Search

SARS-COV-2 vaccines have been shown to be efficacious primarily in healthy volunteer populations and population level studies. Immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are less well characterised in potentially immune vulnerable patient groups, including those with immune-mediated inflammatory and chronic diseases (inflammatory arthritis [IA] incorporating rheumatoid arthritis [RA] and psoriatic arthritis [PsA]; ANCA-Associated Vasculitis [AAV]; inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]); hepatic disease (HepD), end stage kidney disease requiring haemodialysis (HD) without or with immunosuppression (HDIS); solid cancers (SC) and haematological malignancies (HM), and those that have undergone haemopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). The OCTAVE trial is a multi-centre, multi-disease, prospective cohort that will comprehensively assess SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responses within and between the abovementioned disease cohorts using common analytical platforms in patients recruited across the United Kingdom (UK). The majority of subjects received either COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 Vaccine (AstraZeneca formerly AZD1222) as part of the UK National COVID19 vaccination programme. As of 13 th August 2021; 2,583 patients have been recruited. We report herein the humoral and T cell immune response results from the first 600 participants recruited where serology data are available at baseline, pre-second vaccine dose (boost) and/or 4 weeks post second dose. We also include in the analysis, data obtained from 231 healthy individuals from the PITCH (Protective Immunity from T cells in Healthcare workers) study. Overall, in comparison to PITCH where 100% of tested individuals (n=93) generated anti-Spike antibodies after vaccine doses, 89% of patients within OCTAVE seroconverted 4 weeks after second vaccine dose. By corollary, approximately 11% of patients across all disease cohorts fail to generate antibodies that react to SARS-CoV-2 spike 4 weeks after two vaccines. Failure to generate spike reactive antibodies was found at a higher proportion in some specific patient subgroups, particularly AAV (72.4%), HD-IS (16.7%) and HepD (16.7%). Importantly, all recruited AAV patients had received Rituximab; a targeted B cell depletion therapy. Furthermore, even in those who seroconverted, 40% of patients across disease cohorts generate lower levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibody reactivity compared to healthy subjects after two SARS-CoV-2 vaccines; the functional significance of these findings in providing protection from subsequent SARS-CoV-2 exposure is not currently known. In contrast to the observed serological response, evaluation of the Spike-specific T cell response revealed that across all patient sub-groups (including AAV) a response similar to healthy individuals was generated. Our data argue strongly for further vaccination strategies to optimise humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with chronic diseases and/or patients on immune suppressive therapies. Trial Registration: The trial is registered on ISRCTN 12821688.Funding: This work was supported by the Medical Research Council COVID-19 Immunity – National Core Study (IMM-NCS) [grant number MC-PC-20031]. Staff at the Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) are supported by a core funding grant from Cancer Research UK (C22436/A25354). PK and EB are supported by the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centres at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham Biomedical Research Centres. EB and PK are supported by an NIHR Senior Investigator award. PK is funded by WT109965MA. SJD is funded by an NIHR Global Research Professorship (NIHR300791). TdS is funded by a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (110058/Z/15/Z). DS is supported by the NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer programme in Oxford. LT is supported by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 205228/Z/16/Z), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Medical Countermeasures Initiative contract 75F40120C00085. and the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections (NIHR200907) at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford. The PITCH (Protective Immunity from T cells to Covid-19 in Health workers) Consortium, is funded by the UK Department of Health and Social Care with contributions from UKRI/NIHR through the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UKCIC), the Huo Family Foundation and The National Institute for Health Research (UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call, Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS).Declaration of Interest: None to declare. Ethical Approval: This study was approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency on the 5th February 2021 and the London and Chelsea Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref:21/HRA/0489) on 12th February 2021, with subsequent amendments approved on 3rd March 2021, 19th April 2021 and 26th April 2021).

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for the clinical management of patients with hematological malignancies (HMs), raising questions about the optimal care of this patient group. Methods: This consensus manuscript aims at discussing clinical evidence and providing expert advice on statements related to the management of HMs in the COVID-19 pandemic. For this purpose, an international consortium was established including a steering committee, which prepared six working packages addressing significant clinical questions from the COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and mitigation strategies to specific HMs management in the pandemic. During a virtual consensus meeting, including global experts and lead by the European Society for Medical Oncology and the European Hematology Association, statements were discussed and voted upon. When a consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements to develop consensual clinical guidance. Results and conclusion: The expert panel agreed on 33 statements, reflecting a consensus, which will guide clinical decision making for patients with hematological neoplasms during the COVID-19 pandemic. © 2022 The Authors

