COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Cancer Patients: A Single Centre Experience

Comparison of antibody response to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination between patients with solid or hematologic cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy

AIM

This study examined the serum antibody response of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in solid and hematologic cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Levels of various inflammatory cytokines/chemokines after full vaccination were analyzed.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients with solid cancer and 37 with hematologic malignancy who got fully vaccinated either with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 messenger RNA (mRNA) or vector vaccines or their combination were included. After consecutively collecting blood, immunogenicity was assessed by surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT), and cytokine/chemokines were evaluated by Meso Scale Discovery assay.

RESULTS

Seropositivity and protective immune response were lower in patients with hematologic cancer compared to those with solid cancers, regardless of vaccine type. Significantly lower sVNT inhibition was observed in patients with hematologic cancer (mean [SD] 45.30 [40.27] %) than in those with solid cancer (mean [SD] 61.78 [34.79] %) (p = 0.047). Heterologous vector/mRNA vaccination was independently and most markedly associated with a higher sVNT inhibition score (p < 0.05), followed by homologous mRNA vaccination. The mean serum levels of tumor necrosis factor α, macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1α, and MIP-1β were significantly higher in patients with hematologic cancers compared to those with solid cancers after the full vaccination. In 36 patients who received an additional booster shot, 29 demonstrated increased antibody titer in terms of mean sVNT (%) (40.80 and 75.21, respectively, before and after the additional dose, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Hematologic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy tended to respond poorly to both COVID-19 mRNA and vector vaccines and had a significantly lower antibody titer compared to those with solid cancers.

Reported side-effects following Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in the north-west province, Iran: A cross-sectional study

While the vaccination was introduced as a promising tool to control the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, concerns about vaccine-related side effects had grown. Due to the widespread administration of the COVID-19 vaccine worldwide for the first time, it was necessary to evaluate the safety and potential side effects in recipients. This study aims to assess, the incidence of adverse effects following Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccination and identify their related factors. In this cross-sectional survey-based study, 453 volunteers participated, including 235 men and 218 women. The reported adverse reactions from recipients of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccine were collected by using a questionnaire. The findings showed that the incidence of adverse reactions, such as neurological, systematic, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and local symptoms were significantly higher after the first dose compared to the second dose. Systematic symptoms were the most prevalent reported side effects after the first and second dose injection. The demographical study of participants showed that individuals aged 18-34 and females were more prone to present adverse events following vaccination. However, no significant relationship was found between the occurrence of side effects and the recipients' body mass index. Despite the life-saving role of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, it may have some adverse reactions in recipients. The severity and frequency of side effects were different. So, they were dependent on several factors, including gender and age. Altogether, post-vaccination adverse reactions were mild and tolerable.

Twelve-Month Follow-up of the Immune Response After COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Genitourinary Cancers: A Prospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Vaccinations against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have had a transformative impact on morbidity and mortality. However, the long-term impact of vaccination on patients with genitourinary cancers is currently unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study aimed to assess seroconversion rates in patients with genitourinary cancers receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Patients with prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or urothelial cancer who had not been vaccinated for COVID-19 were included. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and after 2, 6, and 12 months of one dose of an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine. Antibody titer analysis was performed using the SCoV-2 Detect IgG ELISA assay, and the results were reported as immune status ratio (ISR). A paired t-test was used for comparison of ISR values between timepoints. In addition, T-cell receptor (TCR) sequencing was performed to assess for differences in TCR repertoire 2 months after vaccination.

RESULTS

Out of 133 patients enrolled, 98 baseline blood samples were collected. At 2-, 6-, and 12-month time points 98, 70, and 50 samples were collected, respectively. Median age was 67 (IQR, 62-75), with the majority of patients diagnosed with prostate (55.1%) or renal cell carcinoma (41.8%). Compared to baseline (0.24 [95% CI, 0.19-0.31]) a significant increase in the geometric mean ISR values was observed at the 2-month timepoint (5.59 [4.76-6.55]) (P < .001). However, at the 6-month timepoint, a significant decrease in the ISR values was observed (4.66 [95% CI, 4.04-5.38]; P < .0001). Notably, at the 12-month timepoint, the addition of a booster dose resulted in an absolute increase in the ISR values compared to those who did not receive a booster dose (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Only a minority of patients with genitourinary cancers did not ultimately achieve satisfactory seroconversion after receiving commercial COVID-19 vaccination. Cancer type or treatment rendered did not appear to affect the immune response mounted after vaccination.

Anti-cancer effect of COVID-19 vaccines in 4T1 mice models

AIMS

Without any doubt, vaccination was the best choice for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic control. According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), people with cancer or a history of cancer have a higher risk of dying from Covid-19 than ordinary people; hence, they should be considered a high-priority group for vaccination. On the other hand, the effect of the Covid-19 vaccination on cancer is not transparent enough. This study is one of the first in vivo studies that try to show the impact of Sinopharm (S) and AstraZeneca (A) vaccines on breast cancer, the most common cancer among women worldwide.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Vaccination was performed with one and two doses of Sinopharm (S1/S2) or AstraZeneca (A1/A2) on the 4T1 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) mice model. The tumor size and body weight of mice were monitored every two days. After one month, mice were euthanized, and the existence of Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and expression of the important markers in the tumor site was assessed. Metastasis in the vital organs was also investigated.

KEY FINDINGS

Strikingly, all of the vaccinated mice showed a decrease in tumor size and this decrease was highest after two vaccinations. Moreover, we observed more TILs in the tumor after vaccination. Vaccinated mice demonstrated a decrease in the expression of tumor markers (VEGF, Ki-67, MMP-2/9), CD4/CD8 ratio, and metastasis to the vital organs.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our results strongly suggest that COVID-19 vaccinations decrease tumor growth and metastasis.

Perception and safety analysis of COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients: A multicenter, real-world study

BACKGROUND

Although various coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been delivered to the public worldwide, data on cancer populations are limited. Vaccine hesitancy related to safety concerns is observed among cancer patients. We report the perception of COVID-19 vaccines and their safety profile after vaccination among cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April and November 2021, a multicenter survey was conducted on 318 patients treated in any hemato-oncology outpatient clinic among three hospitals under the Korea University Medical Center. The medical records of the patients were reviewed to obtain detailed clinical and hematological toxicity data.

RESULTS

A perception survey was conducted among 293 patients. Among them, 53.9% were concerned about developing vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) and 23.5%, about negative effects on cancer treatment. During the study period, 255 and 186 patients participated in a safety survey after the first and second doses, respectively. After the first dose, 62% of patients reported VRAEs (2.4%, grade 3), whereas 48.9% reported VRAEs (2.7%, grade 3) after the second dose. For both doses, injection-site pain and sore arm pain were the most common VRAEs, followed by myalgia, fatigue, and headache. No grade 4/5 VRAEs were observed, and there were no differences in complete blood count after vaccination. Multivariate analysis revealed female sex, active cancer treatment, and mRNA vaccines as independent risk factors for VRAE development in cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Despite high levels of concern, COVID-19 vaccines were well tolerated by cancer patients, with a safety profile consistent with that of the general population.

Safety Following COVID-19 Booster Vaccine with BNT162b2 Compared to mRNA-1273 in Solid Cancer Patients Previously Vaccinated with ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac

Safety data following the COVID-19 booster mRNA vaccine in solid cancer patients are scarce. We prospectively evaluated adverse events after a booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine as compared to the mRNA-1273 vaccine in solid malignancy patients who had previously received two doses of ChAdOx1 or heterogenous CoronaVac/ChAdOx1. Data regarding solicited and unsolicited adverse events were collected using questionnaires. The primary endpoint was the difference in incidence and severity of adverse events between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines. A total of 370 subjects were enrolled, including 172 (47%) and 198 (54%) patients receiving booster doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, respectively. The overall incidence of adverse events in the two groups was comparable (BNT162b2 vs. mRNA-1273; 63% vs. 66%, p = 0.6). There was no significant difference in severity, and the majority of adverse events reported were classed as mild to moderate. Tenderness at the injection site was the only reaction that had a statistically higher reported incidence after the mRNA-1273 vaccine than after the BNT162b2 vaccine (56% vs. 41%, p = 0.003). In conclusion, a booster dose of the mRNA vaccine, either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, in solid cancer patients previously vaccinated with ChAdOx1 and CoronaVac appears safe, and no new safety concerns were observed.

Willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination and adverse effects after vaccination in breast cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional retrospective study of a Chinese population

Background

Breast cancer (BC) patients have a higher mortality rate after COVID-19 infection, but data on vaccination of BC patients and attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination and safety after vaccination are lacking. We wanted to understand the willingness and factors of BC survivors to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, and their adverse reactions. The purpose is to judge the safety of vaccination, and find strategies to promote vaccination in BC patients.

Methods

Offline and online questionnaire surveys were provided in outpatient clinics and on an online follow-up platform, respectively, to collect information. Factors influencing vaccination willingness were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. All statistical tests were performed bilaterally, and a P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Patients who have been vaccinated need to fill in questions about the impact on quality of life after vaccination, the type and frequency of vaccination, and side effects.

Results

A total of 497 valid questionnaires were collected; 289 (58.1%) BC survivors were vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine, and 379 (76.26%) BC survivors had a fully or basically accepting attitude toward vaccination. Survivors over 70 years of age, educated only to high school level, and those receiving chemotherapy had significantly lower levels of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. Multivariate logistic regression analyses suggested that treatment status and cognitive attitude were independent factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination among BC survivors. The main reason for being vaccinated was "doctor recommendation" (57.26%). Unwillingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was mainly due to "the unknown safety of the vaccine in cancer patients" (67.80%). A total of 97.56% of the survivors believed that vaccination had no or almost no effect on their quality of life. Among the BC survivors, 18 (6.23%) had adverse reactions after vaccination. All adverse reactions were grade 1 or 2, and no adverse reactions of grade 3 or above were reported. The adverse reactions reported by 15 survivors (83.33%) markedly improved within 1 week.

Conclusions

In terms of cognitive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines, elderly individuals and those with a lower education level were less receptive to vaccination. Therefore, attention to elderly survivors can help improve the vaccination rate.

Surveillance of gynecologic cancer patients post-COVID-19 vaccine: Are CA-125 levels reliable?

Objective

The COVID-19 vaccine is known to instigate an inflammatory response that impacts cancer testing. We aimed to evaluate carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA-125) trends in gynecologic oncology patients in surveillance following COVID-19 vaccination to inform clinical practice.

Methods

This was a single institution retrospective study of patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine while undergoing surveillance of gynecologic cancers with serial serum CA-125 measurements. CA-125 levels from the three months before and after vaccination were included in analysis. Differences between mean and median pre- and post-vaccination CA-125 levels for each patient were calculated. The mean and median of these differences were calculated, as well as the distribution of change. Demographic and cancer-related variables were also recorded.

Results

Twenty-six patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine and were followed with surveillance serum CA-125 levels were identified. The mean age was 68.2 years; 92 % received a two-vaccine series. Forty-six percent had endometrial cancer and 54 % had ovarian cancer. The mean change from pre- to post-vaccine mean CA-125 level was 0.16 (±7.17) U/mL and the median change from pre- to post-vaccine median CA-125 level was -0.30 (IQR 3.66) U/mL. The range in change from pre- to post-vaccine mean was -16.50 to 24.00 U/mL, with 73 % of patients between -4 and +4 U/mL.

Conclusion

We found no clinically significant change in CA-125 level after patients under surveillance for gynecologic cancers were vaccinated against COVID-19, suggesting that that the vaccine does not impact the utility of CA-125 as a tool to monitor disease in this population.

Cancer Patients during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mini-Review

Since its emergence, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the entire world and all commerce and industries, including healthcare systems. COVID-19 adversely affects cancer patients because they are immunocompromised. Increased COVID-19 infection and shortage of medical supplies, beds and healthcare workers in hospitals affect cancer care. This paper includes a description of the existing research that shows the impact of COVID-19 on the management of cancer patients. Aged people with various chronic conditions such as cancer and comorbidities face more challenges as they have a greater risk of disease severity. COVID-19 has affected care delivery, including patient management, and has been responsible for increased mortality among cancer patients. Cancer patients with severe symptoms require regular therapies and treatment; therefore, they have a higher risk of exposure. Due to the risk of transmission, various steps were taken to combat this disease; however, they have affected the existing operational efficiency. Herein, we present the changing priorities during COVID-19, which also affected cancer care, including delayed diagnosis, treatment, and surgeries.

COVID-19 vaccination status, side effects, and perceptions among breast cancer survivors: a cross-sectional study in China

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, vaccination data of this population are limited.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of COVID-19 vaccination was conducted in China. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination status.

Results

Of 2,904 participants, 50.2% were vaccinated with acceptable side effects. Most of the participants received inactivated virus vaccines. The most common reason for vaccination was "fear of infection" (56.2%) and "workplace/government requirement" (33.1%). While the most common reason for nonvaccination was "worry that vaccines cause breast cancer progression or interfere with treatment" (72.9%) and "have concerns about side effects or safety" (39.6%). Patients who were employed (odds ratio, OR = 1.783, p = 0.015), had stage I disease at diagnosis (OR = 2.008, p = 0.019), thought vaccines could provide protection (OR = 1.774, p = 0.007), thought COVID-19 vaccines were safe, very safe, not safe, and very unsafe (OR = 2.074, p < 0.001; OR = 4.251, p < 0.001; OR = 2.075, p = 0.011; OR = 5.609, p = 0.003, respectively) were more likely to receive vaccination. Patients who were 1-3 years, 3-5 years, and more than 5 years after surgery (OR = 0.277, p < 0.001; OR = 0.277, p < 0.001, OR = 0.282, p < 0.001, respectively), had a history of food or drug allergies (OR = 0.579, p = 0.001), had recently undergone endocrine therapy (OR = 0.531, p < 0.001) were less likely to receive vaccination.

Conclusion

COVID-19 vaccination gap exists in breast cancer survivors, which could be filled by raising awareness and increasing confidence in vaccine safety during cancer treatment, particularly for the unemployed individuals.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with spinal tumors receiving denosumab treatment: An initial real-clinical experience study

Background

Even if COVID-19 vaccine has gradually been adopted in the world, information of side effects and crosstalk in patients with spinal tumors is absent due to the exclusion from clinical research. In this research, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety for the patients with spinal tumors treated by denosumab.

Methods

In this retrospective research, 400 patients under treatment of denosumab against spinal tumors in real-clinical experience were grouped into two cohorts according to the treatment of COVID-19 vaccine. And linked hospital data, serum samples and unsolicited related adverse events had been collected from January 22nd 2021 to June 1st 2021 respectively.

Results

233 patients of all participants who received regular treatment of denosumab were vaccinated by mRNA or inactivated vaccine. Patients of metastatic disease and primary osseous spinal tumor showed similar distribution in both two groups. Over the study period, within 176 patients tested the status of serologic response of vaccine, 88(81.48%) and 41(87.23%) individuals injected one or two inactivated vaccines had effective antibody against SARS-CoV-2 infections. As 21 patients (85.71%) treated by mRNA vaccine did. Considering of the safety of vaccine, most common systemic adverse events were nausea or vomiting (45 events vs 23events). Interestingly, fewer participants in the vaccine group were statistically recorded in local adverse events than in the placebo group (16 events vs 33 events).

Conclusions

Our initial real-clinical experience suggests that COVID-19 vaccines are likely safe and effective in in patients with spinal tumors receiving denosumab treatment.

The Relationship Between Covid-19 Risk Perception and Vaccine Hesitancy in Cancer Patients: The Moderating Role of Externalizing Traits

Objective

This mixed-methods study aimed to explore the role of externalizing traits in moderating the relationship between COVID-19 risk perception and vaccine hesitancy in patients diagnosed with cancer. A community-based participatory approach - comprising a preliminary qualitative inquiry and a subsequent cross-sectional research - was used to promote effective vaccination campaigns.

Method

12 people diagnosed with cancer and 7 cancer professionals were recruited for the qualitative inquiry, 356 people either under cancer treatment or in follow-up care for the cross-sectional research.A phenomenological analysis explored the transcripts of two focus groups. The cross-sectional research tested the hypothesis emerged during the previous qualitative inquiry through self-reported questionnaires and moderated regression.

Results

Phenomenological analysis suggested a pivotal role of externalizing traits in vaccine hesitancy. Moderated regression revealed how the association between risk perception and vaccine hesitancy is moderated by externalizing traits, even when controlled for treatment adherence.

