Patients with cancer have an increased risk of severe disease and mortality from COVID-19, as the disease and antineoplastic therapy cause reduced vaccine immunogenicity. Booster doses have been proposed to enhance protection, and efficacy data are emerging from several studies.To evaluate the proportion of COVID-19 primary vaccination non-responders with cancer who seroconvert after a booster dose.PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and medRxiv were searched from 1st January 2021 to 10th March 2022. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklist.After the eligibility assessment, 22 studies were included in this systematic review and 17 for meta-analysis of seroconversion in non-responders, pooling a total of 849 patients with haematological cancer and 82 patients with solid cancer. Haematological cancer non-responders exhibited lower seroconversion at 44% (95% CI 36-53%) than solid cancer at 80% (95% CI 69-87%). Individual patient data meta-analysis found the odds of having a meaningful rise in antibody titres to be significantly associated with increased duration between the second and third dose (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P ≤ 0.05), age of patient (OR 0.960, 95% CI 0.934-0.987, P ≤ 0.05) and cancer type. With patients with haematological cancer as a reference, patients with lung cancer had 16.8 times the odds of achieving a meaningful increase in antibody titres (OR 16.8, 95% CI 2.95-318, P ≤ 0.05) and gastrointestinal cancer patients had 25.4 times the odds of achieving a meaningful increase in antibody titres (OR 25.4, 95% CI 5.26-492.21, P ≤ 0.05).administration of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose is effective in improving seroconversion and antibody levels. Patients with haematological cancer consistently demonstrate poorer response to booster vaccines than patients with solid cancer. 

http://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959804922003082/pdf

Booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with haematological and solid cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

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

/pdf/vaccination-for-the-prevention-of-infection-among-2e6wlcpm.pdf

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

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has severely impacted on public health, mainly on immunosuppressed patients, including solid organ transplant recipients. Vaccination represents a valuable tool for the prevention of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the immunogenicity of mRNA vaccines has been evaluated in transplanted patients. In this study, we investigated the role of a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine in a cohort of kidney transplant recipients, analyzing both humoral and cell-mediated responses. We observed an increased immune response after the third dose of the vaccine, especially in terms of Spike-specific T cell response. The level of seroconversion remained lower than 50% even after the administration of the third dose. Mycophenolate treatment, steroid administration and age seemed to be associated with a poor immune response. In our cohort, 11/45 patients experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection after the third vaccine dose. HLA antibodies appearance was recorded in 7 out 45 (15.5%) patients, but none of the patients developed acute renal rejection. Further studies for the evaluation of long-term immune responses are still ongoing, and the impact of a fourth dose of the vaccine will be evaluated.

/pdf/effect-of-a-third-dose-of-sars-cov-2-mrna-bnt162b2-vaccine-35oieybp.pdf

Effect of a Third Dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA BNT162b2 Vaccine on Humoral and Cellular Responses and Serum Anti-HLA Antibodies in Kidney Transplant Recipients

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2022.100371

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster in solid organ transplant recipients previously immunised with inactivated versus mRNA vaccines: A prospective cohort study

http://www.amjtransplant.org/article/S1600613522299195/pdf

Heterologous Ad.26.COV2.S versus homologous BNT162b2/mRNA-1273 as a third dose in solid organ transplant recipients seronegative after two-dose mRNA vaccination

Resection of Recurrent Pelvic Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Is the Risk Worth the Reward?

Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) present a surgical challenge with high rates of local recurrence (LR). We investigated the role of intraoperative electron radiotherapy (IOeRT) in reducing LR after surgical resection of RPS.A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent surgical resection for RPS between 2014 and 2021 at a tertiary academic referral center (n = 172). Patients included underwent surgical resection of their RPS and received IOeRT (n = 36) and were compared by case control matching to patients with similar tumor characteristics (recurrence status and tumor grade) that did not receive IOeRT (n = 36).The median length of hospitalization was 8 days (range, 4-34) in the IOeRT group and 10 days (range, 2-42) in the non-IOeRT group (p = 0.25). The mean operating room (OR) time was 4h (±1.3) and 4h (±1.9) in the IOeRT and non-IOeRT groups respectively, (p = 0.37). Complete resection with R0 margins was achieved in 30 patients (83.3%) and 24 patients (66.6%) in the IOeRT and non-IOeRT groups, respectively (p = 0.1). R1 resection was achieved in 6 patients (16.6%) and 12 patients (33.3%) respectively, (p = 0.1). The resected organ weighted score was significantly different between the groups; score 0 observed in 19 (52.7%) patients in the IOeRT group and 3 (8.3%) in the non-IOeRT group (p < 0.001), score 1 observed in 7 (19.4%) in the IOeRT group and 17 (47.2%) in the non-IOeRT group (p = 0.012). The rate of severe complications (CD score>3) did not differ between the groups, 5 (13.8%) patients in the IOeRT group and 9 (25%) patients in the non-IOeRT group (p = 0.23). No radiation associated complications were noted. The 2-year local recurrence free survival (LRFS) was 75.9% in the IOeRT group and 60.3% in the non-IOeRT group (p = 0.4). The 2-year IOeRT field recurrent free survival (IRFS) was 88.4% in the IOeRT group and 60.3% in the non-IOeRT group (p = 0.04).The use of IOeRT did not increase the rate of surgical complications and was associated with superior local control in the radiation field, improved organ preservation without an impact on overall survival. 

IOeRT in retroperitoneal sarcoma: Towards more organ preservation with comparable oncological outcomes.

Solid organ transplant recipients were demonstrated to have reduced antibody response to the first and second doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. This review evaluated published data on the efficacy and safety of the third dose among solid organ transplant recipients. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science to retrieve studies evaluating the efficacy of the third dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in adult solid organ transplant recipients. Serologic response after the third vaccine was pooled using inverse variance and generalized linear mixed and random-effects models. Seven studies met our inclusion criteria. A total of 853 patients received the third dose. Except for one randomized controlled trial, all studies were retrospective in design. Following the third COVID-19 vaccine dose, antibody response occurred in 6.4–69.2% of patients. The pooled proportion of antibody response rate after the third vaccine was 50.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 37.1–63.5, I2 = 90%). Five papers reported the safety profile. No severe adverse events were observed after the third vaccine dose. In conclusion, a third dose of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients is associated with improved immunogenicity and appears to be safe. Nevertheless, a significant portion of patients remain seronegative.

/pdf/efficacy-and-safety-of-third-dose-of-the-covid-19-vaccine-3bcydpuc.pdf

Efficacy and Safety of Third Dose of the COVID-19 Vaccine among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Mirit Halfon

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Resection of Recurrent Pelvic Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Is the Risk Worth the Reward?

IOeRT in retroperitoneal sarcoma: Towards more organ preservation with comparable oncological outcomes.

Efficacy and Safety of Third Dose of the COVID-19 Vaccine among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis