Immunogenicity and safety of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 or PD-L1

Hospital-Based Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination for Cancer Patients on Active Treatment and Their Family Members during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: A Single-Center Experience

In patients with cancer, tumor- and treatment-induced immunosuppression are responsible for a four-fold increase in morbidity and mortality caused by influenza and invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae infections compared to the general population. The main oncology societies strongly recommend vaccination in patients with cancer to prevent these infections. However, vaccine hesitancy is a main concern in this population. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of in-hospital vaccination for patients under anticancer treatment and their family members (FMs) against influenza and pneumococcal infections during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to increase vaccine coverage. This was a single-center, prospective, observational study conducted at the Department of Oncology of Luigi Sacco University Hospital (Milan, Italy) between October 2020 and April 2021. The main primary outcome was the incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) and pneumococcal infections. The main secondary outcome was safety. A total of 341 subjects were enrolled, including 194 patients with cancer and 147 FMs. The incidence of ILI was higher among patients than among FMs (9% vs. 2.7%, OR 3.92, p = 0.02). Moreover, two subjects were diagnosed with pneumococcal pneumonia. The most frequent vaccine-related AEs were pain in the injection site (31%) and fatigue (8.7%). In conclusion, this hospital-based vaccination strategy was feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic, representing a potential model to maximize vaccine coverage during a public health emergency.

Improving Influenza Vaccination Coverage in Patients with Cancer: A Position Paper from a Multidisciplinary Expert Group

Patients with cancer can be immunocompromised because of their disease and/or due to anticancer therapy. In this population, severe influenza virus infections are associated with an elevated risk of morbidity and mortality. Influenza vaccination is therefore highly recommended in cancer patients, including those receiving anticancer therapy. However, vaccination coverage remains far below the recommended target for vulnerable subjects. Six specialists in oncology, hematology, immunology, and public health/vaccinology convened with the objective of developing strategies, based on evidence and clinical experience, for improving influenza vaccination coverage in cancer patients. This viewpoint provides an overview of current influenza vaccination recommendations in cancer patients, discusses barriers to vaccination coverage, and presents strategies for overcoming said barriers. New immunization issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic are also addressed. Future directions include improving public education on influenza vaccination, providing the media with accurate information, improving knowledge among healthcare professionals, improving access to vaccines for cancer patients, co-administration of the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines, increased collaboration between oncologists and other health professionals, increased accessibility of digital vaccination registries to specialists, shared information platforms, and promoting immunization campaigns by healthcare systems with the support of scientific societies.

Immunogenicity and safety of influenza vaccine in patients with lung cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: A single-center prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Patients with lung cancer have a high risk of influenza complications. International guidelines recommend annual influenza vaccination for patients with cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are progressively used to treat lung cancer. Data regarding immunogenicity and safety of influenza vaccine are limited in patients with lung cancer receiving ICIs; therefore, we conducted this single-center, prospective observational study in the Japanese population.

METHODS

Patients with lung cancer receiving ICIs and influenza immunization were enrolled. Blood samples were collected from patients for serum antibody titer measurement pre- and 4 ± 1 weeks post-vaccination. The primary endpoint was seroprotection rate (sP) at 4 ± 1 weeks post-vaccination. The secondary endpoints were geometric mean titer (GMT), mean fold rise, seroresponse rate (sR), seroconversion rate (sC), and immune-related adverse events (irAEs), defined as adverse effects caused by ICI administration, 6 months post-vaccination.

RESULTS

Influenza vaccination in the 23 patients included in the immunogenicity analyses significantly increased GMT for all strains, and sP, sR, and sC were 52%-91%, 26%-39%, and 26%-35%, respectively. In the 24 patients included in the safety analyses, 7 (29%) and 5 (21%) patients exhibited systemic and local reactions, respectively. Only one patient (4%) (hypothyroidism, grade 2) showed post-vaccination irAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, influenza vaccination in patients with lung cancer receiving ICIs showed acceptable immunogenicity and safety, thus supporting annual influenza vaccination in this population.

Immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in lung cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Patients with lung cancer are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe complications from COVID-19, but information on the efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in these patients is scarce. We aimed at evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in this population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The prospective, nationwide SOLID substudy, enrolled adults with lung cancer who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels were quantitatively assessed two weeks and six months after receipt of the last dose using a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Multivariate odds ratios for the association between demographic and clinical factors and seronegativity after vaccination were estimated.

