SARS-CoV-2 vaccination willingness and humoral vaccination response in radiation oncology patients.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection has been and, in some parts, still is a threat to oncologic patients, making it crucial to understand perception of vaccination and immunologic responses in this vulnerable patient segment. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in relation to malignant disease characteristics and therapies have so far not been studied consecutively in larger oncologic patient populations. This study captures SARS-CoV-2 vaccination willingness and humoral immune response in a large consecutive oncologic patient collective at the beginning of 2021. METHODS: 1142 patients were consecutively recruited over 5.5 months at a tertiary department for radiation oncology and were assessed for vaccination willingness via a standardized interview. In already vaccinated patients total SARS-CoV-2 S antibody titres against the spike protein (Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S) and were evaluated 35 days or later after the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. RESULTS: Vaccination willingness was high with a rate of 90 %. The most frequent reasons for rejection were: undecided/potential vaccination after therapy, distrust in the vaccine and fear of interaction with comorbidities. Factors associated with lower vaccination willingness were: worse general condition, lower age and female sex. 80 % of the participants had been previously vaccinated, 8 % reported previous infection and 16 % received vaccination during antineoplastic therapy. In 97.5 % of the vaccinated patients Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S was detected. In a univariable analysis parameters associated with non-conversion were: lower performance status, spread to the local lymphatics (N + ), hematologic disease and diffuse metastases. All patients with oligometastatic disease achieved positive Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S titres. For patients with two vaccinations several risk factors were identified, that were associated with low antibody concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination willingness among oncologic patients was high in the first months after its availability, and most patients had already received one or two doses. Over 97 % of vaccinated patients had measurable anti-SARS-CoV-2 S titres. Our data supports early identification of low humoral responders after vaccination and could facilitate the design of future oncologic vaccine trials (clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04918888).

Total body irradiation with volumetric modulated arc therapy: Dosimetric data and first clinical experience.

BACKGROUND: To implement total body irradiation (TBI) using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). We applied the Varian RapidArc™ software to calculate and optimize the dose distribution. Emphasis was placed on applying a homogenous dose to the PTV and on reducing the dose to the lungs. METHODS: From July 2013 to July 2014 seven patients with leukaemia were planned and treated with a VMAT-based TBI-technique with photon energy of 6 MV. The overall planning target volume (PTV), comprising the whole body, had to be split into 8 segments with a subsequent multi-isocentric planning. In a first step a dose optimization of each single segment was performed. In a second step all these elements were calculated in one overall dose-plan, considering particular constraints and weighting factors, to achieve the final total body dose distribution. The quality assurance comprised the verification of the irradiation plans via ArcCheck™ (Sun Nuclear), followed by in vivo dosimetry via dosimeters (MOSFETs) on the patient. RESULTS: The time requirements for treatment planning were high: contouring took 5-6 h, optimization and dose calculation 25-30 h and quality assurance 6-8 h. The couch-time per fraction was 2 h on day one, decreasing to around 1.5 h for the following fractions, including patient information, time for arc positioning, patient positioning verification, mounting of the MOSFETs and irradiation. The mean lung dose was decreased to at least 80 % of the planned total body dose and in the central parts to 50 %. In two cases we additionally pursued a dose reduction of 30 to 50 % in a pre-irradiated brain and in renal insufficiency. All high dose areas were outside the lungs and other OARs. The planned dose was in line with the measured dose via MOSFETs: in the axilla the mean difference between calculated and measured dose was 3.6 % (range 1.1-6.8 %), and for the wrist/hip-inguinal region it was 4.3 % (range 1.1-8.1 %). CONCLUSION: TBI with VMAT provides the benefit of satisfactory dose distribution within the PTV, while selectively reducing the dose to the lungs and, if necessary, in other organs. Planning time, however, is extensive.