INfluenza Vaccine Indication During therapy with Immune checkpoint inhibitors: a transversal challenge. The INVIDIa study

Improving Influenza Vaccination Coverage in Patients with Cancer: A Position Paper from a Multidisciplinary Expert Group

Patients with cancer can be immunocompromised because of their disease and/or due to anticancer therapy. In this population, severe influenza virus infections are associated with an elevated risk of morbidity and mortality. Influenza vaccination is therefore highly recommended in cancer patients, including those receiving anticancer therapy. However, vaccination coverage remains far below the recommended target for vulnerable subjects. Six specialists in oncology, hematology, immunology, and public health/vaccinology convened with the objective of developing strategies, based on evidence and clinical experience, for improving influenza vaccination coverage in cancer patients. This viewpoint provides an overview of current influenza vaccination recommendations in cancer patients, discusses barriers to vaccination coverage, and presents strategies for overcoming said barriers. New immunization issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic are also addressed. Future directions include improving public education on influenza vaccination, providing the media with accurate information, improving knowledge among healthcare professionals, improving access to vaccines for cancer patients, co-administration of the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines, increased collaboration between oncologists and other health professionals, increased accessibility of digital vaccination registries to specialists, shared information platforms, and promoting immunization campaigns by healthcare systems with the support of scientific societies.

Immune-related adverse events and disease outcomes after the third dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-BNT162b2 vaccine in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

The clinical implications of the third dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently unknown. We performed a prospective analysis of the Vax-On-Third study to investigate the effects of antibody response on immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and disease outcomes.

METHODS

Recipients of the booster dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-BNT162b2 vaccine who had received at least one course of an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment before vaccination for an advanced solid malignancy were eligible.

RESULTS

The current analysis included 56 patients with metastatic disease (median age: 66 years; male: 71%), most of whom had a lung cancer diagnosis and were being treated with pembrolizumab- or nivolumab-based regimens. The optimal cut-point antibody titer of 486 BAU/mL allowed a dichotomization of recipients into low-responders (Low-R, < 486 BAU/mL) or high-responders (High-R, ≥ 486 BAU/mL). After a median follow-up time of 226 days, 21.4% of patients experienced moderate to severe irAEs without any recrudescence of immune toxicities preceding the booster dose. The frequencies of irAE before and after the third dose did not differ, but an increase in the cumulative incidence of immuno-related thyroiditis was observed within the High-R subgroup. On multivariate analysis, an enhanced humoral response correlated with a better outcome in terms of durable clinical benefit, which resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of disease control loss but not mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings would strengthen the recommendation not to change anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment plans based on current or future immunization schedules, implying that all these patients should be closely monitored.

Pleiotropic Effects of Influenza Vaccination

Influenza vaccines are designed to mimic natural influenza virus exposure and stimulate a long-lasting immune response to future infections. The evolving nature of the influenza virus makes vaccination an important and efficacious strategy to reduce healthcare-related complications of influenza. Several lines of evidence indicate that influenza vaccination may induce nonspecific effects, also referred to as heterologous or pleiotropic effects, that go beyond protection against infection. Different explanations are proposed, including the upregulation and downregulation of cytokines and epigenetic reprogramming in monocytes and natural killer cells, imprinting an immunological memory in the innate immune system, a phenomenon termed "trained immunity". Also, cross-reactivity between related stimuli and bystander activation, which entails activation of B and T lymphocytes without specific recognition of antigens, may play a role. In this review, we will discuss the possible nonspecific effects of influenza vaccination in cardiovascular disease, type 1 diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease, future research questions, and potential implications. A discussion of the potential effects on infections by other pathogens is beyond the scope of this review.