RESULTS

1973 lung cancer patients were enrolled. Most patients had stage IV disease (66%) and were receiving active cancer treatment (82.7%). No significant differences were found in the probability of being seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies after full vaccination between patients who were receiving active cancer treatment and those who were not (p = 0.396). The administration of immunotherapy or oral targeted therapy and immunization with mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine were factors independently associated with increased odds of being seropositive after vaccination. From all patients, 1405 received the second dose of vaccine and high levels of antibody titers were observed in 93.6% of patients two weeks after second dose. At six months, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that performance status ≥ 2 was independently associated with a higher probability of being seronegative after full vaccination with an OR 4.15. On the other hand, received chemotherapy or oral target therapy and vaccination with mRNA-1273 were a factor independently associated with lower odds of being seronegative after full vaccination with an OR 0.52, 0.37 and 0.34, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung cancer patients can safely achieve a strong immune response against SARS-CoV-2 after full vaccination, regardless of the cancer treatment received.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04407143.

The implication of anti-PD-1 therapy in cancer patients for the vaccination against viral and other infectious diseases

The phenomenon of 'T cell exhaustion', a state of T cell dysfunction observed during chronic infections and cancers, has been a major obstacle in mounting appropriate immune responses against infectious agents or tumor antigens. The exhausted T cells are characterized by poor effector functions mainly due to the overexpression of inhibitory receptors such as programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), T cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing 3 (TIM3), lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG3), and T cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif (ITIM) domain (TIGIT), commonly referred to as immune checkpoint (ICP) molecules. ICP blockade, especially of PD-1 that can potentially reverse T cell exhaustion and thereby re-stimulate the impaired immune system, is widely used in clinics as a promising therapeutic strategy for various cancers and is more recently being investigated in infectious diseases as well. In fact, cancer patients represent a population of immunocompromised individuals who are more susceptible to infections and associated complications, and thus the need for protective vaccinations against these diseases is of prime importance in this category. When it comes to vaccinating anti-PD-1-treated cancer patients against infectious diseases including COVID-19 and influenza, a special focus should be brought on the revived immune cells, which could be dynamically affected by the antigenic stimulation. However, since cancer patients are not generally included in clinical trials for designing vaccines against infectious diseases, the possible interaction between vaccine immune responses and ICP therapy is largely unexplored. Mechanistically, the reversal of T cell exhaustion by ICP in an otherwise immunocompromised population could be beneficial for the vaccine's efficacy, helping the immune system to mount a robust immune response. Nevertheless, patients with cancer undergoing anti-PD-1 blockade are known to experience immune-related adverse effects (irAEs). The risk of increasing the irAEs due to the overstimulation of the immune system during vaccination is a major concern. Therefore, while routine vaccination is indispensable for the protection of cancer patients, the impact of PD-1 blockade on vaccine responses against infectious agents requires careful consideration to avoid undesirable adverse effects that could impair the efficacy of anti-cancer treatment.

Effect of medical staff training on vaccination coverage in outpatients with cancer: An interventional multicenter before-and-after study

Purpose

Despite widely disseminated guidelines, pneumococcal and influenza vaccination coverage (VC) remains insufficient in patients with cancer receiving cancer treatment. We performed an interventional study to evaluate VC in patients with cancer treated at the medical oncology departments of three North-of-France hospitals and to assess the effect of medical staff training on VC in these patients.

Methods

A standardized questionnaire assessed VC in adult patients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment at three day hospitals during December 2-7, 2019. Subsequently (January 2020), we organized educational training sessions for medical staff from each hospital to discuss the current vaccination guidelines. To assess the impact of training on pneumococcal and influenza VC, we re-administered the same questionnaire in March 2020. Because there are no specific guidelines on Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis (DTP) vaccination and no improvement was expected, DTP VC acted as an internal control.

Results

In total, 272 patients from all three hospitals were enrolled in the "before study"; 156 patients from only two hospitals were enrolled in the "after study" as medical training and data collection at the third were impossible because of administrative reasons and COVID-19 pandemic. The predictors were age for DTP VC; treatment center for pneumococcal VC; and age, sex, and tumor histology (adenocarcinoma vs. others) for influenza VC. Neither influenza VC (42.6% vs. 55.1%, p = 0.08), nor pneumococcal VC were significantly improved post-intervention (11.8% vs. 15.4%, p = 1). There seems to be a small effect in the most fragile for influenza VC.

Conclusion

As expected, VC was very low in patients with cancer, consistent with the literature. There was no impact of the intervention for pneumococcal and influenza VC.

PD-1 directed immunotherapy alters Tfh and humoral immune responses to seasonal influenza vaccine

Anti-programmed death-1 (anti-PD-1) immunotherapy reinvigorates CD8 T cell responses in patients with cancer but PD-1 is also expressed by other immune cells, including follicular helper CD4 T cells (Tfh) which are involved in germinal centre responses. Little is known, however, about the effects of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy on noncancer immune responses in humans. To investigate this question, we examined the impact of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy on the Tfh-B cell axis responding to unrelated viral antigens. Following influenza vaccination, a subset of adults receiving anti-PD-1 had more robust circulating Tfh responses than adults not receiving immunotherapy. PD-1 pathway blockade resulted in transcriptional signatures of increased cellular proliferation in circulating Tfh and responding B cells compared with controls. These latter observations suggest an underlying change in the Tfh-B cell and germinal centre axis in a subset of immunotherapy patients. Together, these results demonstrate dynamic effects of anti-PD-1 therapy on influenza vaccine responses and highlight analytical vaccination as an approach that may reveal underlying immune predisposition to adverse events.

Safety and Immunogenicity of mRNA Vaccines Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Patients With Lung Cancer Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Multicenter Observational Study in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cancer have been prioritized for vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Nevertheless, there are limited data regarding the safety, efficacy, and risk of developing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with mRNA vaccines in patients with lung cancer, especially those being actively treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

METHODS

This multicenter observational study was conducted at nine hospitals in Japan. Patients with lung cancer (≥20 y) actively treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors between 4 weeks prefirst vaccination and 4 weeks postsecond vaccination were enrolled. The primary end point was the incidence of irAEs of any grade on the basis of an assumed incidence without vaccination rate of 35%. Immunogenicity was assessed by measuring anti-spike (S)-IgG antibody levels against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients with lung cancer (median age, 71 y; interquartile range, 65-74) were enrolled from May to November 2021 and followed up until December 2021. There were 26 patients (20.6%, 95% confidence interval: 13.9%-28.8%) and seven patients (5.6%, 95% confidence interval: 2.3%-11.1%) who developed irAEs of any grade pre- and postvaccination, respectively, which was lower than the predicted incidence without vaccination. None of the patients experienced exacerbation of preexisting irAE postvaccination. S-IgG antibodies were seroconverted in 96.7% and 100% of the patients with lung cancer and controls, respectively, but antibody levels were significantly lower in patients with lung cancer (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with lung cancer who were actively treated with ICIs were safely vaccinated without an increased incidence of irAEs; however, their vaccine immunogenicity was lower. This requires further evaluation.

Safety and Efficacy of Influenza Vaccination in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

The potential increased risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) post-influenza vaccine is a concern in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of studies reporting the effects of influenza vaccination in patients with cancer during ICI treatment. We searched five electronic databases until 01/2022. Two authors independently selected studies, appraised their quality, and collected data. The primary outcome was the determination of pooled irAE rates. Secondary outcomes included determination of immunogenicity and influenza infection rates and cancer-related outcomes. Nineteen studies (26 publications, n = 4705) were included; 89.5% were observational. Vaccinated patients reported slighter lower rates of irAEs compared to unvaccinated patients (32% versus 41%, respectively). Seroprotection for influenza type A was 78%-79%, and for type B was 75%. Influenza and irAE-related death rates were similar between groups. The pooled proportion of participants reporting a laboratory-confirmed infection was 2% (95% CI 0% to 6%), and influenza-like illness was 14% (95% CI 2% to 32%). No differences were reported on the rates of laboratory-confirmed infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Longer progression-free and overall survival was also observed in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated patients. Current evidence suggests that influenza vaccination is safe in patients receiving ICIs, does not increase the risk of irAEs, and may improve survival.

Influenza Vaccination in Cancer Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination is not well-studied in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed aiming to summarize available data regarding influenza vaccination in ICI-treated cancer patients. Peer-reviewed studies or nonpeer-reviewed conference abstracts including ICI-treated cancer patients who received at least 1 dose of influenza vaccine were deemed eligible. A systematic search in PubMed/EMBASE was performed until October 26, 2021. Endpoints of interest included mortality as the primary outcome and secondary safety outcomes such as the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Twenty-five studies were included in the systematic review, among which 9 were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of 3 studies (n=589, weighted age 64 y, men 61%, influenza vaccinated 32%) showed pooled odds ratio for death in influenza vaccinated versus nonvaccinated patients at 1.25 [(95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.81-1.92), P=non significant (NS)]. Meta-analysis of 6 studies studies (n=1285, weighted age 60 y, men 59%, influenza vaccinated 48%) showed pooled odds ratio for any irAEs in influenza vaccinated versus nonvaccinated patients at 0.82 [95% CI: 0.63-1.08, P=NS]. Similar results were observed in sensitivity analyses for serious irAEs, as well as when only peer-reviewed studies were included. Influenza vaccination appears to be a safe and reasonable intervention for cancer patients receiving ICIs. Most data are derived from retrospective observational studies. Randomized studies are needed to provide high-quality evidence.

SEOM clinical guidelines for the prophylaxis of infectious diseases in cancer patients (2021)

Infections are still a major cause of morbi-mortality in patients with cancer. Some of these infections are preventable through specific measures, such as vaccination or prophylaxis. This guideline aims to summarize the evidence and recommendations for the prevention of infections in cancer patients, devoting special attention to the most prevalent preventable infectious disease. All the evidences will be graded according to The Infectious Diseases Society of America grading system.

Managing hematological cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an ESMO-EHA Interdisciplinary Expert Consensus

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.

Influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a concern that influenza vaccination may increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the available data on the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs.

METHODS

Studies reporting safety and efficacy outcomes of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs were included. Only descriptive statistics were conducted to obtain a pooled rate of immune-related adverse events in vaccinated patients.

RESULTS

Ten studies assessing the safety and eight assessing the efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs were identified, for a total of 1124 and 986 vaccinated patients, respectively. Most patients had melanoma or lung cancer and received a single agent anti-PD-1, but also other tumour types and immunotherapy combinations were represented. No severe vaccination-related toxicities were reported. The pooled incidence of any grade immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse events was 28.9%. In the 6 studies specifying the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicities, the pooled incidence was 7.5%. No grade 5 toxicities were reported. No pooled descriptive analysis was conducted in studies reporting efficacy outcomes due to the heterogeneity of endpoints and data reporting. Nevertheless, among the eight studies included, seven reported positive efficacy outcomes of influenza vaccination.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review support the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs. These results are particularly relevant in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Immunotherapy use outside clinical trial populations: never say never?

BACKGROUND

Based on favourable outcomes in clinical trials, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), most notably programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, are now widely used across multiple cancer types. However, due to their strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinical studies often do not address challenges presented by non-trial populations.

DESIGN

This review summarises available data on the efficacy and safety of ICIs in trial-ineligible patients, including those with autoimmune disease, chronic viral infections, organ transplants, organ dysfunction, poor performance status, and brain metastases, as well as the elderly, children, and those who are pregnant. In addition, we review data concerning other real-world challenges with ICIs, including timing of therapy switch, relationships to radiotherapy or surgery, re-treatment after an immune-related toxicity, vaccinations in patients on ICIs, and current experience around ICI and coronavirus disease-19. Where possible, we provide recommendations to aid the often-difficult decision-making process in those settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Data suggest that ICIs are often active and have an acceptable safety profile in the populations described above, with the exception of PD-1 inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients. Decisions about whether to treat with ICIs should be personalised and require multidisciplinary input and careful counselling of patients with respect to potential risks and benefits. Clinical judgements need to be carefully weighed, considering factors such as underlying cancer type, feasibility of alternative treatment options, or activity in trial-eligible patients.

The Uro-oncology Patient and Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2

As of April 13, 2021, 137 million cases of COVID-19 and 2.95 million deaths have been reported worldwide. On December 21, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was approved for use in the European Union, with efficacy of 95% protection against COVID-19 infection. Several other vaccines are at different stages of assessment by the European Medicines Agency. In addition to the elderly, oncology patients are a vulnerable population in which COVID-19 infection may be more severe. However, owing to the design of the initial studies, evidence on the safety and efficacy of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in these patients is scarce and recommendations are based on the opinion of associations, stakeholders, and experts via extrapolation of information and experience for other vaccines, especially influenza vaccines. Despite the limited evidence, the consensus is that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are safe and vaccination of oncology patients and their close relatives is recommended, although efficacy may be lower in patients with an impaired immune response and the need for additional booster doses is not yet clear. Recommendations include avoiding the use of vaccines based on viral vectors for patients with an impaired immune response, deferring vaccination for immunosuppressed patients or administering the vaccine before immunosuppression, and avoiding chemotherapy receipt between the two doses of a vaccine or on the same day that the vaccine is administered. These recommendations can be extrapolated to urology patients and although evidence is lacking, there should not be greater interference with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines from androgen deprivation therapy or intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin. However, large studies to provide strong evidence for uro-oncology patients are needed.

Patient summary

We looked at the effects of COVID-19 vaccination for patients with urological cancers. The consensus is that the vaccines are safe, and vaccination of cancer patients and their close relatives is recommended.

INfluenza Vaccine Indication During therapy with Immune checkpoint inhibitors: a multicenter prospective observational study (INVIDIa-2)

Background

Until now, no robust data supported the efficacy, safety and recommendation for influenza vaccination in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

Methods

The prospective multicenter observational INfluenza Vaccine Indication During therapy with Immune checkpoint inhibitors (INVIDIa-2) study investigated the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs, enrolled in 82 Italian centers from October 2019 to January 2020. The primary endpoint was the time-adjusted incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) until April 30, 2020. Secondary endpoints regarded ILI severity and vaccine safety.

Results

The study enrolled 1279 patients; 1188 patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint analysis. Of them, 48.9% (581) received influenza vaccination. The overall ILI incidence was 8.2% (98 patients). Vaccinated patients were significantly more frequently elderly (p<0.0001), males (p=0.004), with poor European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (p=0.009), affected by lung cancer (p=0.01), and by other non-cancer comorbidities (p<0.0001) when compared with unvaccinated. ILI incidence was not different basing on influenza vaccination: the time-to-ILI was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients (p=0.62). ILI complications were significantly less frequent for patients receiving the vaccination (11.8% vs 38.3% in unvaccinated, p=0.002). ILI-related intravenous therapies were significantly less frequent in vaccinated patients than in unvaccinated (11.8% vs 29.8%, p=0.027). ILI lethality was, respectively, 0% in vaccinated and 4.3% in unvaccinated patients. Vaccine-related adverse events were rare and mild (1.5%, grades 1–2).

Conclusion

The INVIDIa-2 study results support a positive recommendation for influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving immunotherapy.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for cancer patients: a call to action

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected more than 96 million people worldwide, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare a pandemic in March 2020. Although an optimal medical treatment of COVID-19 remains uncertain, an unprecedented global effort to develop an effective vaccine hopes to restore pre-pandemic conditions. Since cancer patients as a group have been shown to be at a higher risk of severe COVID-19, the development of safe and effective vaccines is crucial. However, cancer patients may be underrepresented in ongoing phase 3 randomised clinical trials investigating COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, we encourage stakeholders to provide real-time data about the characteristics of recruited participants, including clearly identifiable subgroups, like cancer patients, with sample sizes large enough to determine safety and efficacy. Moreover, we envisage a prompt implementation of suitable registries for pharmacovigilance reporting, in order to monitor the effects of COVID-19 vaccines and immunisation rates in patients with cancer. That said, data extrapolation from other vaccine trials (e.g. anti-influenza virus) showed a favourable safety and efficacy profile for cancer patients. On the basis of the evidence discussed, we believe that the benefits of the vaccination outweigh the risks. Consequently, healthcare authorities should prioritise vaccinations for cancer patients, with the time-point of administration agreed on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology are advocating for cancer patients a high priority status, in the hope of attenuating the consequences of the pandemic in this particularly vulnerable population.

Improved survival without increased toxicity with influenza vaccination in cancer patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors

In international guidelines, influenza vaccination is recommended to cancer patients receiving antitumor treatment. Whether this recommendation should include patients treated with the recently introduced and now widely used checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) is unclear. The immune hyperactivation after vaccination in a patient on CPI treatment may strengthen the antitumor immunity and improve patients´ prognosis. On the other hand, the hyperactivation might increase the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). Furthermore, there is a risk for decreased antitumor effect by the phenomenon of antigenic competition. Only results from few studies addressing survival have been reported and the results from studies on IRAEs are contradictory. We performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study at three Swedish centers in patients with metastatic cancer. All patients previously not treated with CPIs and who received monotherapy with a PD-1 or PD-L1 blocker between January 1st, 2016 until May 31st, 2019 were included. The most common type of malignancy was melanoma (47.8%) followed by non-small cell lung cancer (31.0%). Statistically significant longer PFS and OS were observed in multivariate analyses at 6-month landmark time in the vaccinated compared to the non-vaccinated group after adjustment for age, gender, comorbidity, performance status, CNS metastasis and line of treatment (p = .041 and 0.028, respectively). Furthermore, the incidence of any IRAE grade was comparable between vaccinated and non-vaccinated group (p = .85). In conclusion, the current study indicates that survival improves with influenza vaccination while not increasing the risk for side effects in cancer patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors. Hence, our results strongly support influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors from cancer to COVID‑19: A promising avenue for the treatment of patients with COVID‑19 (Review)

The severe acute respiratory syndrome associated coronavirus‑2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) poses a threat to human life worldwide. Since early March, 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19), characterized by an acute and often severe form of pneumonia, has been declared a pandemic. This has led to a boom in biomedical research studies at all stages of the pipeline, from the in vitro to the clinical phase. In line with this global effort, known drugs, currently used for the treatment of other pathologies, including antivirals, immunomodulating compounds and antibodies, are currently used off‑label for the treatment of COVID‑19, in association with the supportive standard care. Yet, no effective treatments have been identified. A new hope stems from medical oncology and relies on the use of immune‑checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In particular, amongst the ICIs, antibodies able to block the programmed death‑1 (PD‑1)/PD ligand-1 (PD‑L1) pathway have revealed a hidden potential. In fact, patients with severe and critical COVID‑19, even prior to the appearance of acute respiratory distress syndrome, exhibit lymphocytopenia and suffer from T‑cell exhaustion, which may lead to viral sepsis and an increased mortality rate. It has been observed that cancer patients, who usually are immunocompromised, may restore their anti‑tumoral immune response when treated with ICIs. Moreover, viral-infected mice and humans, exhibit a T‑cell exhaustion, which is also observed following SARS‑CoV‑2 infection. Importantly, when treated with anti‑PD‑1 and anti‑PD‑L1 antibodies, they restore their T‑cell competence and efficiently counteract the viral infection. Based on these observations, four clinical trials are currently open, to examine the efficacy of anti‑PD‑1 antibody administration to both cancer and non‑cancer individuals affected by COVID‑19. The results may prove the hypothesis that restoring exhausted T‑cells may be a winning strategy to beat SARS‑CoV‑2 infection.

Cancer Management during COVID-19 Pandemic: Is Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors-Based Immunotherapy Harmful or Beneficial?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently representing a global health threat especially for fragile individuals, such as cancer patients. It was demonstrated that cancer patients have an increased risk of developing a worse symptomatology upon severe acute respiratory syndrome associated coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, often leading to hospitalization and intensive care. The consequences of this pandemic for oncology are really heavy, as the entire healthcare system got reorganized. Both oncologists and cancer patients are experiencing rescheduling of treatments and disruptions of appointments with a concurrent surge of fear and stress. In this review all the up-to-date findings, concerning the association between COVID-19 and cancer, are reported. A remaining very debated question regards the use of an innovative class of anti-cancer molecules, the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), given their modulating effects on the immune system. For that reason, administration of ICIs to cancer patients represents a question mark during this pandemic, as its correlation with COVID-19-associated risks is still under investigation. Based on the mechanisms of action of ICIs and the current evidence, we suggest that ICIs not only can be safely administered to cancer patients, but they might even be beneficial in COVID-19-positive cancer patients, by exerting an immune-stimulating action.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors: a physiology-driven approach to the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019

While confirmed cases of the deadly coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have exceeded 4.7 million globally, scientists are pushing forward with efforts to develop vaccines and treatments in an attempt to slow the pandemic and lessen the disease's damage. Although no proven effective therapies for treating patients with COVID-19 or for managing their complications currently exist, the rapidly expanding knowledge regarding severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and its interplay with hosts provides a significant number of potential drug targets and the potential to repurpose drugs already tested in other diseases. Herein, we report the biological rationale of immune-activating drugs and a brief summary of literature data on the potential therapeutic value of immune checkpoint inhibitors that have been recently tested beyond cancer treatment for their potential to restore cellular immunocompetence.