Conclusions

In the present study we found a stronger relationship between risk perception and vaccine hesitancy for patients with higher levels of externalizing traits. We suggest that vaccination campaigns should be personality-informed to offer individualized and effective solutions. Patients with externalizing traits may cope dysfunctionally with vaccination campaigns.

COVID-19 vaccination perception and uptake among cancer patients in Guangzhou, China

Patients with cancer are considered at high risk of COVID-19 related complications with higher mortality rates than healthy individuals. This study investigated the perception, acceptance, and influencing factors of COVID-19 vaccination among cancer patients in Guangzhou, China. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Guangzhou, China from August to November 2021 in two tertiary medical centers. Outpatients were recruited through hospital posters to complete a questionnaire including demographics, medical history, knowledge, and attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines and COVID-19 vaccination status. Chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression were used to analyze predictors for acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination. In total, only 75 out of 343 patients (21.87%) had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Twenty-one patients (6.12%) had received a recommendation about COVID-19 vaccination from their physicians. Patients who were recommended by physicians to get vaccinated (aOR = 11.71 95% CI: 2.71-50.66), with a monthly income of more than CNY 5000 (aOR = 3.94, 95% CI: 1.88-8.26) were more likely to have received COVID-19 vaccination. Cancer patients who had been diagnosed for more than one year (aOR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.09-0.51), had received multiple cancer treatment strategies (aOR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.16-0.74), worried about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines (aOR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.11-0.40), were less likely to have received COVID-19 vaccination. COVID-19 vaccination uptake among cancer patients was insufficient. The proportion of cancer patients receiving vaccination recommendations from physicians remains inadequate. Physicians are expected to play an essential role in patients' knowledge of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

Cancer Patients and the COVID-19 Vaccines: Considerations and Challenges

Few guidelines exist for COVID-19 vaccination amongst cancer patients, fostering uncertainty regarding the immunogenicity, safety, and effects of cancer therapies on vaccination, which this review aims to address. A literature review was conducted to include the latest articles covering the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid and hematologic cancers receiving various treatments. Lower seropositivity following vaccination was associated with malignancy (compared to the general population), and hematologic malignancy (compared to solid cancers). Patients receiving active cancer therapy (unspecified), chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunosuppressants generally demonstrated lower seropositivity compared to healthy controls; though checkpoint inhibition, endocrine therapy, and cyclin dependent kinase inhibition did not appear to affect seropositivity. Vaccination appeared safe and well-tolerated in patients with current or past cancer and those undergoing treatment. Adverse events were comparable to the general population, but inflammatory lymphadenopathy following vaccination was commonly reported and may be mistaken for malignant etiology. Additionally, radiation recall phenomenon was sporadically reported in patients who had received radiotherapy. Overall, while seropositivity rates were decreased, cancer patients showed capacity to generate safe and effective immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination, thus vaccination should be encouraged and hesitancy should be addressed in this population.

COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer: Opportunities and challenges

The rapid spread of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, the increase in the number of patients with severe COVID-19, and the high mortality rate created the basis for the production of safe and effective vaccines. Studies have confirmed the increased risk of severe Covid-19 disease and mortality in cancer patients. It is logical that cancer patients should be the first to receive the primary vaccination and the booster vaccine for Covid-19. Since studies related to cancer patients and the effectiveness of existing Covid-19 vaccines have not been widely conducted, there are significant uncertainties about the effectiveness of the vaccine and the level of humoral and cellular immune responses in these patients. As a result, the possible risks and side effects of existing vaccines are not clear for patients with different cancers who are undergoing special treatments. In this study, we will discuss the effectiveness and safety of existing vaccines on cancer patients. In addition, we highlight factors that could affect the effectiveness of vaccines in these patients and finally discuss opportunities and challenges related to vaccination in cancer patients.

COVID-19 Diagnosis and Risk of Death Among Adults With Cancer in Indiana: Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Prior studies, generally conducted at single centers with small sample sizes, found that individuals with cancer experience more severe outcomes due to COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although early examinations revealed greater risk of severe outcomes for patients with cancer, the magnitude of the increased risk remains unclear. Furthermore, prior studies were not typically performed using population-level data, especially those in the United States. Given robust prevention measures (eg, vaccines) are available for populations, examining the increased risk of patients with cancer due to SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust population-level analyses of electronic medical records is warranted.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among recently diagnosed adults with cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed adults with cancer between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, using electronic health records linked to a statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We used the Kaplan-Meier estimator to estimate survival during the COVID-19 period (January 15, 2020, to December 31, 2020). We further modeled SARS-CoV-2 infection as a time-dependent exposure (immortal time bias) in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for clinical and demographic variables to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) among newly diagnosed adults with cancer. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using the above methods among individuals with cancer-staging information.

RESULTS

During the study period, 41,924 adults were identified with newly diagnosed cancer, of which 2894 (6.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The population consisted of White (n=32,867, 78.4%), Black (n=2671, 6.4%), Hispanic (n=832, 2.0%), and other (n=5554, 13.2%) racial backgrounds, with both male (n=21,354, 50.9%) and female (n=20,570, 49.1%) individuals. In the COVID-19 period analysis, after adjusting for age, sex, race or ethnicity, comorbidities, cancer type, and region, the risk of death increased by 91% (adjusted HR 1.91; 95% CI 1.76-2.09) compared to the pre-COVID-19 period (January 1, 2019, to January 14, 2020) after adjusting for other covariates. In the adjusted time-dependent analysis, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 6.91; 95% CI 6.06-7.89). Mortality increased 2.5 times among adults aged 65 years and older (adjusted HR 2.74; 95% CI 2.26-3.31) compared to adults 18-44 years old, among male (adjusted HR 1.23; 95% CI 1.14-1.32) compared to female individuals, and those with ≥2 chronic conditions (adjusted HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.94-2.31) compared to those with no comorbidities. Risk of mortality was 9% higher in the rural population (adjusted HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.18) compared to adult urban residents.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight increased risk of death is associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with a recent diagnosis of cancer. Elevated risk underscores the importance of adhering to social distancing, mask adherence, vaccination, and regular testing among the adult cancer population.

Cancer patients and COVID-19 vaccination, from safety to protocol adherence: A real-life setting report

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has slowed down cancer prevention and treatment strategies; consequently, cancer patients are prioritized to get the COVID-19 vaccines. Being constantly threatened by a new outbreak, the dive within the immunogenicity response is of great value; nonetheless, evaluating the side effects of these vaccines on fragile patients will assure their adherence to the vaccination protocol.

Objectives

This study sets out to investigate the adverse events reported about the vaccine according to its doses and types, and to compare the prevalence and severity of toxicities across two subgroups of cancer patients, those who received the injection during active therapy cycles, and those who have not started the therapy yet at vaccination time, moreover, this paper examines the will and commitment of this population to the vaccination schemes.

Methods

This is an observational, retrospective, cohort study, in which we conducted a semi-constructed interview with 415 random solid cancer patients treated at the National Institute of Oncology in Morocco. The assessment of adverse events was carried out with a standardized scale.

Results

Eleven months after the launch of the campaign, 75.2% of patients received at least one dose of the vaccine. Altogether, the analysis demonstrates a significant difference between the adverse effects reported post the second dose compared to the first one (p=0.004; odds ratio=2 [95% CI: 1.23 - 3.31]). Besides, the results indicate an increase in the rank of the severity of systemic events (p<0.001, r=0.28) after the second dose, but not for the local events (p=0.92, r=0.005). In the adjusted subgroup analysis, no effect was detected linking active therapy with the occurrence of toxicity (p=0.51, v=0.04) as well as with the level of severity reported after both; the first and second dose. Due to the fear of interactions with the therapy, we noticed a significant trend to delay the booster dose among the participants who completed the initial vaccine protocol.

Conclusion

A considerable body of evidence exists to persuade cancer patients to take the Coronavirus vaccines, and to also follow their vaccination schemes under the supervision of their treating physicians.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of immune response against first and second doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in adult patients with hematological malignancies

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients particularly those with hematological malignancies are at higher risk of affecting by severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to the immunocompromised nature of the disease and the immunosuppressive treatments, they are more likely to develop less antibody protection; therefore, we aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, as well as Google scholar search engine as of December 10, 2021. Our primary outcomes of interest comprised of estimating the antibody seropositive rate following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with hematological malignancies and to compare it with those who were affected by solid tumors or healthy subjects. The secondary outcomes were to assess the vaccine's immunogenicity based on different treatments, status of the disease, and type of vaccine. After the two-step screening, the data were extracted and the summary measures were calculated using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

A total of 82 articles recording 13,804 patients with a diagnosis of malignancy were included in the present review. The seropositive rates in patients with hematological malignancies after first and second vaccine doses were 30.0% (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 11.9-52.0) and 62.3% (95%CI 56.0-68.5), respectively. These patients were less likely to develop antibody response as compared to cases with solid tumors (RR 0.73, 95%CI 0.67-0.79) and healthy subjects (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.54-0.71) following complete immunization. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients had the lowest response rate among all subtypes of hematological malignancies (first dose: 22.0%, 95%CI 13.5-31.8 and second dose: 47.8%, 95%CI 41.2-54.4). Besides, anti-CD20 therapies (5.7%, 95%CI 2.0-10.6) and bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (26.8%, 95%CI 16.9-37.8) represented the lowest seropositiveness post first and second doses, respectively. Notably, patients who were in active status of disease showed lower antibody detection rate compared to those on remission status (RR 0.87, 95%CI 0.76-0.99). Furthermore, lower rate of seropositivity was found in patients received BNT162.b2 compared to ones who received mRNA-1273 (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.79-0.99).

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the substantially low rate of seroprotection in patients with hematological malignancies with a wide range of rates among disease subgroups and different treatments; further highlighting the fact that booster doses might be acquired for these patients to improve immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Australian Patients with Solid Organ Cancers

Background: Vaccination is the cornerstone of the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Excess morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection is seen in people with cancer. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been observed in this medically vulnerable population, although associated attitudes and beliefs remain poorly understood. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey of people with solid organ cancers was conducted through nine health services across Australia. Demographics, cancer-related characteristics and vaccine uptake were collected. Perceptions and beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccination were assessed using the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-6. Results: Between June and October 2021, 2691 people with solid organ cancers completed the survey. The median age was 62.5 years (SD = 11.8; range 19–95), 40.9% were male, 71.3% lived in metropolitan areas and 90.3% spoke English as their first language. The commonest cancer diagnoses were breast (36.6%), genitourinary (18.6%) and gastrointestinal (18.3%); 59.2% had localized disease and 56.0% were receiving anti-cancer therapy. Most participants (79.7%) had at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Vaccine uptake was higher in people who were older, male, metropolitan, spoke English as a first language and had a cancer diagnosis for more than six months. Vaccine hesitancy was higher in people who were younger, female, spoke English as a non-dominant language and lived in a regional location, and lower in people with genitourinary cancer. Vaccinated respondents were more concerned about being infected with COVID-19 and less concerned about vaccine safety and efficacy. Conclusions: People with cancer have concerns about acquiring COVID-19, which they balance against vaccine-related concerns about the potential impact on their disease progress and/or treatment. Detailed exploration of concerns in cancer patients provides valuable insights, both for discussions with individual patients and public health messaging for this vulnerable population.

Safety and immunogenicity of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 for patients with breast and gynecological cancer on active anticancer therapy: Results of a prospective observational study

Background

Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are highly effective. Nevertheless, immunocompromised participants were excluded from randomized controlled clinical trials. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 (BNT162b2) vaccine in patients with breast and gynecological cancer treated with active anticancer therapy versus a control cohort of healthy participants.

Methods

Immune responses to the BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with breast cancer (n = 44) or a gynecological malignancy (n = 6) on active anticancer therapy (28 on chemotherapy, mostly anthracycline- or taxane-based, and 22 on target therapy) and in a control cohort of participants without cancer (n = 67) were investigated by SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers measured by S1-binding immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentrations assessed using the LIAISON XL tools (DiaSorin S.p.A.). Response was assessed after a second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered before and at least 3 weeks after the vaccine dose.

Results

Overall, 43/50 (86%) patients of the cancer cohort (74% in the breast cancer group and 100% in the gynecological malignancy group) developed IgG antibodies after the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. There were no statistically significant differences in responder rates between patients treated with chemotherapy and those on target therapy. The majority of patients who received chemotherapy with or without target therapy, 21/28 (75%), developed a reliable antibody titer after a vaccine. All seven non-responder patients were undergoing an anthracycline-based regimen. Based on IgG levels (0–400 AU/ml), patients were classified as negative (‘non-responders’), weakly positive, or strongly positive (‘responders’). No delay in cancer therapy schedule or reported side effects were recorded after BNT162b2 vaccine administration. All healthy participants were strongly positive. Responder rates differed significantly between the two study cohorts (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Most patients develop antibody titers after the second immunization. However, given the persistence of non-responders or weak responders, additional immunization booster seems to be required, along with proactive planning in the vaccination schedule, with vaccine administration spaced out over time with respect to chemotherapy.

Development of hepatitis triggered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patient with cancer during immunotherapy: a case report

Patients with cancer have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, and expert consensus advocates for COVID-19 vaccination in this population. Some cases of autoimmune hepatitis have been described after the administration of COVID-19 vaccine in the people in apparently good health. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are responsible for a wide spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). This article reports a case of hepatitis and colitis in a 52-year-old woman who was undergoing immunotherapy and was HBV positive 10 days after receiving the first Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine dose. Because both ICIs and the COVID-19 vaccines stimulate the immune response, the authors hypothesize that these vaccines may increase the incidence of irAEs during ICI treatment. There is a complex interplay between the immune-mediated reaction triggered by the vaccination and PD-L1 co-administration.

Safety and Adverse Events Related to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines; a Systematic Review

Introduction:

Knowledge of vaccine-related adverse events is crucial as they are among the most ‎important factors ‎that cause hesitation in receiving vaccines. Therefore, we aimed to systematically ‎review the adverse events ‎related to the mRNA vaccines reported in the literature.‎

Method:

A systematic literature search was carried out in the databases of Scopus, PubMed, ‎Cochrane, and Web ‎of Science. We selected original studies that explored the side effects of ‎mRNA ‎COVID-19 vaccines using a two-phase (title/abstract and full-text) screening process.‎

Results:

Cardiac ‎complications were the most commonly reported severe adverse events. It appeared that ‎systemic adverse reactions are more ‎common after the second dose of vaccines. The number of ‎adverse effects reported after the Pfizer vaccine was ‎higher than other vaccines, mostly due to its ‎earlier approval and more widespread use throughout the world. Cardiac adverse events had a ‎‎higher prevalence but no significant association has been found between COVID-19 mRNA vaccines ‎and cardiac ‎adverse events except for myopericarditis. ‎

Conclusion:

Vaccines ‎play a crucial role in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic and decreasing ‎mortalities and the results of the present ‎review acknowledge the fact that the benefits outweigh the ‎adverse events of these vaccines.‎

Safety and Tolerability of COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with Cancer: A Single Center Retrospective Analysis

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease (COVID-19) has caused a worldwide challenging and threatening pandemic. Multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trials were conducted since the beginning of pandemic because safe and effective vaccines were needed urgently. In most trials of COVID-19 vaccines patients affected by malignancies or on treatment with immunosuppressive drugs were excluded. Patients and methods: A retrospective monocentric study was conducted at Medical Oncological Unit of Santa Chiara Hospital (Pisa, Italy) in this subset of population to investigate safety and tolerability of COVID-19 vaccines; 377 patients with solid tumor on treatment were enrolled. Vaccine-related adverse events were recorded using a face-to-face questionnaire including a toxicity grading scale. Most of the patients (94%) received mRNA vaccine as indicated by Italian health ministry guidelines. Mean age was 66 years (range 27–87), 62% of the patients were older than 65 years and 68% had at least one additional comorbidity. The majority (86%) of patients were in a metastatic setting and 29% received immunotherapy-based treatment. For statistical analysis, multivariate binary logistic regression models were performed and linear regression models were applied. Results: Adverse events were mild and transient and ended in a few days without any sequelae. No severe or uncommon adverse events were recorded. In multivariate analysis, we found that the female sex was associated with a greater risk of more severe and longer lasting adverse events, and a higher risk of adverse events was found for patients treated with immunotherapy. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines were safe and well-tolerated in this population of patients being treated for solid tumors.

Safety of two-dose COVID-19 vaccination (BNT162b2 and CoronaVac) in adults with cancer: a territory-wide cohort study

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization has defined a list of adverse events of special interest (AESI) for safety surveillance of vaccines. AESI have not been adequately assessed following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer contributing to vaccine hesitancy in this population. We aimed to evaluate the association between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines and the risk of AESI in adults with active cancer or a history of cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a territory-wide cohort study using electronic health records managed by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and vaccination records provided by the Department of Health. Patients with a cancer diagnosis between January 1, 2018, and September 30, 2021, were included and stratified into two cohorts: active cancer and history of cancer. Within each cohort, patients who received two doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac were 1:1 matched to unvaccinated patients using the propensity score. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AESI 28 days after the second vaccine dose.

RESULTS

A total of 74,878 patients with cancer were included (vaccinated: 25,789 [34%]; unvaccinated: 49,089 [66%]). Among patients with active cancer, the incidence of AESI was 0.31 and 1.02 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.13 and 0.88 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Among patients with history of cancer, the incidence was 0.55 and 0.89 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.42 and 0.93 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Neither vaccine was associated with a higher risk of AESI for patients with active cancer (BNT162b2: HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08-1.09; CoronaVac: 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-1.18) or patients with history of cancer (BNT162b2: 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-1.28; CoronaVac: 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

In this territory-wide cohort study of patients with cancer, the incidence of AESI following vaccination with two doses of either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines was low. The findings of this study can reassure clinicians and patients with cancer about the overall safety of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in patients with cancer, which could increase the COVID-19 vaccination rate in this vulnerable group of patients.

mRNA-COVID19 Vaccination Can Be Considered Safe and Tolerable for Frail Patients

Background

Frail patients are considered at relevant risk of complications due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and, for this reason, are prioritized candidates for vaccination. As these patients were originally not included in the registration trials, fear related to vaccine adverse events and disease worsening was one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Herein, we report the safety profile of the prospective, multicenter, national VAX4FRAIL study (NCT04848493) to evaluate vaccines in a large trans-disease cohort of patients with solid or hematological malignancies and neurological and rheumatological diseases.

Methods

Between March 3 and September 2, 2021, 566 patients were evaluable for safety endpoint: 105 received the mRNA-1273 vaccine and 461 the BNT162b2 vaccine. Frail patients were defined per protocol as patients under treatment with hematological malignancies (n = 131), solid tumors (n = 191), immune-rheumatological diseases (n = 86), and neurological diseases (n = 158), including multiple sclerosis and generalized myasthenia. The impact of the vaccination on the health status of patients was assessed through a questionnaire focused on the first week after each vaccine dose.

Results

The most frequently reported moderate-severe adverse events were pain at the injection site (60.3% after the first dose, 55.4% after the second), fatigue (30.1%-41.7%), bone pain (27.4%-27.2%), and headache (11.8%-18.9%). Risk factors associated with the occurrence of severe symptoms after vaccine administration were identified through a multivariate logistic regression analysis: age was associated with severe fever presentation (younger patients vs. middle-aged vs. older ones), female individuals presented a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and bone pain; and the mRNA-1237 vaccine was associated with a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site and fever. After the first dose, patients presenting a severe symptom were at a relevant risk of recurrence of the same severe symptom after the second one. Overall, 11 patients (1.9%) after the first dose and 7 (1.2%) after the second one required postponement or suspension of the disease-specific treatment. Finally, two fatal events occurred among our 566 patients. These two events were considered unrelated to the vaccine.

Conclusions

Our study reports that mRNA-COVID-19 vaccination is safe also in frail patients; as expected, side effects were manageable and had a minimum impact on patient care path.

Gastrointestinal Cancer and Vaccination Safety during COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND: During our past 18 months, we must be faced with the current COVID-19 pandemic era with much uncertainty in the continuation of multimodality treatment of the gastrointestinal cancer patients. Especially in this immunocompromised group with the history of previous chemotherapy treatment, these patients have an increased risk of COVID-19 transmission. Many studies have been reported about the current recommendation for gastrointestinal cancer patients during this pandemic, but there might be a lack of evidence about the safety of vaccination for the gastrointestinal cancer patients. AIM: Since the vaccination has been approved by our government medical support, we would evaluate the safety of the COVID-19 vaccination program in gastrointestinal cancer patients. METHODS: All gastrointestinal cancer patients who have been already diagnosed with cancer will be included in this study. The vaccine-related sign symptoms will be recorded and evaluated. The chemotherapy schedule was not been interrupted following the vaccination. The patient who refused to receive the second vaccination dose will be excluded from this study. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included in this study (our past 6-month evaluation from February till August 2021), colorectal adenocarcinoma was the most common gastrointestinal cancer according to organ-specific (25 patients), the others were gastric adenocarcinoma, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and small bowel gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Both of them already received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine during this period, we reported there was no side effect related to these and the chemotherapy cycle has not been interrupted during vaccination. All of the patients could be tolerated it well and did not refuse to continue the treatment. CONCLUSION: There were no significant signs and symptoms of vaccine-related side effects on gastrointestinal cancer patients. COVID-19 vaccination during this pandemic and following the chemotherapy schedule on any kind of gastrointestinal cancer patients was safe and could be suggested as a routine protocol.

