparison showed that patients in SSG had a significantly lower level of vitamin D and consumption rate than RRG or RRG-B (RRG with third-dose positive) (all p < 0.01). None had serious (over grade II) adverse events after the third dose. Conclusion: Solid cancer patients with second-dose vaccine failure may have a relatively poor humoral response to the third dose of COVID-19 vaccines as compared with the seronegative HC group. The consecutively poor humoral response could be associated with poor vitamin D levels and intake. Vitamin D status and cancer-related immune compromise may jointly affect the humoral response following booster vaccination.