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

The safety of seasonal influenza vaccination among adults prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors: A self-controlled case series study using administrative data

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy for patients undergoing cancer treatment carries a risk of severe immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). Questions remain about whether seasonal influenza vaccination might increase the risk of developing IRAEs among these patients given that vaccines are immunomodulatory. Previous vaccine safety studies on patients with cancer prescribed ICI therapy have demonstrated conflicting results.

METHODS

Using health administrative data from Ontario, Canada among adults diagnosed with cancer who had been prescribed ICI therapy and who had received an influenza vaccine from 2012 to 2019, we conducted a self-controlled case series study. The pre-vaccination control period started 42-days post-ICI initiation until 14-days prior to vaccination, the risk period was 1-42 days post-vaccination, and the post-vaccination control period was after the risk period until ICI discontinuation or a maximum period of two years. Emergency department (ED) visit(s) and/or hospitalization for any cause after ICI initiation was used to identify severe IRAEs. We fitted a fixed-effects Poisson regression model accounting for seasonality and calendar time to estimate relative incidence of IRAEs between risk and control periods.

RESULTS

We identified 1133 records of cancer patients who received influenza vaccination while prescribed ICI therapy. Most were aged ≥ 66 years (73 %), were male (63 %), had lung cancer (54 %), and had received ICI therapy with a programmed cell death protein 1(PD-1) inhibitor (91 %). A quarter (26 %) experienced an ED visit and/or hospitalization during the observation period. Rates of ED visits and/or hospitalizations in the risk vs. control periods were similar, with an incidence rate ratio of 1.04 (95 % CI: 0.75-1.45). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.

CONCLUSION

Seasonal influenza vaccination was not associated with an increased incidence of ED visit or hospitalization among adults with cancer treated with ICI therapy and our results support further evidence of vaccine safety.

Effects of antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents on postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections, antibody response, and serological cytokine profile

BACKGROUND

Despite immunization, patients on antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents have a heightened risk of COVID-19 infection. However, accurately attributing this risk to specific medications remains challenging.

METHODS

An observational cohort study from December 11, 2020 to September 22, 2022, within a large healthcare system in San Diego, California, USA was designed to identify medications associated with greatest risk of postimmunization SARS-CoV-2 infection. Adults prescribed WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classified antineoplastic and immunomodulating medications were matched (by age, sex, race, and number of immunizations) with control patients not prescribed these medications yielding a population of 26 724 patients for analysis. From this population, 218 blood samples were collected from an enrolled subset to assess serological response and cytokine profile in relation to immunization.

RESULTS

Prescription of WHO ATC classified antineoplastic and immunomodulatory agents was associated with elevated postimmunization SARS-CoV-2 infection risk (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.63). While multiple immunization doses demonstrated a decreased association with postimmunization SARS-CoV-2 infection risk, antineoplastic and immunomodulatory treated patients with four doses remained at heightened risk (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.43). Risk variation was identified among medication subclasses, with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibiting monoclonal antibodies, calcineurin inhibitors, and CD20 monoclonal antibody inhibitors identified to associate with increased risk of postimmunization SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antineoplastic and immunomodulatory treated patients also displayed a reduced IgG antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 epitopes alongside a unique serum cytokine profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Antineoplastic and immunomodulating medications associate with an elevated risk of postimmunization SARS-CoV-2 infection in a drug-specific manner. This comprehensive, unbiased analysis of all WHO ATC classified antineoplastic and immunomodulating medications identifies medications associated with greatest risk. These findings are crucial in guiding and refining vaccination strategies for patients prescribed these treatments, ensuring optimized protection for this susceptible population in future COVID-19 variant surges and potentially for other RNA immunization targets.

Serological response and immune-related adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

