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

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.

Characteristics and outcomes of immunotherapy-related liver injury in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma versus other advanced solid tumours

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is commonly observed in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to compare the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of irLI between patients receiving ICIs for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vs. other solid tumours.

METHODS

Two separate cohorts were included: 375 patients with advanced/unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh A class treated with first-line atezolizumab+bevacizumab from the AB-real study, and a non-HCC cohort including 459 patients treated with first-line ICI therapy from the INVIDIa-2 multicentre study. IrLI was defined as a treatment-related increase of aminotransferase levels after exclusion of alternative aetiologies of liver injury. The incidence of irLI was adjusted for the duration of treatment exposure.

RESULTS

In patients with HCC, the incidence of any grade irLI was 11.4% over a median treatment exposure of 4.4 months (95% CI 3.7-5.2) vs. 2.6% in the INVIDIa-2 cohort over a median treatment exposure of 12.4 months (95% CI 11.1-14.0). Exposure-adjusted-incidence of any grade irLI was 22.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with HCC and 2.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with other solid tumours (p <0.001), with median time-to-irLI of 1.4 and 4.7 months, respectively. Among patients who developed irLI, systemic corticosteroids were administered in 16.3% of patients with HCC and 75.0% of those without HCC (p <0.001), and irLI resolution was observed in 72.1% and 58.3%, respectively (p = 0.362). In patients with HCC, rates of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation due to irLI were 7%. Grade 1-2 irLI was associated with improved overall survival only in patients with HCC (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher incidence and earlier onset, irLI in patients with HCC is characterised by higher rates of remission and lower requirement for corticosteroid therapy (vs. irLI in other solid tumours), low risk of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation, not negatively affecting oncological outcomes.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is common in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but whether irLI is more frequent or it is associated with a worse clinical course in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared to other tumours, is not known. Herein, we compared characteristics and outcomes of irLI in two prospective cohorts including patients treated with ICIs for HCC or for other oncological indications. irLI is significantly more common and it occurs earlier in patients with HCC, also after adjustment for duration of treatment exposure. However, outcomes of patients with HCC who developed irLI are not negatively affected in terms of requirement for corticosteroid therapy, hepatic decompensation, treatment discontinuation and overall survival.

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.

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.

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.

Role of Clock Genes and Circadian Rhythm in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Recent Evidence and Therapeutic Consequences

Circadian rhythm regulates cellular differentiation and physiology and shapes the immune response. Altered expression of clock genes might lead to the onset of common malignant cancers, including Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC). Data from Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) indicate that clock genes PER1-3, CRY2, CLOCK, NR1D2 and RORα are overexpressed in RCC tissues and correlate with patients' prognosis. The expression of clock genes could finely tune transcription factor activity in RCC and is associated with the extent of immune cell infiltration. The clock system interacts with hypoxia-induced factor-1α (HIF-1α) and regulates the circadian oscillation of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) activity thereby conditioning the antitumor effect of mTOR inhibitors. The stimulation of natural killer (NK) cell activity exerted by the administration of interferon-α, a cornerstone of the first era of immunotherapy for RCC, relevantly varies according to circadian dosing time. Recent evidence demonstrated that time-of-day infusion directly affects the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients. Compounds targeting the circadian clock have been identified and their role in the era of immunotherapy deserves to be further investigated. In this review, we aimed at addressing the impact of clock genes on the natural history of kidney cancer and their potential therapeutic implications.

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.

Severe infections in recipients of cancer immunotherapy: what intensivists need to know

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the increased number of cancer patients admitted in the ICU and the growing importance of immunotherapy in their therapeutic arsenal, intensivists will be increasingly confronted to patients treated with immunotherapies who will present with complications, infectious and immunologic.

RECENT FINDINGS

Apart from their specific immunologic toxicities, cancer immunotherapy recipients also have specific immune dysfunction and face increased infectious risks that may lead to intensive care unit admission.

SUMMARY

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is associated with profound immunosuppression and the risks of bacterial, fungal and viral infections vary according to the time since infusion.Immune checkpoint blockers are associated with an overall favorable safety profile but associations of checkpoint blockers and corticosteroids and immunosuppressive drugs prescribed to treat immune-related adverse events are associated with increased risks of bacterial and fungal infections.The T-cell engaging bispecific therapy blinatumomab causes profound B-cell aplasia, hypogammaglobulinemia and neutropenia, but seems to be associated with fewer infectious adverse events compared with standard intensive chemotherapy.Lastly, intravesical administration of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) can lead to disseminated BCGitis and severe sepsis requiring a specific antibiotherapy, often associated with corticosteroid treatment.

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.

Efficacy of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Vaccine in Patients With Thoracic Cancer: A Prospective Study Supporting a Third Dose in Patients With Minimal Serologic Response After Two Vaccine Doses

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 resulted in a 30% mortality rate in patients with thoracic cancer. Given that patients with cancer were excluded from serum antisevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine registration trials, it is still unknown whether they would develop a protective antispike antibody response after vaccination. This prospective vaccine monitoring study primarily aimed to assess humoral responses to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with thoracic cancer.

METHODS

SARS-CoV-2-spike antibodies were measured using the Abbot Architect SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G immunoassay before the first injection of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, at week 4, and 2 to 16 weeks after the second vaccine dose administration. The factors associated with antibody response were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 306 patients, with a median age of 67.0 years (interquartile range: 58-74), were vaccinated. Of these, 283 patients received two vaccine doses at 28-day intervals. After a 6.7-month median follow-up, eight patients (2.6%) contracted proven symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, with rapid favorable evolution. Of the 269 serologic results available beyond day 14 after the second vaccine dose administration, 17 patients (6.3%) were still negative (<50 arbitrary units/mL, whereas 34 (11%) were less than 300 arbitrary units/mL (12.5th percentile). In multivariate analysis, only age (p < 0.01) and long-term corticosteroid treatment (p = 0.01) were significantly associated with a lack of immunization. A total of 30 patients received a third vaccine dose, with only three patients showing persistently negative serology thereafter, whereas the others exhibited clear seroconversion.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV2 vaccines were found to be efficient in patients with thoracic cancer, most of them being immunized after two doses. A third shot given to 1% of patients with persistent low antibody titers resulted in an 88% immunization rate.

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.

Patients avec cancers thoraciques et COVID-19 : au cœur de la tempête

A meta-analysis of the Chinese studies in April 2020, including 3600 patients with cancer and COVID-19, first reported an increase of the COVID-19 risk and the case-fatality in these patients. Then, North-American and European series confirmed the increased COVID-19 risk for patients with cancer, as the increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death, when compared with general population, adjusting for age. Patients with lung cancer have the highest risk of severe respiratory forms, and the highest risk of SARS-CoV2-induced death (25 to 30%), after patients with hematological cancers. Metastatic patients, with poor PS, and those having received a cytotoxic chemotherapy within the weeks preceding SARSCoV2 infection, are those with the highest risk of death. Conversely, being treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors would not favor the cytokine storm, which makes the severity of COVID-19. SARS-CoV2 pandemic, beyond having needed the generalization of drastic social distancing measures in hospitals, also needed organizational changes, to allow healthcare continuity for cancer patients. Adaptation of therapeutic protocols was needed, with increased intervals between cycles, the choice of less toxic protocols, the systematic use of hematological growth factors, and teleconsultations follow-up. Lastly, mRNA-based SARS-CoV2 vaccines are efficient in patients with thoracic cancer, provided the interval of 21/28 days between the two injections is maintained, since protective immunization seems delayed, especially after cytotoxic chemotherapy. Only 13% of patients with very low protective antibodies titers would need a third booster injection, with a clear rise in protective antibodies titers induced by such a third injection.© 2021 SPLF. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.