Learning through a Pandemic: The Current State of Knowledge on COVID-19 and Cancer

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has left patients with current or past history of cancer facing disparate consequences at every stage of the cancer trajectory. This comprehensive review offers a landscape analysis of the current state of the literature on COVID-19 and cancer, including the immune response to COVID-19, risk factors for severe disease, and impact of anticancer therapies. We also review the latest data on treatment of COVID-19 and vaccination safety and efficacy in patients with cancer, as well as the impact of the pandemic on cancer care, including the urgent need for rapid evidence generation and real-world study designs. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients with cancer have faced severe consequences at every stage of the cancer journey due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This comprehensive review offers a landscape analysis of the current state of the field regarding COVID-19 and cancer. We cover the immune response, risk factors for severe disease, and implications for vaccination in patients with cancer, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care delivery. Overall, this review provides an in-depth summary of the key issues facing patients with cancer during this unprecedented health crisis.

Changes in Behavior After Vaccination and Opinions Toward Mask Wearing: Thoracic Oncology Patient–Reported Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background:

The COVID-19 vaccines, face masks, and social distancing are effective interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. In this study, we aimed to determine lung cancer patients’ attitudes toward vaccination, changes in behavior after vaccination, and willingness to continue mask wearing after the pandemic.

Methods:

We sent out questionnaires to 220 thoracic oncology patients treated at our lung cancer center in May 2021. The questionnaire focused on patients’ vaccination status, self-reported experiences surrounding vaccination, and assessed changes in behaviors before and after vaccination as well as opinions toward mask wearing after the pandemic. Results are presented as absolute and relative frequencies and means with standard deviation and compared using t test, paired t test, and analysis of variance test as well as chi2 test, and Fisher exact text.

Results:

About 91.0% of patients reported having received at least 1 vaccination. About 73.3% of patients reported having at least 1 reaction to the vaccination. The most common reactions were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. After vaccination, patients increased contact with family and friends, use of public transport, and grocery shopping. Overall, the level of willingness to wear masks beyond the end of the pandemic differed according to vaccination status.

Conclusions:

Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination among thoracic oncology patients in Germany was high. Overall, patients with thoracic malignancies tolerated the COVID-19 vaccination well. Rate of adverse reaction was not higher compared with the general population. After the vaccination, patients increased social contacts and usage of public transport. These changes suggest positive psychological effects on quality of life. While reducing social distancing can increase the risk of infection, our results indicate that an extension of mask mandates after the pandemic would likely be accepted by a majority of thoracic oncology patients, suggesting that our cohort was still aware and in support of other measure of protection.

Efficacy and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in participants with a history of cancer: subgroup analysis of a global phase 3 randomized clinical trial

Introduction

Individuals with an underlying malignancy have high risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes. In clinical trials, COVID-19 vaccines were safe and efficacious against infection, hospitalization, and death, but most trials excluded participants with cancer. We report results from participants with a history of past or active neoplasm (malignant or benign/unknown) and up to 6 months’ follow-up post-dose 2 from the placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial of the 2-dose BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Patients and methods

Between July 2020–January 2021, 46,429 participants aged ≥ 12 years were randomized at 152 sites in 6 countries. Healthy participants with pre-existing stable neoplasm could participate; those receiving immunosuppressive therapy were excluded. Data are reported for participants, aged ≥ 16 years for safety and ≥ 12 years for efficacy, who had any history of neoplasm at baseline (data cut-off: March 13, 2021). Adverse-event (AE) data are controlled for follow-up time before unblinding and reported as incidence rates (IRs) per 100 person-years follow-up.

Results

At baseline, 3813 participants had a history of neoplasm; most common malignancies were breast (n = 460), prostate (n = 362), and melanoma (n = 223). Four BNT162b2 and 71 placebo recipients developed COVID-19 from 7 days post-dose 2; vaccine efficacy was 94.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 98.5) after up to 6 months’ follow-up post-dose 2. This compares favorably with vaccine efficacy of 91.1% in the overall trial population after the same follow-up. AEs were reported at IRs of 95.4 (BNT162b2) and 48.3 (placebo) per 100 person-years. Most common AEs were reactogenicity events (injection-site pain, fatigue, pyrexia). Three BNT162b2 and 1 placebo recipients withdrew because of vaccine-related AEs. No vaccine-related deaths were reported.

Conclusion

In participants with past or active neoplasms, BNT162b2 vaccine has a similar efficacy and safety profile as in the overall trial population. These results can inform BNT162b2 use during the COVID-19 pandemic and future trials in participants with cancer.

Clinical trial number: NCT04368728.

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in Gynecologic Oncology Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study

Objective: To evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in gynecologic oncology patients under chemotherapy. Methods: A prospective cohort study including gynecologic oncology women who were under chemotherapy or had completed it within 6 months at the time of the study. All patients received a two-dose schedule of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Results were compared with a control group of healthy women vaccinated in the same period. Results: Overall, 44 oncologic patients with a mean age of 61.3 ± 10.7 years were enrolled: 28 (63.6%) had ovarian cancer, 9 (20.4%) endometrial, and 7 (16%) cervical. The IgG antibody titer after 1 month from vaccination was low in 9 (20.5%) patients, moderate in 21 (47.7%), and high in 14 (31.8%). The 3-month titer was null in 2 (4.5%) patients, low in 26 (59.1%), moderate in 13 (29.5%), and high in 3 (6.8%). Patients ≥ 50 years reported lower 1-month (p = 0.018) and 3-month (p = 0.004) titers compared with <50 years. Patients with BMI < 30 kg/m² had a higher 1-month titer compared with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² (p = 0.016). Compared with healthy women (n = 44), oncologic patients showed a lower 3-month titer (p < 0.001). None of the patients experienced serious adverse effects. Conclusions: The COVID-19 vaccine was safe and immunogenic in gynecologic oncology patients under chemotherapy. Serological monitoring and further vaccine shots should be considered to boost protection.