With the popularity of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine and the development of vaccination strategies, the impact of COVID-19 vaccine on cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is still unclear. In the systematic review and meta-analysis of patients with ICIs, we assessed the serological response of cancer patients receiving COVID-19 vaccine, and explored the risk of immune related adverse events (irAEs). We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library as of 10 June 2023, and included cancer patients who received ICIs and COVID-19 vaccine. The systematic review and meta-analysis include cohort study, cross-sectional study and case report. The outcome included the serological response, Spike-specific T-cell response, irAEs and rare adverse events. When possible, the data were analysed by random effect analysis, and the statistical heterogeneity was assessed by Q-test and I2 statistics. We explored the sources of heterogeneity through L'Abbe plots, Galbraith radial plots, and sensitivity analysis. The publication bias was evaluated by Egger's, Begg's linear regression test and funnel plot, and the impact of publication bias was further analysed by trim and fill method. 27 studies were eligible (19 cohort studies, 1 cross-sectional study and 7 case reports), involving 8331 patients (with 4724 receiving ICIs). Most studies used mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273). Compared with cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, cancer patients receiving ICIs were significantly more likely to have seroconversion (RR = 1.05, 95%CI 1.01-1.10, P = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences in seroconversion rates when comparing cancer patients receiving ICIs with controls without cancer (RR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.01, P = 0.09) or with cancer patients receiving targeted therapy (RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.79-1.39, P = 0.75). The incidence of irAEs in patients receiving ICIs before and after COVID-19 vaccination was (21.96%, 95%CI 16.66%-28.94%) and (14.88%, 95%CI 8.65%-25.57%), respectively. The most common irAEs were endocrine abnormalities, skin disorders, etc. The certainty of evidence was low in cancer patients with ICIs, compared with those receiving chemotherapy, and very low versus controls without cancer. Cancer patients treated with ICIs seem to be able to receive COVID-19 vaccine safely without increasing the incidence of irAEs.

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.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced neurotoxicity is not associated with seroprevalence of neurotropic infections

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) substantially improve outcome for patients with cancer. However, the majority of patients develops immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which can be persistent and significantly reduce quality of life. Neurological irAEs occur in 1-5% of patients and can induce severe, permanent sequelae or even be fatal. In order to improve the diagnosis and treatment of neurological irAEs and to better understand their pathogenesis, we assessed whether previous neurotropic infections are associated with neurological irAEs.

METHODS

Neurotropic infections that might predispose to ICI-induced neurological irAEs were analyzed in 61 melanoma patients from 3 countries, the Netherlands, Australia and Germany, including 24 patients with neurotoxicity and 37 control patients. In total, 14 viral, 6 bacterial, and 1 protozoal infections previously reported to trigger neurological pathologies were assessed using routine serology testing. The Dutch and Australian cohorts (NL) included pre-treatment plasma samples of patients treated with neoadjuvant ICI therapy (OpACIN-neo and PRADO trials; NCT02977052). In the Dutch/Australian cohort a total of 11 patients with neurological irAEs were compared to 27 control patients (patients without neurological irAEs). The German cohort (LMU) consisted of serum samples of 13 patients with neurological irAE and 10 control patients without any documented irAE under ICI therapy.

RESULTS

The association of neurological irAEs with 21 possible preceding infections was assessed by measuring specific antibodies against investigated agents. The seroprevalence of all the tested viral (cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr-Virus, varicella-zoster virus, measles, rubella, influenza A and B, human herpes virus 6 and 7, herpes simplex virus 1 and 2, parvovirus B19, hepatitis A and E and human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 and 2), bacterial (Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, Campylobacter jejuni, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Coxiella burnetti, Helicobacter pylori, Yersinia enterocolitica and Y. pseudotuberculosis) and protozoal (Toxoplasma gondii) infections was similar for patients who developed neurological irAEs as compared to control patients. Thus, the analysis provided no evidence for an association of described agents tested for seroprevalence with ICI induced neurotoxicity.

CONCLUSION

Previous viral, bacterial and protozoal neurotropic infections appear not to be associated with the development of neurological irAEs in melanoma patients who underwent therapy with ICI across 3 countries. Further efforts are needed to unravel the factors underlying neurological irAEs in order to identify risk factors for these toxicities, especially with the increasing use of ICI in earlier stage disease.

Persistence of Immune Response Elicited by Three Doses of mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in a Cohort of Patients with Solid Tumors: A One-Year Follow-Up

The role and durability of the immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against severe acute respiratory virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in cancer patients one year after receiving the third dose have to be elucidated. We have prospectively evaluated the long-term immunogenicity of the third dose of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in 55 patients undergoing active treatment. Neutralizing antibody (NT Ab) titers against Omicron variants and total anti-trimeric S IgG levels were measured one year after the third dose. Heparinized whole-blood samples were used for the assessment of the SARS-CoV-2 interferon-γ release assay (IGRA). Thirty-seven patients (67.3%) showed positive total anti-trimeric S IgG one year after the third dose. Looking at the T-cell response against the spike protein, the frequency of responder patients did not decrease significantly between six and twelve months after the third dose. Finally, less than 20% of cancer patients showed an undetectable NT Ab titer against BA.1 and BA.5 variants of concern (VOCs). Underlying therapies seem to not affect the magnitude or frequency of the immune response. Our work underlines the persistence of humoral and cellular immune responses against BNT162b2 in a cohort of cancer patients one year after receiving the third dose, regardless of the type of underlying therapy.

Vaccination for seasonal flu, pneumococcal infection, and SARS-CoV-2 in patients with solid tumors: recommendations of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM)

Patients with cancer have a well-known and higher risk of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). VPDs may cause severe complications in this setting due to the immune system impairment, malnutrition and oncological treatments. Despite this evidence, vaccination rates are inadequate. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) has been involved in vaccination awareness since 2014. Based on a careful review of the available data about the immunogenicity, effectiveness and safety of flu, pneumococcal and anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, we report the recommendations of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica about these vaccinations in adult patients with solid tumors. AIOM recommends comprehensive education on the issue of VPDs. We believe that a multidisciplinary care model may improve the vaccination coverage in immunocompromised patients. Continued surveillance, implementation of preventive practices and future well-designed immunological prospective studies are essential for a better management of our patients with cancer.

COVID-19 in Patients with Hematologic Diseases

The COVID-19 outbreak had a strong impact on people's lives all over the world. Patients with hematologic diseases have been heavily affected by the pandemic, because their immune system may be compromised due to anti-cancer or immunosuppressive therapies and because diagnosis and treatment of their baseline conditions were delayed during lockdowns. Hematologic malignancies emerged very soon as risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, increasing the mortality rate. SARS-CoV2 can also induce or exacerbate immune-mediated cytopenias, such as autoimmune hemolytic anemias, complement-mediated anemias, and immune thrombocytopenia. Active immunization with vaccines has been shown to be the best prophylaxis of severe COVID-19 in hematologic patients. However, the immune response to vaccines may be significantly impaired, especially in those receiving anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies or immunosuppressive agents. Recently, antiviral drugs and monoclonal antibodies have become available for pre-exposure and post-exposure prevention of severe COVID-19. As adverse events after vaccines are extremely rare, the cost-benefit ratio is largely in favor of vaccination, even in patients who might be non-responders; in the hematological setting, all patients should be considered at high risk of developing complications due to SARS-CoV2 infection and should be offered all the therapies aimed to prevent them.

Associations of influenza vaccination with severity of immune-related adverse events in patients with advanced thoracic cancers on immune checkpoint inhibitors

Background

Whether influenza vaccination (FV) is associated with the severity of immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in patients with advanced thoracic cancer on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is not fully understood.

Methods

Patients enrolled in this retrospective cohort study were identified from the Vanderbilt BioVU database and their medical records were reviewed. Patients with advanced thoracic cancer who received FV within 3 months prior to or during their ICI treatment period were enrolled in the FV-positive cohort and those who did not were enrolled in the FV-negative cohort. The primary objective was to detect whether FV is associated with decreased IRAE severity. The secondary objectives were to evaluate whether FV is associated with a decreased risk for grade 3-5 IRAEs and better survival times. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used for the primary analysis.

Results

A total of 142 and 105 patients were enrolled in the FV-positive and FV-negative cohorts, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in patient demographics or cumulative incidences of IRAEs between the two cohorts. In the primary analysis, FV was inversely associated with the severity of IRAEs (OR 0.63; p=0.046). In the secondary analysis, FV was associated with a decreased risk for grade 3-5 IRAEs (OR 0.42; p=0.005). Multivariable Cox regression showed that FV was not associated with survival times.

Conclusions

Our study showed that FV does not increase toxicity for patients with advanced thoracic cancer on ICIs and is associated with a decreased risk for grade 3-5 IRAEs. No statistically significant survival differences were found between patients with and without FV.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Vaccine Improvements: Current Status and New Approaches

In recent years, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with approved or experimental vaccines has proven to be a promising approach to improve vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. This strategy seeks to overcome the immunosuppressive mechanisms associated with the vaccine response, thereby achieving increased immunogenicity and efficacy. Most of the information on the use of ICIs combined with vaccines derives from studies on certain anti-tumor vaccines combined with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against either cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). However, over the past few years, emerging strategies to use new-generation ICIs as molecular adjuvants are paving the way for future advances in vaccine research. Here, we review the current state and future directions of the use of ICIs in experimental and clinical settings, including mAbs and alternative new approaches using antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs), small non-coding RNAs, aptamers, peptides, and other small molecules for improving vaccine efficacy. The scope of this review mainly includes the use of ICIs in therapeutic antitumor vaccines, although recent research on anti-infective vaccines will also be addressed.