Chinese expert consensus recommendations for the administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors to special cancer patient populations

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting programmed cell death 1, programmed cell death ligand 1, and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 have shown significantly durable clinical benefits and tolerable toxicities and have improved the survival of patients with various types of cancer. Since 2018, the National Medical Products Administration of China has approved 17 ICIs as the standard treatment for certain advanced or metastatic solid tumors. As ICIs represent a broad-spectrum antitumor strategy, the populations eligible for cancer immunotherapy are rapidly expanding. However, the clinical applications of ICIs in cancer patient populations with special issues, a term that refers to complex subgroups of patients with comorbidities, special clinical conditions, or concomitant medications who are routinely excluded from prospective clinical trials of ICIs or are underrepresented in these trials, represent a great real-world challenge. Although the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) has provided recommendations for screening before the use of ICIs in special populations, the recommendations for full-course management remain insufficient. The CSCO Expert Committee on Immunotherapy organized leading medical oncology and multidisciplinary experts to develop a consensus that will serve as an important reference for clinicians to guide the proper application of ICIs in special patient populations. This article is a translation of a study first published in Chinese in The Chinese Clinical Oncology (ISSN 1009-0460, CN 32-1577/R) in May 2022 (27(5):442-454). The publisher of the original paper has provided written confirmation of permission to publish this translation in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology.

Changes in Peripheral Immune Cells after the Third Dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-BNT162b2 Vaccine and Disease Outcomes in Cancer Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Prospective Analysis of the Vax-on-Third-Profile Study

BACKGROUND

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines can deeply affect cell-mediated immune responses in immunocompromised recipients, including cancer patients receiving active treatments. The clinical implications of changes in peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets following the third dose of mRNA-BNT162b2 vaccination (tozinameran) in patients on immune checkpoint blockade are not fully understood. We conducted a prospective analysis of the Vax-On-Third-Profile study to evaluate the impact of circulating lymphocyte dynamics on disease outcomes in this subgroup of patients.

METHODS

Recipients of booster dosing who had received before vaccination at least one course of an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment for an advanced solid tumor were eligible. Immunophenotyping of peripheral blood was performed before the third dose of tozinameran (timepoint-1) and four weeks later (timepoint-2) to quantify the absolute counts of lymphocyte subpopulations, including CD3⁺CD4⁺ T cells, CD3⁺CD8⁺ T cells, B cells, and NK cells. Logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between lymphocyte subsets and durable clinical benefit (DCB). The log-rank test and Cox regression model were applied to evaluate the relationship between lymphocyte subpopulations and both vaccine-related time-to-treatment failure (V-TTF) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

We included a total of 56 patients with metastatic disease who were given a third dose of tozinameran between 23 September and 7 October 2021 (median age: 66 years; male: 71%). Most recipients had a diagnosis of lung cancer and were being treated with pembrolizumab or nivolumab. Compared to baseline, the third immunization resulted in an incremental change in the median counts of all lymphocyte subpopulations, which was statistically significant only for NK cells (p < 0.001). A significant correlation was found between NK cell counts and DCB at timepoint-2 (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis of DCB confirmed the predictive significance of high-level NK cell counts (p = 0.020). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, high-level NK cell counts independently predicted longer V-TTF [HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.14-0.80), p = 0.014] and OS [HR 0.36 (95% CI 0.15-0.89), p = 0.027].

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest expansion of NK cell counts as the most noteworthy change in circulating lymphocytes after the third dose of tozinameran in cancer patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1-targeted agents. This change correlated with enhanced therapeutic efficacy, improving the rate of disease control, and prolonging survival outcomes. Similar findings have not been previously reported, implying that they have proof-of-concept value and warrant further confirmation.

Impact of influenza vaccination on survival of patients with advanced cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (INVIDIa-2): final results of the multicentre, prospective, observational study

Background

The prospective multicentre observational INVIDIa-2 study investigated the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). In this secondary analysis of the original trial, we aimed to assess the outcomes of patients to immunotherapy based on vaccine administration.