There are different BCR-ABL1 fusion genes that are translated into proteins that are different from each other, yet all leukemogenic, causing chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) or acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Their frequency has never been systematically investigated. In a series of 45503 newly diagnosed CML patients reported from 45 countries, it was found that the proportion of e13a2 (also known as b2a2) and of e14a2 (also known as b3a2), including the cases co-expressing e14a2 and e13a2, was 37.9% and 62.1%, respectively. The proportion of these two transcripts was correlated with gender, e13a2 being more frequent in males (39.2%) than in females (36.2%), was correlated with age, decreasing from 39.6% in children and adolescents down to 31.6% in patients ≥ 80 years old, and was not constant worldwide. Other, rare transcripts were reported in 666/34561 patients (1.93%). The proportion of rare transcripts was associatedwith gender (2.27% in females and 1.69% in males) and with age (from 1.79% in children and adolescents up to 3.84% in patients ≥ 80 years old). These data show that the differences in proportion are not by chance. This is important, as the transcript type is a variable that is suspected to be of prognostic importance for response to treatment, outcome of treatment, and rate of treatment-free remission.

Claudia De Lorenzo,1,2,* Rolando Paciello,1,2,* Gennaro Riccio,3 Domenica Rea,4 Antonio Barbieri,4 Carmela Coppola,4 Nicola Maurea4 1Department of Molecular Medicine and Medical Biotechnology, University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy; 2Ceinge, Biotecnologie Avanzate s.c.a.r.l., Naples, Italy; 3Department of Pharmacy, Federico II University, Naples, Italy; 4Division of Cardiology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – Irccs Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy *These authors contributed equally to this work Purpose: Pertuzumab, a novel anti-epidermal growth factor receptor 2 humanized monoclonal antibody, and trastuzumab-emtansine (TDM1), a novel antibody–drug conjugate made up of trastuzumab covalently linked to the highly potent microtubule inhibitory agent DM1, have been recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for increasing the efficiency and safety of breast cancer therapy with trastuzumab. We investigated for the first time the potential cardiotoxic effects of pertuzumab and TDM1, which are not yet fully elucidated, and we tested whether ranolazine could blunt their cardiotoxicity.Methods: The cardiotoxic effects were tested in vitro on rat cardiomyoblasts, human fetal cardiomyocytes, adult-like cardiomyocytes, and in vivo on a mouse model.Results: All the treated cardiac cell lines were significantly affected by treatment with the tested drugs. Surprisingly, TDM1 showed stronger inhibitory effects on cardiac cells with respect to trastuzumab and pertuzumab by more significantly reducing the cell viability and by changing the morphology of these cells. TDM1 also affected the beating phenotype of adult-like cardiomyocytes in vitro and reduced fractional shortening and ejection fraction in vivo in a mouse model. We also found that ranolazine attenuated not only the cardiotoxic side effects of trastuzumab but also those of pertuzumab and TDM1, when used in combinatorial treatments both in vitro and in vivo, as demonstrated by the recovery of fractional shortening and ejection fraction values in mice pretreated with TDM1.Conclusion: We demonstrated that it is possible to predict the eventual cardiotoxic effects of novel approved anticancer drugs early by using in vitro and in vivo approaches, which can also be useful to screen in advance the cardioprotective agents, so as to avoid the onset of unwanted cardiotoxic side effects. Keywords: breast cancer, immunotherapy, pertuzumab, trastuzumab-DM1, ranolazine

Sabrina Bimonte,1,* Antonio Barbieri,2,* Marco Cascella,1,* Domenica Rea,2,* Giuseppe Palma,2 Vitale Del Vecchio,2 Cira Antonietta Forte,1 Francesco Del Prato,1 Claudio Arra,1 Arturo Cuomo2 1Division of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS – “Fondazione G. Pascale”, 2Animal Facility Unit, Department of Research, National Cancer Institute “G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy *These authors contributed equally tothis work Background: Naloxone is viewed as a specific competitive opioid antagonist acting at the level of opioid receptors (µ, δ, and κ) with blended agonist-adversary or agonist action. The role of naloxone in tumor cell growth has been poorly studied in human cancer cell lines.Materials and methods: In the present study, we report findings from in vitro and in vivo experiments performed to evaluate the effects of naloxone on human breast cancer cell growth and progression. In vitro assays were conducted on estrogen receptor-negative human breast carcinoma cells, MDA.MB231, treated with naloxone at different concentrations (10–100 µM). In vivo experiments were performed on a mouse model of human triple-negative breast cancer generated by using MDA.MB231 injected subcutaneously in mice. Naloxone was daily intraperitoneally injected in mice at 0.357 mg/kg for 2 weeks and at 0.714 mg/kg for the next 2 weeks. Microvessels formation was detected by fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextran (100 µL) injected into the tail vein of mice and confirmed by immunohistochemistry with CD31 on mice tumor sections.Results: In vitro tests showed that the cell proliferation of MDA.MB231 was inhibited by naloxone in a dose-dependent manner, whereas the cell death was increased. In vivo studies demonstrated that tumors of mice treated with naloxone were significantly smaller than those observed in the control groups, as long as naloxone was administered. Finally, naloxone was not able to impair the microvessel formation in tumors of treated mice.Conclusion: Our data showed, for the first time, that naloxone reduced breast cancer progression without affecting angiogenesis. Keywords: naloxone, breast cancer, proliferation, microvessel formation, angiogenesis

Policy decisions regarding breast cancer screening and treatment programmes may be misplaced unless the decision process includes the appropriate utilities and disutilities of mammography screening and its sequelae. The objectives of this study were to critically review how economic evaluations have valued the health states associated with breast cancer screening, and appraise the primary evidence informing health state utility values (cardinal measures of quality of life). A systematic review was conducted up to September 2018 of studies that elicited or used utilities relevant to mammography screening. The methods used to elicit utilities and the quality of the reported values were tabulated and analysed narratively. 40 economic evaluations of breast cancer screening programmes and 10 primary studies measuring utilities for health states associated with mammography were reviewed in full. The economic evaluations made different assumptions about the measures used, duration applied and the sequalae included in each health state. 22 evaluations referenced utilities based on assumptions or used measures that were not methodologically appropriate. There was significant heterogeneity in the utilities generated by the 10 primary studies, including the methods and population used to derive them. No study asked women to explicitly consider the risk of overdiagnosis when valuing the health states described. Utilities informing breast screening policy are restricted in their ability to reflect the full benefits and harms. Evaluating the true cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening will remain problematic, unless the methodological challenges associated with valuing the disutilities of screening are adequately addressed.

Background The optimal ways of using aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen as endocrine treatment for early breast cancer remains uncertain.Methods We undertook meta-analyses of individual data on 31 920 postmenopausal women with oestrogen-receptor-positive early breast cancer in the randomised trials of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen; of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5; and of 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen. Primary outcomes were any recurrence of breast cancer, breast cancer mortality, death without recurrence, and all-cause mortality. Intention-to-treat log-rank analyses, stratified by age, nodal status, and trial, yielded aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen first-event rate ratios (RRs).Findings In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0-1 (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.78) and 2-4 (RR 0.80, 0.68-0.93), and non-significantly thereafter. 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (12.1% vs 14.2%; RR 0.85, 0.75-0.96; 2p=0.009). In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0-1 (RR 0.74, 0.62-0.89) but not while both groups received aromatase inhibitors during years 2-4, or thereafter; overall in these trials, there were fewer recurrences with 5 years of aromatase inhibitors than with tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitors (RR 0.90, 0.81-0.99; 2p=0.045), though the breast cancer mortality reduction was not significant (RR 0.89, 0.78-1.03; 2p=0.11). In the comparison of 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 2-4 (RR 0.56, 0.46-0.67) but not subsequently, and 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with switching to aromatase inhibitors than with remaining on tamoxifen (8.7% vs 10.1%; 2p=0.015). Aggregating all three types of comparison, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors during periods when treatments differed (RR 0.70, 0.64-0.77), but not significantly thereafter (RR 0.93, 0.86-1.01; 2p=0.08). Breast cancer mortality was reduced both while treatments differed (RR 0.79, 0.67-0.92), and subsequently (RR 0.89, 0.81-0.99), and for all periods combined (RR 0.86, 0.80-0.94; 2p=0.0005). All-cause mortality was also reduced (RR 0.88, 0.82-0.94; 2p=0.0003). RRs differed little by age, body-mass index, stage, grade, progesterone receptor status, or HER2 status. There were fewer endometrial cancers with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (10-year incidence 0.4% vs 1.2%; RR 0.33, 0.21-0.51) but more bone fractures (5-year risk 8.2% vs 5.5%; RR 1.42, 1.28-1.57); non-breast-cancer mortality was similar.Interpretation Aromatase inhibitors reduce recurrence rates by about 30% (proportionately) compared with tamoxifen while treatments diff er, but not thereafter. 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor reduces 10-year breast cancer mortality rates by about 15% compared with 5 years of tamoxifen, hence by about 40% (proportionately) compared with no endocrine treatment. Copyright (C) Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY.