Search

We aimed to evaluate the seroconversion rates after two doses of inactive COVID‐19 vaccine (CoronaVac) and the benefit of a third dose mRNA vaccine booster in patients with cancer receiving active treatment. Patients with solid tumors receiving active treatment (n = 101) and patients with no‐cancer (n = 48) as the control group were included in the study. All the patients and controls had received two doses of CoronaVac and a third booster dose of the mRNA vaccine (Bnt162b2). Anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 Spike Receptor Binding Domain IgG antibody levels after the second and third dose were measured with quantitative ELISA. The median age of the patients was 66 (IQR 60‐71). 79% of the patients were receiving chemotherapy, and 21% were receiving immunotherapy at the time of vaccination. Antibody levels measured after two doses of CoronaVac were significantly lower in patients with cancer than in the control group (median 0 μg/ml [IQR 0‐1.17 μg/ml] vs median 0.91 μg/ml [IQR 0‐2.24 μg/ml], respectively, P =.002). Seropositivity rates were 46.5% in patients with cancer and 72.9% in the control group (P =.002). Antibody measurement was performed in 26 patients after the third dose. Seroconversion rate increased from 46.5% to 88.5% (P <.001), and the antibody titers significantly increased with the third‐dose booster (median 0 μg/ml [IQR 0‐1.17 μg/ml] after two doses vs 12.6 μg/ml [IQR 1.8‐69.1 μg/ml] after third booster dose, P <.001). Immunogenicity of CoronaVac is low in patients with cancer receiving active treatment, and administering a third dose of an mRNA vaccine is effective in terms of improving seroconversion rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. However, the association of VTE with immunotherapy remains poorly defined. We therefore evaluated the frequency of VTE in patients receiving immunotherapy and tried to determine predisposing factors. Methods: A total of 133 adult metastatic cancer patients treated with immunotherapy for any cancer between were included. Baseline demographics, ECOG performance status, type of tumors, and baseline blood count parameters were recorded. Possible predisposing factors were evaluated with univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: The median age was 60 (interquartile range (IQR) 48–66) years, and the median follow-up was 10.1 (IQR 5.8–18.5) months. Renal cell carcinoma (26.3%) and melanoma (24.1%) were most common diagnoses. Fifteen patients (11.3%) had an episode of VTE. Most of the VTEs were diagnosed as pulmonary emboli (10/15; 67%). Eighty percent (12/15) of these VTE cases were detected incidentally. Patients with a baseline ECOG performance status of 1 or more (29.3% of patients) had a significantly increased risk of venous thrombosis (ECOG ≥1 vs. 0, HR: 3.023, 95% CI: 1.011–9.039, p=0.048). Other factors, including patient age, tumor type, body mass index, baseline thrombocyte, neutrophil, and lactate dehydrogenase levels were not significantly associated with VTE risk. Conclusions: In this study, we observed VTE development in more than 10% of immunotherapy-treated patients and increased VTE risk in patients with poorer ECOG status. With the asymptomatic nature of VTEs in most cases, a high index of suspicion level for VTE is required in patients treated with immunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, 683 patients with endometrial cancer (EC) after comprehensive surgical staging were classified into four risk groups as low (LR), intermediate (IR), high-intermediate (HIR) and high-risk (HR), according to the recent consensus risk grouping. Patients with disease confined to the uterus, ≥50% myometrial invasion (MI) and/or grade 3 histology were treated with vaginal brachytherapy (VBT). Patients with stage II disease, positive/close surgical margins or extra-uterine extension were treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)±VBT. The median follow-up was 56 months. The overall survival (OS) was significantly different between LR and HR groups, and there was a trend between LR and HIR groups. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was significantly different between LR and HIR, LR and HR and IR and HR groups. There was no significant difference in OS and RFS rates between the HIR and HR groups. In HR patients, the OS and RFS rates were significantly higher in stage IB - grade 3 and stage II compared to stage III and non-endometrioid histology without any difference between the two uterine-confined stages and between stage III and non-endometrioid histology. The current risk grouping does not clearly discriminate the HIR and IR groups. In patients with comprehensive surgical staging, a further risk grouping is needed to distinguish the real HR group.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? The standard treatment for endometrial cancer (EC) is surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and/or chemotherapy is recommended according to risk factors. The recent European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) guideline have introduced a new risk group. However, the risk grouping is still quite heterogeneous.What do the results of this study add? This study demonstrated that the current risk grouping recommended by ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO does not clearly discriminate the intermediate risk (IR) and high-intermediate risk (HIR) groups.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Based on the results of this study, a new risk grouping can be made to discriminate HIR and IR groups clearly in patients with comprehensive surgical staging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]