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.

Vaccination for the Prevention of Infection among Immunocompromised Patients: A Concise Review of Recent Systematic Reviews

Vaccination is crucial for avoiding infection-associated morbidity and mortality among immunocompromised patients. However, immunocompromised patients respond less well to vaccinations compared to healthy people, and little is known about the relative efficacy of various vaccines among different immunocompromised states. A total of 54 systematic reviews (22 COVID-19; 32 non-COVID-19) published within the last 5 years in Pubmed® were reviewed. They demonstrated similar patterns within three seroconversion response categories: good (about >60% when compared to healthy controls), intermediate (~40−60%), and poor (about <40%). Good vaccine responses would be expected for patients with chronic kidney disease, human immunodeficiency virus infection (normal CD4 counts), immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, post-splenectomy states, and solid tumors. Intermediate vaccine responses would be expected for patients with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy, hematologic cancer, and human immunodeficiency virus infection (low CD4 counts). Poor vaccine responses would be expected for patients with B-cell-depleting agents (e.g., anti-CD20 therapy), hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, solid organ transplant, and liver cirrhosis. For all vaccine response categories, vaccination should be timed when patients are least immunosuppressed. For the intermediate and poor vaccine response categories, high-dose vaccine, revaccination when patients are less immunosuppressed, checking for seroconversion, additional booster doses, and long-acting monoclonal antibodies may be considered, supplemented by shielding measures.

Melanoma Management during the COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency: A Literature Review and Single-Center Experience

Simple Summary

COVID-19 is a highly contagious infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that COVID-19 had become a pandemic; since then, several elective clinical and surgical activities have been postponed to reduce the risk of nosocomial infection. This has influenced the diagnosis and management of many diseases, including melanoma. The aim of our literature review was to evaluate whether the management of melanoma has been changed by the outbreak of COVID-19, and if so, what the consequences of these changes are. The main topics in this literature review are the screening of suspicious lesions, diagnosis of primary melanoma, and the management of early-stage and advanced melanomas in the COVID-19 era. We also reported the experience of our dermatological clinic in Turin, one of the most affected areas in Italy.

Abstract

Background: The current COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the modus operandi of all fields of medicine, significantly impacting patients with oncological diseases and multiple comorbidities. Thus, in recent months, the establishment of melanoma management during the emergency has become a major area of interest. In addition to original articles, case reports and specific guidelines for the period have been developed. Purpose: This article aims to evaluate whether melanoma management has been changed by the outbreak of COVID-19, and if so, what the consequences are. We summarized the main issues concerning the screening of suspicious lesions, the diagnosis of primary melanoma, and the management of early-stage and advanced melanomas during the pandemic. Additionally, we report on the experience of our dermatological clinic in northern Italy. Methods: We performed a literature review evaluating articles on melanomas and COVID-19 published in the last two years on PubMed, as well as considering publications by major healthcare organizations. Concerning oncological practice in our center, we collected data on surgical and therapeutic procedures in patients with a melanoma performed during the first months of the pandemic. Conclusions: During the emergency period, the evaluation of suspicious skin lesions was ensured as much as possible. However, the reduced level of access to medical care led to a documented delay in the diagnosis of new melanomas. When detected, the management of early-stage and advanced melanomas was fully guaranteed, whereas the follow-up visits of disease-free patients have been postponed or replaced with a teleconsultation when possible.

Vaccination against Cancer or Infectious Agents during Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has substantially increased the overall survival of cancer patients and has revolutionized the therapeutic situation in oncology. However, not all patients and cancer types respond to ICI, or become resistant over time. Combining ICIs with therapeutic cancer vaccines is a promising option as vaccination may help to overcome resistance to immunotherapies while immunotherapies may increase immune responses to the particular cancer vaccine by reinvigorating exhausted T cells. Thus, it would be possible to reprogram a response with appropriate vaccines, using a particular cancer antigen and a corresponding ICI. Target populations include currently untreatable cancer patients or those who receive treatment regimens with high risk of serious side effects. In addition, with the increased use of ICI in clinical practice, questions arise regarding safety and efficacy of administration of conventional vaccines, such as influenza or COVID-19 vaccines, during active ICI treatment. This review discusses the main principles of prophylactic and therapeutic cancer vaccines, the potential impact on combining therapeutic cancer vaccines with ICI, and briefly summarizes the current knowledge of safety and effectiveness of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines in ICI-treated patients.

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.