Methods

The original study enrolled patients with advanced solid tumours receiving ICI at 82 Italian Oncology Units from Oct 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2020. The trial's primary endpoint was the time-adjusted incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) until April 30, 2020, the results of which were reported previously. Secondary endpoints (data cut-off Jan 31, 2022) included the outcomes of patients to immunotherapy based on vaccine administration, for which the final results are reported herein. A propensity score matching by age, sex, performance status, primary tumour site, comorbidities, and smoking habits was planned for the present analysis. Only patients with available data for these variables were included. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease-control rate (DCR).

Findings

The original study population consisted of 1188 evaluable patients. After a propensity score matching, 1004 patients were considered (502 vaccinated and 502 unvaccinated), and 986 of them were evaluable for overall survival (OS). At the median follow-up of 20 months, the influenza vaccination demonstrated a favourable impact on the outcome receiving ICI in terms of median OS [27.0 months (CI 19.5-34.6) in vaccinated vs. 20.9 months (16.6-25.2) in unvaccinated, p = 0.003], median progression-free survival [12.5 months (CI 10.4-14.6) vs. 9.6 months (CI 7.9-11.4), p = 0.049], and disease-control rate (74.7% vs. 66.5%, p = 0.005). The multivariable analyses confirmed the favourable impact of influenza vaccination in terms of OS (HR 0.75, 95% C.I. 0.62-0.92; p = 0.005) and DCR (OR 1.47, 95% C.I. 1.11-1.96; p = 0.007).

Interpretation

The INVIDIa-2 study results suggest a favourable immunological impact of influenza vaccination on the outcome of cancer patients receiving ICI immunotherapy, further encouraging the vaccine recommendation in this population and supporting translational investigations about the possible synergy between antiviral and antitumour immunity.

Funding

The Federation of Italian Cooperative Oncology Groups (FICOG), Roche S.p.A., and Seqirus.

The implication of anti-PD-1 therapy in cancer patients for the vaccination against viral and other infectious diseases

The phenomenon of 'T cell exhaustion', a state of T cell dysfunction observed during chronic infections and cancers, has been a major obstacle in mounting appropriate immune responses against infectious agents or tumor antigens. The exhausted T cells are characterized by poor effector functions mainly due to the overexpression of inhibitory receptors such as programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), T cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing 3 (TIM3), lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG3), and T cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif (ITIM) domain (TIGIT), commonly referred to as immune checkpoint (ICP) molecules. ICP blockade, especially of PD-1 that can potentially reverse T cell exhaustion and thereby re-stimulate the impaired immune system, is widely used in clinics as a promising therapeutic strategy for various cancers and is more recently being investigated in infectious diseases as well. In fact, cancer patients represent a population of immunocompromised individuals who are more susceptible to infections and associated complications, and thus the need for protective vaccinations against these diseases is of prime importance in this category. When it comes to vaccinating anti-PD-1-treated cancer patients against infectious diseases including COVID-19 and influenza, a special focus should be brought on the revived immune cells, which could be dynamically affected by the antigenic stimulation. However, since cancer patients are not generally included in clinical trials for designing vaccines against infectious diseases, the possible interaction between vaccine immune responses and ICP therapy is largely unexplored. Mechanistically, the reversal of T cell exhaustion by ICP in an otherwise immunocompromised population could be beneficial for the vaccine's efficacy, helping the immune system to mount a robust immune response. Nevertheless, patients with cancer undergoing anti-PD-1 blockade are known to experience immune-related adverse effects (irAEs). The risk of increasing the irAEs due to the overstimulation of the immune system during vaccination is a major concern. Therefore, while routine vaccination is indispensable for the protection of cancer patients, the impact of PD-1 blockade on vaccine responses against infectious agents requires careful consideration to avoid undesirable adverse effects that could impair the efficacy of anti-cancer treatment.

Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 Axis Inhibition in Viral Infections: Clinical Data and Therapeutic Opportunities

A vital function of the immune system is the modulation of an evolving immune response. It is responsible for guarding against a wide variety of pathogens as well as the establishment of memory responses to some future hostile encounters. Simultaneously, it maintains self-tolerance and minimizes collateral tissue damage at sites of inflammation. In recent years, the regulation of T-cell responses to foreign or self-protein antigens and maintenance of balance between T-cell subsets have been linked to a distinct class of cell surface and extracellular components, the immune checkpoint molecules. The fact that both cancer and viral infections exploit similar, if not the same, immune checkpoint molecules to escape the host immune response highlights the need to study the impact of immune checkpoint blockade on viral infections. More importantly, the process through which immune checkpoint blockade completely changed the way we approach cancer could be the key to decipher the potential role of immunotherapy in the therapeutic algorithm of viral infections. This review focuses on the effect of programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 blockade on the outcome of viral infections in cancer patients as well as the potential benefit from the incorporation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in treatment of viral infections.

Insomnia in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for cancer: A meta-analysis

Purpose

Insomnia in cancer patients is a common symptom contributing to poor quality of life and poor functioning. Sleep disturbances have been associated with inflammatory activity, and systemic cancer therapies chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and immunotherapy may cause insomnia. We have carried out a meta-analysis to estimate the occurrence of insomnia in patients with solid cancer treated with immunotherapy using checkpoint inhibitors (CPI).

Methods

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for phase 3 studies in solid tumours where treatment included a checkpoint inhibitor in the experimental arm. Data on the incidence of insomnia were acquired from the adverse events tables available from clinicaltrials.gov and/or from the full texts. Random effect logistic model was used to compare pooled data. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochrane Q statistics and I2 statistics.

Results

A total of 54 studies (including six three-arm studies) involving 37,352 patients were included in the analysis. Insomnia was reported in 8.3% of subjects (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.0%-8.7%) treated with immunotherapy. Insomnia was significantly more common in patients receiving immunotherapy compared to those enrolled in study arms with inactive treatment (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.13-1.96). The odds for insomnia were similar between the arms for studies comparing CPI versus chemotherapy and CPI versus non-immunologic targeted therapies (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.94-1.22 and OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.90-2.18, respectively). The OR for insomnia was higher for cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) receptor inhibitors compared to the inhibitors of programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 – 1.74).

Conclusion

Cancer immunotherapy using CPI is associated with insomnia but the odds of developing the symptom are not greater with immunotherapy than with other systemic modalities including chemotherapy and non-immunologic targeted therapies.

PD-1 directed immunotherapy alters Tfh and humoral immune responses to seasonal influenza vaccine

Anti-programmed death-1 (anti-PD-1) immunotherapy reinvigorates CD8 T cell responses in patients with cancer but PD-1 is also expressed by other immune cells, including follicular helper CD4 T cells (Tfh) which are involved in germinal centre responses. Little is known, however, about the effects of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy on noncancer immune responses in humans. To investigate this question, we examined the impact of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy on the Tfh-B cell axis responding to unrelated viral antigens. Following influenza vaccination, a subset of adults receiving anti-PD-1 had more robust circulating Tfh responses than adults not receiving immunotherapy. PD-1 pathway blockade resulted in transcriptional signatures of increased cellular proliferation in circulating Tfh and responding B cells compared with controls. These latter observations suggest an underlying change in the Tfh-B cell and germinal centre axis in a subset of immunotherapy patients. Together, these results demonstrate dynamic effects of anti-PD-1 therapy on influenza vaccine responses and highlight analytical vaccination as an approach that may reveal underlying immune predisposition to adverse events.

Safety and Efficacy of Influenza Vaccination in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

The potential increased risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) post-influenza vaccine is a concern in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of studies reporting the effects of influenza vaccination in patients with cancer during ICI treatment. We searched five electronic databases until 01/2022. Two authors independently selected studies, appraised their quality, and collected data. The primary outcome was the determination of pooled irAE rates. Secondary outcomes included determination of immunogenicity and influenza infection rates and cancer-related outcomes. Nineteen studies (26 publications, n = 4705) were included; 89.5% were observational. Vaccinated patients reported slighter lower rates of irAEs compared to unvaccinated patients (32% versus 41%, respectively). Seroprotection for influenza type A was 78%-79%, and for type B was 75%. Influenza and irAE-related death rates were similar between groups. The pooled proportion of participants reporting a laboratory-confirmed infection was 2% (95% CI 0% to 6%), and influenza-like illness was 14% (95% CI 2% to 32%). No differences were reported on the rates of laboratory-confirmed infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Longer progression-free and overall survival was also observed in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated patients. Current evidence suggests that influenza vaccination is safe in patients receiving ICIs, does not increase the risk of irAEs, and may improve survival.

Clinical Outcomes after Immunotherapies in Cancer Setting during COVID-19 Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression

Background: This study aims to describe COVID-19–related clinical outcomes after immunotherapies (ICIs) for cancer patients. Methods: In this meta-analysis, we searched databases to collect data that addressed outcomes after immunotherapies (ICIs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary endpoint was COVID-19–related mortality. Secondary endpoints included COVID-related hospital readmission, emergency room (ER) visits, opportunistic infections, respiratory complications, need for ventilation, and thrombo-embolic events. Pooled event rates (PERs) were calculated and a meta-regression analysis was performed. Results: A total of 262 studies were identified. Twenty-two studies with a total of forty-four patients were eligible. The PER of COVID-19–related mortality was 39.73%, while PERs of COVID-19–related ER visits, COVID-19–related pulmonary complications, and COVID-19–related ventilator needs were 40.75%, 40.41%, and 34.92%, respectively. The PER of opportunistic infections was 34.92%. The PERs of the use of antivirals, antibiotics, steroids, prophylactic anticoagulants, and convalescent plasma were 62.12%, 57.12%, 51.36%, 41.90%, and 26.48%, respectively. There was a trend toward an association between previous respiratory diseases and COVID-19–related mortality. Conclusion: The rates of COVID-19–related mortality, ER visits, pulmonary complications, need for a ventilator, and opportunistic infections are still high after ICIs during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a trend toward an association between previous respiratory diseases and COVID-19–related mortality.

Influenza Vaccination in Cancer Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination is not well-studied in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed aiming to summarize available data regarding influenza vaccination in ICI-treated cancer patients. Peer-reviewed studies or nonpeer-reviewed conference abstracts including ICI-treated cancer patients who received at least 1 dose of influenza vaccine were deemed eligible. A systematic search in PubMed/EMBASE was performed until October 26, 2021. Endpoints of interest included mortality as the primary outcome and secondary safety outcomes such as the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Twenty-five studies were included in the systematic review, among which 9 were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of 3 studies (n=589, weighted age 64 y, men 61%, influenza vaccinated 32%) showed pooled odds ratio for death in influenza vaccinated versus nonvaccinated patients at 1.25 [(95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.81-1.92), P=non significant (NS)]. Meta-analysis of 6 studies studies (n=1285, weighted age 60 y, men 59%, influenza vaccinated 48%) showed pooled odds ratio for any irAEs in influenza vaccinated versus nonvaccinated patients at 0.82 [95% CI: 0.63-1.08, P=NS]. Similar results were observed in sensitivity analyses for serious irAEs, as well as when only peer-reviewed studies were included. Influenza vaccination appears to be a safe and reasonable intervention for cancer patients receiving ICIs. Most data are derived from retrospective observational studies. Randomized studies are needed to provide high-quality evidence.

Inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules and exhaustion of T cells in COVID-19

COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease) is an infectious disease caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (Severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2), which belongs to the genus Betacoronavirus. It was first identified in patients with severe respiratory disease in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. It mainly affects the respiratory system, and in severe cases causes serious lung infection or pneumonia, which can lead to the death of the patient. Clinical studies show that SARS-CoV-2 infection in critical cases causes acute tissue damage due to a pathological immune response. The immune response to a new coronavirus is complex and involves many processes of specific and non-specific immunity. Analysis of available studies has shown various changes, especially in the area of specific cellular immunity, including lymphopenia, decreased T cells (CD3+, CD4+ and CD8+), changes in the T cell compartment associated with symptom progression, deterioration of the condition and development of lung damage. We provide a detailed review of the analyses of immune checkpoint molecules PD-1, TIM-3, LAG-3 CTLA-4, TIGIT, BTLA, CD223, IDO-1 and VISTA on exhausted T cells in patients with asymptomatic to symptomatic stages of COVID-19 infection. Furthermore, this review may help to better understand the pathological T cell immune response and improve the design of therapeutic strategies for patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Predicting cardiac adverse events in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a machine learning approach

BACKGROUND

Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been associated with an increased rate of cardiac events. There are limited data on the risk factors that predict cardiac events in patients treated with ICIs. Therefore, we created a machine learning (ML) model to predict cardiac events in this at-risk population.

METHODS

We leveraged the CancerLinQ database curated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and applied an XGBoosted decision tree to predict cardiac events in patients taking programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) therapy. All curated data from patients with non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, and renal cell carcinoma, and who were prescribed PD-1/PD-L1 therapy between 2013 and 2019, were used for training, feature interpretation, and model performance evaluation. A total of 356 potential risk factors were included in the model, including elements of patient medical history, social history, vital signs, common laboratory tests, oncological history, medication history and PD-1/PD-L1-specific factors like PD-L1 tumor expression.

RESULTS

Our study population consisted of 4960 patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, of whom 418 had a cardiac event. The following were key predictors of cardiac events: increased age, corticosteroids, laboratory abnormalities and medications suggestive of a history of heart disease, the extremes of weight, a lower baseline or on-treatment percentage of lymphocytes, and a higher percentage of neutrophils. The final model predicted cardiac events with an area under the curve-receiver operating characteristic of 0.65 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75). Using our model, we divided patients into low-risk and high-risk subgroups. At 100 days, the cumulative incidence of cardiac events was 3.3% in the low-risk group and 6.1% in the high-risk group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ML can be used to predict cardiac events in patients taking PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Cardiac risk was driven by immunological factors (eg, percentage of lymphocytes), oncological factors (eg, low weight), and a cardiac history.

Influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a concern that influenza vaccination may increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the available data on the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs.

METHODS

Studies reporting safety and efficacy outcomes of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs were included. Only descriptive statistics were conducted to obtain a pooled rate of immune-related adverse events in vaccinated patients.

RESULTS

Ten studies assessing the safety and eight assessing the efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs were identified, for a total of 1124 and 986 vaccinated patients, respectively. Most patients had melanoma or lung cancer and received a single agent anti-PD-1, but also other tumour types and immunotherapy combinations were represented. No severe vaccination-related toxicities were reported. The pooled incidence of any grade immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse events was 28.9%. In the 6 studies specifying the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicities, the pooled incidence was 7.5%. No grade 5 toxicities were reported. No pooled descriptive analysis was conducted in studies reporting efficacy outcomes due to the heterogeneity of endpoints and data reporting. Nevertheless, among the eight studies included, seven reported positive efficacy outcomes of influenza vaccination.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review support the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs. These results are particularly relevant in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Indications for and contraindications of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients with COVID-19 vaccination

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has lasted over 1 year and will not disappear in a short time. There is no specific remedy against the virus as yet. Vaccination is thus far one of the most important strategies for preventing COVID-19. Cancer patients with COVID-19 have a higher mortality because of immunosuppression. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a novel anticancer strategy for blocking inhibitory pathways, which are related to the immune response. There is a question regarding whether COVID-19 vaccination and ICI treatment impact each other in cancer patients. This review explores both sides of the relationship between ICI treatment and COVID-19 vaccination and suggests good efficacy and safety of ICI treatment after COVID-19 vaccination as well as little impact on the virus protection and toxicity associated with COVID-19 vaccination during ICI treatment.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has lasted over 1 year. Vaccination is a promising strategy for preventing COVID-19. Cancer patients are prone to infection with COVID-19, and these patients have high mortality. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a novel anticancer strategy. Whether COVID-19 vaccination and ICI treatment impact each other in cancer patients remains unknown. This review explores both sides of the relationship between ICI treatment and COVID-19 vaccination and suggests good efficacy and safety of ICI treatment after COVID-19 vaccination as well as little impact on the virus protection and toxicity associated with COVID-19 vaccination during ICI treatment.

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

Background

Until now, no robust data supported the efficacy, safety and recommendation for influenza vaccination in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

Methods

The prospective multicenter observational INfluenza Vaccine Indication During therapy with Immune checkpoint inhibitors (INVIDIa-2) study investigated the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs, enrolled in 82 Italian centers from October 2019 to January 2020. The primary endpoint was the time-adjusted incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) until April 30, 2020. Secondary endpoints regarded ILI severity and vaccine safety.

Results

The study enrolled 1279 patients; 1188 patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint analysis. Of them, 48.9% (581) received influenza vaccination. The overall ILI incidence was 8.2% (98 patients). Vaccinated patients were significantly more frequently elderly (p<0.0001), males (p=0.004), with poor European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (p=0.009), affected by lung cancer (p=0.01), and by other non-cancer comorbidities (p<0.0001) when compared with unvaccinated. ILI incidence was not different basing on influenza vaccination: the time-to-ILI was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients (p=0.62). ILI complications were significantly less frequent for patients receiving the vaccination (11.8% vs 38.3% in unvaccinated, p=0.002). ILI-related intravenous therapies were significantly less frequent in vaccinated patients than in unvaccinated (11.8% vs 29.8%, p=0.027). ILI lethality was, respectively, 0% in vaccinated and 4.3% in unvaccinated patients. Vaccine-related adverse events were rare and mild (1.5%, grades 1–2).

Conclusion

The INVIDIa-2 study results support a positive recommendation for influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving immunotherapy.

Repurposing Infectious Diseases Vaccines Against Cancer

Vaccines used to prevent infections have long been known to stimulate immune responses to cancer as illustrated by the approval of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine to treat bladder cancer since the 1970s. The recent approval of immunotherapies has rejuvenated this research area with reports of anti-tumor responses with existing infectious diseases vaccines used as such, either alone or in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we have reviewed and summarized research activities using approved vaccines to treat cancer. Data supporting a cancer therapeutic use was found for 16 vaccines. For 10 (BCG, diphtheria, tetanus, human papillomavirus, influenza, measles, pneumococcus, smallpox, typhoid and varicella-zoster), clinical trials have been conducted or are ongoing. Within the remaining 6, preclinical evidence supports further evaluation of the rotavirus, yellow fever and pertussis vaccine in carefully designed clinical trials. The mechanistic evidence for the cholera vaccine, combined with the observational data in colorectal cancer, is also supportive of clinical translation. There is limited data for the hepatitis B and mumps vaccine (without measles vaccine). Four findings are worth highlighting: the superiority of intravesical typhoid vaccine instillations over BCG in a preclinical bladder cancer model, which is now the subject of a phase I trial; the perioperative use of the influenza vaccine to limit and prevent the natural killer cell dysfunction induced by cancer surgery; objective responses following intratumoral injections of measles vaccine in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma; objective responses induced by human papillomavirus vaccine in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. All vaccines are intended to induce or improve an anti-tumor (immune) response. In addition to the biological and immunological mechanisms that vary between vaccines, the mode of administration and sequence with other (immuno-)therapies warrant more attention in future research.

