Search

Simple Summary: Vaccination against COVID-19 was a major weapon against current epidemics. In a multicenter cohort study conducted in cancer patients (CP) and health care workers (HCW) we demonstrated that: (i) vaccination was well accepted in both cohorts; (ii) the seropositivity rate was high after the first and second injections among HCW and among CP this was only after the second injection; (iii) similar patterns in antibody response followed the second dose; in both groups, antibody levels waned 3 months after the second dose. Overall, two-dose COVID-19 vaccination was effective in both populations studied, but could not totally prevent a few vaccine breakthrough infections, owing to the continuously emerging novel variants. In this prospective, real-life cohort study, we followed 523 cancer patients (CP) and 579 healthcare workers (HCW) from two cancer centers to evaluate the biological and clinical results of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Seventy percent of the CP and 90% of the HCW received an mRNA vaccine or the AZD1222 vaccine. Seropositivity was high after the first vaccine among HCW and poor among CP. The second dose resulted in almost 100% seropositivity in both cohorts. Antibody response was higher after the second injection than the first in both populations. Despite at least two doses, 8 CP (1.5%) and 14 HCW (2.4%) were infected, corresponding either to a weak level of antibody or a new strain of virus (particularly the Omicron variant of concern). Sixteen CP and three HCW were hospitalized but none of them died from COVID-19. To conclude, this study showed that two doses of COVID-19 vaccines were crucially necessary to attain sufficient seropositivity. However, the post-vaccination antibody level declines in individuals from the two cohorts and could not totally prevent new SARS-CoV-2 infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer patients (CPs) are considered more vulnerable and as a high mortality group regarding COVID-19. In this analysis, we aimed to describe asymptomatic COVID (+) CPs and associated factors. Methods: We conducted a prospective study in CPs and health care workers (HCWs) in 4 French cancer centers (PAPESCO [ PAtients et PErsonnels de Santé des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer pendant l'épidémie de COvid-19 ] study). This analysis used data recorded between June 17, 2020 and November 30, 2020 in CPs (first 2 waves, no variants). At inclusion and quarterly, CPs reported the presence of predefined COVID-19 symptoms and had a blood rapid diagnostic test; a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was done in case of suspected infection. Results: A total 878 CPs were included; COVID-19 prevalence was similar in both CPs (8%) and HCWs (9.5%); of the 70 CPs (8%) who were COVID (+), 29 (41.4%) were and remained asymptomatic; 241/808 of the COVID (−) (29.8%) were symptomatic. 18 COVID (+) were hospitalized (2% of CPs), 1 in intensive care unit (ICU) and 1 died (0.1% of CPs and 2.4% of symptomatic COVID [+] CPs). Only the inclusion center was associated with clinical presentation (in Nancy, Angers, Nantes, and Clermont-Ferrand: 65.4%, 35%, 28.6%, and 10% CPs were asymptomatic, respectively). Conclusions: Seroprevalence of COVID-19 in CPs was similar to that observed in HCWs; mortality related to COVID-19 among CPs was 0.1%. More than 40% of COVID (+) CPs were asymptomatic and one third of COVID (−) CPs had symptoms. Only geographic origin was associated with the presence or absence of symptoms. Social distancing and protective measures must be applied in CPs at home and when hospitalized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report the case of a 32-year-old man with a caecal adenocarcinoma with major lymph node extension and peritoneal carcinomatosis, presenting a BRAF-K601E mutation. A triplet (5FU plus oxaliplatin plus irinotecan) combination with bevacizumab achieved tumor control but the disease progressed immediately after cessation and the patient died 8 months after the diagnosis. A short review of BRAF non-V600E mutations shows that outcome and clinical features depend on the mutation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: COVID-19 has some clinical manifestations that are similar to the side effects of cancer treatments such that cancer patients may fail to distinguish COVID-19 symptoms from those of their treatments. The PAPESCO-19 study investigated 13 COVID-19 symptoms and confirmed that in combination with anorexia, fever, headache, and rhinorrhea, anosmia has a strong association with COVID-19 for cancer patients while dysgeusia/ageusia does not. Background: Cancer patients may fail to distinguish COVID-19 symptoms such as anosmia, dysgeusia/ageusia, anorexia, headache, and fatigue, which are frequent after cancer treatments. We aimed to identify symptoms associated with COVID-19 and to assess the strength of their association in cancer and cancer-free populations. Methods: The multicenter cohort study PAPESCO-19 included 878 cancer patients and 940 healthcare workers (HCWs). At baseline and quarterly thereafter, they reported the presence or absence of 13 COVID-19 symptoms observed over 3 months and the results of routine screening RT-PCR, and they were systematically tested for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. We identified the symptom combinations significantly associated with COVID-19. Results: Eight percent of cancer patients were COVID-19 positive, and 32% were symptomatic. Among the HCWs, these proportions were 9.5 and 52%, respectively. Anosmia, anorexia, fever, headache, and rhinorrhea together accurately discriminated (c-statistic = 0.7027) COVID-19 cases from cancer patients. Anosmia, dysgeusia/ageusia, muscle pain, intense fatigue, headache, and chest pain better discriminated (c-statistic = 0.8830) COVID-19 cases among the HCWs. Anosmia had the strongest association in both the cancer patients (OR = 7.48, 95% CI: 2.96–18.89) and HCWs (OR = 5.71, 95% CI: 2.21–14.75). Conclusions: COVID-19 symptoms and their diagnostic performance differ in the cancer patients and HCWs. Anosmia is associated with COVID-19 in cancer patients, while dysgeusia/ageusia is not. Cancer patients deserve tailored preventive measures due to their particular COVID-19 symptom pattern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]