Background Data on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with malignancy are immature. In this paper, we assessed the literature involving the use of COVID-19 vaccines in cancer patients and reported the seroconversion rates as the main outcome and severity of COVID-19 infection and side effects following COVID-19 vaccination as the secondary outcomes. Methods A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. Searches were conducted in electronic websites, databases, and journals, including Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 01, 2019, to November 30, 2021. Studies reporting data on the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccine in cancer patients using any human samples were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the NEWCASTLE-OTTAWA scale in the included studies. Results A total of 724 articles were identified from databases, out of which 201 articles were duplicates and were discarded. Subsequently, 454 articles were excluded through initial screening of the titles and abstracts. Moreover, 41 studies did not report the precise seroconversion rate either based on the type of cancer or after injection of a second dose of COVID vaccine. Finally, 28 articles met all the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. The overall seroconversion rates after receiving a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine, based on type of cancer were 88% (95% CI, 81%-92%) and 70% (95% CI, 60%-79%) in patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, respectively. Conclusion Overall, we conclude that vaccination against COVID-19 in patients with active malignancies using activated and inactivated vaccines is a safe and tolerable procedure that is also accompanied by a high efficacy.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.860238/pdf

COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Malignancy; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety

Abstract Background Safety data reported from the large-scale clinical trials of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine are extremely limited in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. The vaccination campaign in this specific population could be difficult due to uncertainty about the adverse events following vaccination. We aimed to assessed the COVID-19 vaccination rate, factors associated with unvaccinated status, and the adverse events following vaccination in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Methods This is a retrospective study from Ruijin Hospial (Shanghai, China) on an ongoing prospective cohort designed for long-term survival analysis of decompensated cirrhotic patients who recovered from decompensating events or acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) between 2016 and 2018. We assessed the COVID-19 vaccination rate, the number of doses, type of vaccine, safety data, patient-reported reasons for remaining unvaccinated, factors associated with unvaccinated status, and the adverse events of COVID-19 vaccine. Binary logistic regression was used for identifying factors associated with unvaccinated status. Results A total of 229 patients with decompensated cirrhosis without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection participated (mean age, 56 ± 12.2 years, 75% male, 65% viral-related cirrhosis). Mode of decompensation were grade II‒III ascites (82.5%), gastroesophageal varices bleeding (7.9%), hepatic encephalopathy (7.9%). Eighty-five participants (37.1%) received at least one dose of vaccination (1 dose: n = 1, 2 doses: n = 65, 3 doses: n = 19) while 62.9% remained unvaccinated. Patient-reported reasons for remaining unvaccinated were mainly fear of adverse events (37.5%) and lack of positive advice from healthcare providers (52.1%). The experience of hepatic encephalopathy ( OR = 5.61, 95% CI : 1.24–25.4) or ACLF ( OR = 3.13, 95% CI : 1.12–8.69) and post-liver transplantation status ( OR = 2.47, 95% CI : 1.06–5.76) were risk factors of remaining unvaccinated independent of residential areas. The safety analysis demonstrated that 75.3% had no adverse events, 23.6% had non-severe reactions (20% injection-site pain, 1.2% fatigue, 2.4% rash) and 1.2% had a severe event (development of acute decompensation requiring hospitalization). Conclusions Patients with decompensated cirrhosis in eastern China are largely remained at unvaccinated status, particularly those with previous episodes of ACLF or hepatic encephalopathy and liver transplantation recipients. Vaccination against COVID-19 in this population is safe. Graphical Abstract 

/pdf/covid-19-vaccines-in-patients-with-decompensated-cirrhosis-a-1rf4xrs2.pdf

COVID-19 vaccines in patients with decompensated cirrhosis: a retrospective cohort on safety data and risk factors associated with unvaccinated status

Abstract Objective To determine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in a large cohort of new cancer patients referred to an oncology clinic in the north of Iran. Methods During the 20-month COVID-19 pandemic, new cancer patients were followed-up. Demographic, pathologic, and clinical variables were collected for each patient. COVID-19 was confirmed based on a positive polymerase chain reaction test. Analyses were performed using the STATA version 14.0 at a significance level of 0.05. Results In this study, 1294 new cancer patients were followed for 24 months (mean age: 58.7 years [range 10–95]). During the study period, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 9.4% of the patients with hospitalization rate of 3.4%, an ICU admission rate of 0.7%, and COVID-19 mortality rate of 4.9%. Hematological malignancies (ORU= 2.6, CI95% 1.28–5.34), receiving palliative treatments (ORA=3.03, CI95% 1.6–5.45) and receiving radiotherapy (ORA=2.07, 1.17–3.65) were the most common predictive factors of COVID infection in cancer patients. Also, the COVID mortality was higher in brain cancer patients (p = 0.07), metastatic disease (p = 0.01) and patients receiving palliative treatments (p = 0.02). Conclusion In patients suffering from cancer, COVID-19 infection can be predicted by cancer type, palliative care, and radiotherapy in cancer patients. Furthermore, brain cancers, metastasis, and palliative care were all associated with COVID-19-related mortality.

http://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923753422019196/pdf

41P Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in 1295 new cancer patients: Single-center, prospective cohort study from Iran

ABSTRACT Patients with solid cancer have an increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the currently available evidence about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with solid cancer. We included prospective studies comparing the immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines between patients with solid cancer and healthy individuals. Relative risks of seroconversion after the first and second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were separately pooled with the use of random effects meta-analysis. Thirty studies with 11,245 subjects met the inclusion criteria. After first vaccine dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy individuals was 0.54 (95% CI 0.38–0.78, I 2  = 94%). After a second dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy controls was 0.87 (0.86–0.88, I 2  = 87%). Our review suggests that, compared with healthy individuals, COVID-19 vaccines show favorable immunogenicity and efficacy in patients with solid cancer. A second dose is associated with significantly improved seroconversion, although it is slightly lower in patients with solid cancer compared with healthy individuals. Graphical abstract

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21645515.2022.2119763?needAccess=true

Seroconversion rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The COVID‐19 pandemic has disrupted medical care, increased isolation, and exacerbated anxiety in breast cancer patients. Since March 2020, Breastcancer.org experienced a sustained surge in requested pandemic‐related information and support. To characterize the pandemic‐related experiences of breast cancer patients, we surveyed the Breastcancer.org Community early in the COVID‐19 era.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538212

Risk factors for heightened COVID‐19‐Related anxiety among breast cancer patients

Aim To determine the efficacy and safety of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) in patients with breast cancer. Methods In this multi- institutional cohort study, a total of 160 breast cancer patients (mean age of 50.01 ± 11.5 years old) were assessed for the SARS-CoV-2 Anti-Spike IgG and SARS-CoV2 Anti RBD IgG by ELISA after two doses of 0.5 mL inactivated, COVID-19 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV). All patients were followed up for three months for clinical COVID-19 infection based on either PCR results or imaging findings. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were used to assess the side effects. Results The presence of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG, SARS-CoV2 anti-RBD IgG, or either of these antibodies was 85.7%, 87.4%, and 93.3%. The prevalence of COVID-19 infection after vaccination was 0.7%, 0% and 0% for the first, second and third months of the follow-up period. The most common local and systemic side-effects were injection site pain and fever which were presented in 22.3% and 24.3% of patients, respectively. Discussion The inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) is a tolerable and effective method to prevent COVID-19.

/pdf/a-cohort-study-on-the-immunogenicity-and-safety-of-the-1vl9dwq1.pdf

A Cohort Study on the Immunogenicity and Safety of the Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) in Patients With Breast Cancer; Does Trastuzumab Interfere With the Outcome?

The Anti-Helicobacter pylori effects of Limosilactobacillus reuteri strain 2892 isolated from Camel milk in C57BL/6 mice

212P A cohort study on the immunogenicity and safety of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) in patients with breast cancer: Does trastuzumab interfere with the outcome?

Epididymal leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is a rare malignancy. Because the risk of recurrence is high, proper approach is important. Here, we present a patient with scrotal swelling who underwent surgical excision via scrotal incision, and the histopathological diagnosis was epididymal LMS. The decision was then made to perform inguinal radical orchiectomy.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/ccr3.5511

Epididymal leiomyosarcoma: Report of a rare case

Abstract Objective To evaluate the diagnostic mismatch (discrepancy) of pathology reports in consulted specimens referred for second opinion. Materials and Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted at a major cancer center, Omid Hospital. In this study, 350 primary pathology reports and 350 reviewed pathology reports were extracted from the archives of Omid Hospital from 2011 to 2020 and assessed in terms of the extent of discrepancy, by two pathologists and one oncologist. The required data for each sample were entered into a checklist and then statistically analyzed. Cases with the same diagnosis on both reports were assigned to the matched group and the rest were assigned to the minor or major mismatch (discrepancy) group. Minor mismatches included changes in diagnosis that did not lead to changes in treatment (may lead to changes in prognosis or provide additional information to the oncologist) and major mismatches included changes in diagnosis leading to changes in treatment or remedies. Results Two hundred seven cases (59.1%) out of three hundred fifty cases had concordant results between the diagnosis of the first pathologist and the reviewing pathologist. In one hundred forty-three cases (40.9%) mismatch (discrepancy) was observed, including eighty- two cases (23.4%) with minor mismatches (discrepancy) and sixty-one cases (17.4%) with major mismatches (discrepancy). In the major mismatch group, fifteen cases (4.3%) changed from malignant to benign, eighteen cases (5.1%) changed from benign to malignant, two cases (0.6%) changed from one stage to another stage of Disease and twenty-six cases (7.4%) had changes in the type of malignancy. In this study, it was found that there was no significant relationship between anatomical areas of sampling and diagnostic mismatch (p = 0.254). The study also found that the rate of diagnostic mismatch in specimens obtained by resection or excisional biopsy was greater than that of small biopsies (eighty cases (22.8%) and sixty-two cases (17.7%, respectively)). There was no significant relationship in this regard (p = 0.077). Conclusion Compared to most similar studies, the present study reported the highest discrepancy between the diagnosis of the first pathologist and the reviewing pathologist (40.9%).

M. Ariamanesh

Papers

A Cohort Study on the Immunogenicity and Safety of the Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) in Patients With Breast Cancer; Does Trastuzumab Interfere With the Outcome?

The Anti-Helicobacter pylori effects of Limosilactobacillus reuteri strain 2892 isolated from Camel milk in C57BL/6 mice

212P A cohort study on the immunogenicity and safety of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) in patients with breast cancer: Does trastuzumab interfere with the outcome?

Epididymal leiomyosarcoma: Report of a rare case

Pathology Reports: Discrepancy Patterns of Second Opinions in a Referral Cancer Center