Search

BackgroundActivity and safety of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine in actively treated patients with solid tumors is currently unknown.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study of 326 patients with solid tumors treated with anticancer medications to determine the proportion of cancer patients with immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 following 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. The control group comprised 164 vaccinated healthy adults. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoglobulin G antibodies were measured using a level greater than 50 AU/mL as a cutoff for seropositivity. Information on adverse effects was collected using a questionnaire. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsMost patients (205, 62.9%) were treated with chemotherapy either alone or with additional therapy; 55 (16.9%) were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and 38 (11.7%) with targeted therapy alone; 28 (8.6%) received other combinations. The vaccine was well tolerated, and no severe side effects were reported. Among patients with cancer, 39 (11.9%) were seronegative compared with 5 (3.0%) of the control group (P = .001). Median immunoglobulin G titers were statistically significantly lower among patients with cancer compared with control (931 AU/mL vs 2817 AU/mL, P = .003). Seronegativity proportions were higher in the chemotherapy-treated group (n = 19; 18.8%) compared with the immune checkpoint inhibitor–treated patients (n = 5; 9.1%) and with those treated with targeted therapy (n = 1; 2.6%) (P = .02). Titers were also statistically significantly different among treatment types (P = .002).ConclusionsThe BNT162b2 vaccine is safe and effective in actively treated patients with cancer. The relatively lower antibody titers and lower proportion of seropositive patients, especially among chemotherapy-treated patients, call for continuing the use of personal protective measures in these patients, even following vaccination.

Introduction The use of telemedicine in oncology practice is rapidly expanding and is considered safe and cost effective. However, the implications of telemedicine on patient‐physician interaction, patient satisfaction, and absence of the personal touch have not been studied to date. Following the spread of COVID‐19, telemedicine services were rapidly incorporated at the Oncology Division of Tel Aviv Medical Center. We aimed to evaluate patients' perspectives and preferences regarding telemedicine and to assess whether this virtual communication platform affects the patient‐physician relationship. Methods Between March 2020 and May 2020, adult cancer patients who conducted at least one successful telemedicine meeting were interviewed by trained medical personnel. The interview was based on validated patient satisfaction questionnaires and focused on patient‐physician interaction in relation to the last in‐patient visit. Results Of 236 patients, 172 (74%) patients agreed to participate. The study population comprised mainly patients with gastrointestinal malignancies (n = 79, 46%) with a median age of 63 years (range 21–88). The majority of patients were male (n = 93, 54%). Eighty‐nine (51.7%) patients were receiving active oncologic treatment, and 58 (33.7%) were under routine surveillance following completion of active therapy. Almost all had a sense of secured privacy (n = 171, 96%), the majority of patients affirmed that their concerns were met (n = 166, 93%) and perceived that eye contact with the treating physician was perceived (n = 156, 87%). Only a minority felt that the absence of physical clinic visits harmed their treatment (n = 36, 20%). Most patients (n = 146, 84.9%) wished to continue telemedicine services. A multivariate analysis revealed that higher satisfaction and visits for routine surveillance were both predictors of willingness to continue future telemedicine meetings over physical encounters (odds ratio [OR] = 2.41, p = .01; OR = 3.34, p = .03, respectively). Conclusion Telemedicine is perceived as safe and effective, and patients did not feel that it compromised medical care or the patient‐physician relationship. Integration of telemedicine is ideal for patients under surveillance after completion of active oncologic treatment. Physician communication skills workshops are warranted with implementing this platform. Implications for Practice During the COVID‐19 pandemic, telemedicine was rapidly implemented worldwide to facilitate continuity of quality care and treatment. Despite many potential setbacks, telemedicine has become a useful and safe tool for oncology practitioners to care for their patients. The use of telemedicine regarding patients' perspectives, emotions, and patient‐physician communication in daily oncology practice has not been studied to date. This study demonstrated telemedicine is perceived as safe and effective and does not compromise medical care or the patient‐physician relationship. Its use is ideal for surveillance after completion of active oncologic treatment. Physician communication skills workshops are warranted with implementing this platform., The use of telemedicine in oncology practice is rapidly expanding; however, the implications for patient‐physician interaction and patient satisfaction have not been well studied. This article evaluates patients' perspectives and preferences regarding telemedicine and whether a virtual communication platform affects the patient‐physician relationship.