Evaluation of vaccine dosing in patients with solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

Value of influenza vaccines in cancer patients during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

According to the recommendation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), getting influenza vaccines during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemics is especially important for people with certain underlying medical conditions, like cancer. Due to the similarities between the symptoms of influenza and COVID-19, receiving the flu vaccine in suspicious cases can be helpful because it will make it easier to request a medical test and diagnosis. In this study, the value of influenza vaccination in the cancer population was investigated.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, all cancer patients who were referred to our clinic and had eligibility to receive the flu vaccine were included in our study for following up clinical signs every week for one month. All patients who were vaccinated from October 1 to November 15, 2020 were investigated. The most side effects that were followed were fever, runny nose, bone pain, and life-threatening or persistent adverse effects.

RESULTS

From a total of 288 patients (median age: 52 years (range 18-79), 112 (38.9%) males and 176 (61.1%) female) with different types of cancers, only two patients had an adverse effect of vaccination (including bone pain, runny nose, and fatigue), and one had COVID-19 ten days after vaccination. The rest of the patients did not show any side effects due to flu vaccination after one month of follow-up. Cancer patients are recommended to receive the flu vaccine annually during the pandemic and after the end of this pandemic, usually during the flu epidemic season to reduce mortality.

Implications of mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for cancer patients

SARS-CoV-2 infection and the resulting COVID-19 have afflicted millions of people in an ongoing worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccination is needed urgently to protect not only the general population but also vulnerable subjects such as patients with cancer. Currently approved mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines seem suitable for patients with cancer based on their mode of action, efficacy, and favorable safety profile reported in the general population. Here, we provide an overview of mRNA-based vaccines including their safety and efficacy. Extrapolating from insights gained from a different preventable viral infection, we review existing data on immunity against influenza A and B vaccines in patients with cancer. Finally, we discuss COVID-19 vaccination in light of the challenges specific to patients with cancer, such as factors that may hinder protective SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in the context of compromised immunity and the use of immune-suppressive or immune-modulating drugs.

Surveillance of the current situation regarding influenza vaccination according to medical oncologists in Japan

This study aimed to clarify the attitude of oncologists toward influenza vaccination and the current situation and issues regarding influenza vaccination for patients on chemotherapy in Japan. A web-based survey of medical oncologists certified by the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology was conducted between November 1 and December 31, 2019. Of the 1369 medical oncologists who were invited to participate, 415 (30.3%) responded to our survey. The questionnaire comprised 4 sections: "oncologist characteristics," "oncologist attitude toward influenza vaccines and the current status of influenza vaccination for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy," "incidence of influenza infection and associated treatment complications," and "treatment policy for influenza infection." In total, 153 (36.9%) physicians replied that they did not actively encourage influenza vaccination for patients undergoing chemotherapy. The primary reasons given were lack of evidence (48/153, 31.4%) and uncertainty of appropriate timing (46/153, 30.1%). There was diverse variation in the timing of vaccination and in the levels of encouragement based on the cancer location and medication type. Two hundred eighty-three (68.2%) oncologists reported that their cancer patients had experienced influenza infection while undergoing chemotherapy, and 169 (40.7%) responded that their patients had experienced an administration delay or discontinuation of medication because of influenza infection. Our surveillance revealed some oncologists considered evidence regarding the administration of influenza vaccine to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy (particularly the optimal timing and level of recommendation by cancer location and medication) to be lacking. It also exposed the adverse impact of influenza infection in cancer patients.

Efficacy of influenza vaccine (Fluvax) in cancer patients on treatment: a prospective single arm, open-label study

PURPOSE

Influenza virus infection has significant morbidity and mortality in patients with medical co-morbidities who are also immunosuppressed. The efficacy of the seasonal influenza vaccine has not been well studied in patients receiving chemotherapy. We assessed the efficacy of seasonal influenza vaccine in patients with non-haematological malignancy on active treatment (chemotherapy and targeted therapy).

METHODS

A prospective single arm, open label study with 53 patients with non-haematological cancers recruited during the 2011 and 2012 influenza seasons. Participants had one dose of 2011/2012 trivalent vaccine containing strains A/California/7/2009(H1N1), A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) and B/Brisbane/60/2008 (Fluvax) prior to or in-between treatment cycles. Haemagglutination inhibition antibody (HIA) titres in serum were measured at baseline 3, 6 and 24 weeks. Primary endpoint: seroconversion rate (SCR) at 3 weeks. Secondary endpoints: late SCR at 6 weeks. rate of sustained sero-protection titres (SPR) at 24 weeks. Seroconversion was defined as postvaccination ≥ 4-fold increase in HIA titre and sero-protection defined as a HIA ≥ 1:40.

RESULTS

The SCR at 3 weeks were 35%, 30% and 22.5% to the H1N1, H3N2 and B/Bris strains, respectively. There were no new cases of late SC at 6 weeks or 24 weeks. The SPR at 3 weeks were 72.5%, 65% and 40%, respectively, to H1N1, H3N2 and B/Bris. The SPR at 24 weeks to H1N1, H3N2 and B/Bris were 40%, 52.5% and 17.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients on various solid tumour treatments achieve sero-protection rate congruent with the general population. The sero-protection HIA titres were not sustained at 24 weeks postvaccination.

The response to vaccination against influenza A(H1N1) 2009, seasonal influenza and Streptococcus pneumoniae in adult outpatients with ongoing treatment for cancer with and without rituximab

It is debated whether cancer patients treated with chemotherapy can mount an adequate response to vaccination.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety-six adult outpatients with cancer, who were undergoing chemotherapy and/or monoclonal antibody, tyrosine kinase inhibitor, irradiation or corticosteroid treatments, were studied. Two doses of the pandemic influenza A(H1N1)/09 AS03-adjuvanted split virion vaccine, one dose of the seasonal influenza vaccine and one dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine were given. Serum haemagglutination inhibition (HI) assays were used to determine antibody titres against the influenza strains. For the pneumococcal vaccine 14 different serotype-specific anti-capsular antibodies were measured by bead assay xMAP(®).

RESULTS

Patients treated with rituximab did not respond to vaccination. For patients without rituximab treatment 4% had putatively protective antibodies before vaccination (HI ≥ 40) to the pandemic-like strain A/California7/2009HINI. After the first and second dose of vaccine, seroprotection rates (SPR) were 62% and 87%, and seroconversion rates (SCR) 62% and 84%, respectively. Before seasonal flu vaccination SPR against influenza A/Brisbane/59/2007H1N1 and A/Uruguay/10/2007H3N2 were 19% and 17%, respectively. After vaccination, SPR were 70% and 59% and SCR 42% and 50%, respectively. For the pneumococcal vaccine protective antibodies were found to 40% of the 14 strains before and to 68% after vaccination. The mean response to pneumococcal vaccination was to 44% of the 14 serotypes. A response to at least 50% of the 14 serotypes was found in 49% of the patients. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

A substantial number of adult cancer patients with ongoing chemotherapy treatment could mount an adequate serological response to influenza and pneumococcal vaccination without severe adverse events. Thus, vaccination should be recommended. Adjuvanted vaccines may improve the vaccine response among this patient group. Patients recently treated with rituximab do not respond to vaccination.

Vaccination against zoster remains effective in older adults who later undergo chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% of adults develop invasive cancer during their lifetimes, many of whom require chemotherapy. Herpes zoster (HZ) is common and often severe in patients undergoing chemotherapy, yet there are no data regarding whether these patients retain specific protection against HZ if they had previously received zoster vaccine. We conducted a study to determine whether zoster vaccine was effective in patients who subsequently underwent chemotherapy.

METHODS

The cohort study consisted of Kaiser Permanente Southern California members aged ≥60 years treated with chemotherapy. The exposure variable was receipt of zoster vaccine prior to initiation of chemotherapy. Incident HZ cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnostic codes. HZ incidence rates were calculated; hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

There were 91 and 583 HZ cases in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, respectively, yielding an incidence rate of 12.87 (95% CI, 10.48-15.80) vs 22.05 (95% CI, 20.33-23.92) per 1000 person-years. Thirty-month cumulative incidence was 3.28% in the vaccinated group and 5.34% in the unvaccinated group (P < .05). The adjusted HR for HZ was 0.58 (95% CI, .46-.73) and showed no significant variation by age, sex, or race. HZ incidence rates remained increased in the small subgroup of persons receiving zoster vaccine within 60 days before chemotherapy, but this was the only group affected by indication bias. No vaccinated patients underwent hospitalization for HZ, compared with 6 unvaccinated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Zoster vaccine continues to protect against HZ if recipients later undergo chemotherapy. Our findings provide an additional rationale for offering zoster vaccine to indicated adults while they are immunocompetent.

Influenza vaccination and associated factors among Korean cancer survivors : a cross-sectional analysis of the Fourth & Fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys

Influenza vaccination is important for cancer survivors, a population with impaired immunity. This study was designed to assess influenza vaccination patterns among Korean cancer survivors. In this cross-sectional analysis, data were obtained from standardized questionnaires from 943 cancer survivors and 41,233 non-cancer survivors who participated in the Fourth and Fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (2007-2011). We identified the adjusted influenza vaccination rates and assessed factors associated with influenza vaccination using multivariate logistic regression. Cancer survivors tended to have a higher adjusted influenza vaccination rate than the general population. The rates for influenza vaccination in specific cancer types such as stomach, hepatic, colon, and lung cancers were significantly higher than non-cancer survivors. Among all cancer survivors, those with chronic diseases, elderly subjects, and rural dwellers were more likely to receive influenza vaccination; those with cervical cancer were less likely to receive influenza vaccination. Cancer survivors were more likely to receive influenza vaccinations than non-cancer survivors, but this was not true for particular groups, especially younger cancer survivors. Cancer survivors represent a sharply growing population; therefore, immunization against influenza among cancer survivors should be concerned as their significant preventative healthcare services.

Influenza vaccination in cancer patients undergoing systemic therapy

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients often experience preventable infections, including influenza A and B. These infections can be a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. The increased risk of infection may be because of either cancer itself or treatment-induced immunosuppression.1 Influenza immunization has been shown to decrease the risk of influenza infection in patients with intact immunity.2 In cancer patients, active immunization has been shown to confer protective immunity against several infections at similar rates to healthy individuals, which has translated into decreased duration and severity of infection and potentially improved morbidity and mortality.3

OBJECTIVES

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE/PubMed database for articles published from 1964 to 2013 using the search terms “cancer,” “adult,” “influenza vaccination,” and “chemotherapy.”

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies based on systematic sampling with defined clinical criteria irrespective of the vaccination status of cancer patients. Studies measure the serological response or clinical response to compare between the study group and the control group. Studies assessed the inactivated influenza vaccines and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) protective serological reaction and the clinical outcomes after vaccination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies (total number of participants = 1,076). None of the included studies reported clinical outcomes. All included studies reported on influenza immunity and adverse reaction on vaccination. We included 6 solid tumor studies and 10 hematological studies. In 12 studies, the serological response to influenza vaccine was compared in patients receiving chemotherapy (n = 425) versus those not receiving chemotherapy (n = 376). In three studies, the serological responses to influenza vaccination in patients receiving chemotherapy are compared to that in healthy adult. Measures used to assess the serological responses included a four-fold rise increase in antibody titer development of hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titer >40, and pre- and post-vaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs). Immune responses in patients receiving chemotherapy were consistently weaker (four-fold rise of 17–52%) than in those who had completed chemotherapy (50–83%) and healthy patients (67–100%). Concerning adverse effects, oncology patients received influenza vaccine, and the side effects described were mild local reactions and low-grade fever. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS’ CONCLUSION

Patients with solid and some of hematological tumors are able to mount a serological response to influenza vaccine, but it remains unclear how much this response protects them from influenza infection or its complications. Meanwhile, influenza vaccine appears to be safe in these patients. While waiting results of randomized controlled trials to give us more details about the clinical benefits of the influenza vaccination, the clinicians should consider the currently proved benefits of influenza vaccination on management of the cancer patients undergoing systematic chemotherapy such as decrease in the duration and severity of the of the disease, and significant decrease in influenza-associated morbidity and mortality in these high-risk patients.3

Modeling dendritic cell vaccination for influenza prophylaxis: potential applications for niche populations

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients can exhibit negligible responses to prophylactic vaccinations, including influenza vaccination. To help address this issue, we developed in vitro and in vivo models of dendritic cell (DC) immunotherapy for the prevention of influenza virus infection.

METHODS

Human cord blood (CB)-derived or mouse splenocyte-derived DCs were loaded with purified recombinant hemagglutinin (rHA). T-cell responses to HA-loaded CB-derived DCs were determined by ELISpot. Protective efficacy was determined by vaccination of BALB/c mice with a single injection of 10(6) autologous DCs. DC migration to peripheral lymphoid organs was verified by carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester staining, and HA-specific antibody titers were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Mice were then challenged intranasally with BALB/c-adapted A/New Caledonia influenza virus derived from four consecutive lung pool passages. Antigen-presenting cell (APC) dysfunction was modeled using the MAFIA transgenic system, in which the Csf1r promoter conditionally drives AP20178-inducible Fas.

RESULTS

CB-derived human DCs were able to generate de novo T-cell responses against rHA, as determined by a system of rigorous controls. Mice vaccinated intraperitoneally developed HA titers detectable at serum dilutions of >1:1000. HA seroconverters survived virus challenge, whereas unvaccinated controls and vaccinated nonseroconverters lost weight and died. Furthermore, use of a model of APC-specific immunosuppression revealed that DC vaccination could generate HA-specific antibody titers under conditions in which protein vaccination could not.

CONCLUSIONS

The model demonstrates that DC immunotherapy for the prevention of influenza is feasible, and studies are underway to determine whether populations of immunosuppressed individuals might ultimately benefit from the procedure.

Influenza immunization in older adults with and without cancer

OBJECTIVES

To compare the likelihood of receiving an influenza immunization in older adults before and immediately after a cancer diagnosis occurring in 2001 and for the same time periods with older adults not diagnosed with cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis comparing influenza immunization rates of Medicare beneficiaries with and without a diagnosis of cancer.

SETTING

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Data.

PARTICIPANTS

Propensity score matching matched a group of 35,229 persons without cancer with 35,257 individuals diagnosed with cancer in 2001.

MEASUREMENTS

Receipt of influenza vaccination based upon Medicare Claims Data.

RESULTS

A difference-of-difference analysis revealed that influenza immunization rates increased over time for persons diagnosed with cancer (46.8% before to 50.8% after cancer diagnosis), but the increase was greater in beneficiaries without a cancer diagnosis (42.6% to 79.7%) (P < .001; 95% confidence interval = 0.320-0.324). Logistic regression analysis revealed that individuals without a cancer diagnosis were 7.25 times as likely to receive an influenza immunization.

CONCLUSION

Older adults who have been recently diagnosed with cancer receive influenza immunizations at much lower rates than older adults who have not been diagnosed with cancer despite interaction with healthcare providers. Opportunities exist to improve influenza immunization in this population, who are susceptible to influenza because of compromised immune systems.

Vaccination recommendations for the hematology and oncology and post-stem cell transplant populations

Vaccination is a simple yet important process used to prevent many infections in the general population. For patients with suppressed immune systems, especially those who are undergoing chemotherapy or who have undergone stem cell transplant, repeat vaccination or boosters may be crucial in prolonging and/or extending immunity. The purpose of this review is to examine the need for each vaccine in two separate oncology populations: patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy and post-stem cell transplant patients. In addition, the importance of avoiding live vaccines and criteria for reconsideration at a future time will also be discussed.

Immunogenicity of an inactivated monovalent 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in patients who have cancer

BACKGROUND

The immune response of patients who have cancer, who may be receiving immunosuppressive therapy, is generally considered to be decreased. This study aimed to evaluate the immune response of cancer patients to the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective single site study comparing the immune response after H1N1 vaccination of healthy controls (group A), patients who had solid tumors and were taking myelosuppressive chemotherapy (group B), patients who had solid tumors and were taking nonmyelosuppressive or no treatment (group C), and patients who had hematologic malignancies (group D).

RESULTS

At 2-6 weeks after vaccination, seroconversion was observed in 80.0% of group A (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0%-89.7%), 72.2% of group B (95% CI, 55.9%-84.3%), 87.0% of group C (95% CI, 72.2%-94.7%), and 75.0% of group D (95% CI, 52.8%-89.2%) (p = NS). The geometric mean titer ratio, that is, geometric mean factor increase in antibody titer after vaccination, was 12.6 (95% CI, 7.9-19.9), 12.7 (95% CI, 7.3-22.1), 23.0 (95% CI, 13.9-38.2), and 12.1 (95% CI, 5.3-27.9) (p = NS), and the seroprotection rates were 95.5% (95% CI, 84.0%-99.6%), 79.0% (95% CI, 63.4%-89.2%), 90.5% (95% CI, 77.4%-96.8%), and 90.0% (95% CI, 71%-98.7%) in the corresponding groups (p = NS). Immune responses were robust regardless of malignancy, or time intervals between the use of myelosuppressive or immunosuppressive medications and vaccination. No participants developed clinical H1N1 infection.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients, whether taking myelosuppressive chemotherapy or not, are able to generate an immune response to the H1N1 vaccine similar to that of healthy controls.

Utility of Influenza Vaccination for Oncology Patients

Every fall and winter, patients with cancer and their families ask oncologists whether they should be vaccinated for influenza. This season, with escalating concerns regarding the novel H1N1 influenza virus and its recently approved vaccine, this question has become more frequent and increasingly urgent. The purpose of this article is to review evidence related to the ability of patients with cancer to mount protective immunological responses to influenza vaccination. The literature on immunogenicity in pediatric and adult patients, those with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, untreated and actively treated patients, and patients receiving biologic agents is summarized and reviewed. In addition, we report on potential strategies to improve the efficacy of influenza vaccination in patients with cancer, such as the timing of vaccination, use of more than a one-shot series, increasing the antigen dose, and the use of adjuvant therapies. We conclude that there is evidence that patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy are able to respond to influenza vaccination, and because this intervention is safe, inexpensive, and widely available, vaccination for seasonal influenza and the novel H1N1 strain is indicated.

Common adjuvant breast cancer therapies do not inhibit cancer vaccine induced T cell immunity

Cancer vaccines may have the most potential for clinical impact when used in the adjuvant setting when tumor burden is at its lowest. Application of cancer vaccines in the adjuvant setting, however, requires integration of immunization with more standard cytotoxic or cytostatic therapies. Common adjuvant therapies for breast cancer patients, i.e. trastuzumab, bisphosphonates and hormonal agents are often administered over several years requiring concurrent administration of these drugs with active immunization. We questioned whether these common adjuvant therapies would impact a patient's ability to develop tumor specific immunity with vaccination. Immune parameters from 36 subjects were evaluated. We determined these adjuvant therapies have no impact on the ability to develop an immune response specific for HER-2/neu peptides (P>0.1) nor do they have an impact on the magnitude of T cell immunity developed with concurrent vaccination (P>0.1). This is the first report to show that the use of trastuzumab, bisphosphonates and hormonal therapy concurrent with cancer vaccine administration have no impact on either the generation or the magnitude of vaccine induced immunity.