Vaccination and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Does Vaccination Increase the Risk of Immune-related Adverse Events? A Systematic Review of Literature

INTRODUCTION

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become part of cancer treatments. Their main side effects are immune-related adverse events (irAEs). So far, there has been no recommendation regarding routine vaccinations during ICIs treatment. Clinicians are aware of the risk of irAEs increases in this specific situation. The aim of this review of literature is to summarize the main studies about vaccination and ICIs interactions.

METHODS

A systematic assessment of literature articles was performed by searching in PubMed (MEDLINE), and major oncology meeting following PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

This review highlights the lack of literature. Indeed, most of the studies published were about influenza vaccination. Vaccination for patients under ICIs causes a humoral response and seems to be associated with an increase rate of seroconversion. Interestingly vaccination may provoke irAEs in ICIs-treated patients. So far, inactivated vaccines have not been contraindicated during ICI treatment.

CONCLUSION

Larger prospective studies are needed in order to define a consensus on the use of vaccines under immunotherapy.

Safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer: focus on challenging populations

In recent years, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have represented one of the major breakthroughs in advanced non-small cell lung cancer treatment scenario. However, enrollment in registering clinical trials is usually restricted, since frail patients (i.e., elderly, individuals with poor performance status and/or active brain metastases), as well as patients with chronic infections or who take concurrent medications, such as steroids, are routinely excluded. Thus, safety and efficacy of ICIs for these subgroups have not been adequately assessed in clinical trials, although these populations often occur in clinical practice. We reviewed the available data regarding the use of ICIs in these 'special' populations, including a focus on the issues raised by the administration of immunotherapy in lung cancer patients infected with Sars-Cov-2.

Impact of influenza syndrome and flu vaccine on survival of cancer patients during immunotherapy in the INVIDIa study

Aim: INVIDIa was a retrospective, multicenter study, exploring the clinical efficacy of influenza vaccine in 300 cancer patients undergoing immunotherapy. Overall survival (OS) was immature at the initial report. Methods: We reported the final OS analysis from the original study population and within subgroups. Results: Both at the univariate and multivariate analysis, the occurrence of influenza syndrome (IS) was significantly related to better OS in the overall population (OR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.32-0.88]; p = 0.01). In the lung cancer subgroup, receiving flu vaccine and/or developing IS was related to better OS (p = 0.04). Within elderly patients, the flu vaccine was the main variable for the relative OS advantage (p = 0.05). Conclusion: Receiving the flu vaccine and/or developing IS was related to better OS within the INVIDIa population.

Association of immune checkpoint inhibitors with respiratory infections: A review

Treatment with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has shown efficacy against a variety of cancer types. The use of anti PD-1, anti PD-L1, and anti CTLA-4 antibodies is rapidly expanding. The side effects of ICIs are very different from conventional cytocidal anticancer and molecular target drugs, and may extend to the digestive organs, respiratory organs, thyroid gland, pituitary gland, skin, and others. Although the details of these adverse events are becoming increasingly apparent, much is unknown regarding the effects and adverse events related to infections. This review focuses specifically on the impact of ICIs on respiratory infections. The impact of ICIs on pathogens varies depending on the significance of the role of T-cell immunity in the immune response to the specific pathogen, as well as the different modes of infection (i.e., acute or chronic), although the impact of ICIs on the clinical outcome of infections in humans has not yet been well studied. Enhanced clearance of many pathogens has been shown because immune checkpoint inhibition activates T cells. In contrast, reactivation of tuberculosis associated with ICI use has been reported, and therefore caution is warranted. In COVID-19 pneumonia, ICI administration may lead to exacerbation; however, it is also possible that ICI may be used for the treatment of COVID-19. It has also been shown that ICI has potential in the treatment of intractable filamentous fungal infections. Therefore, expanded clinical applications are expected.

The Landscape of COVID-19 in Cancer Patients: Prevalence, Impacts, and Recommendations

Cancer patients are susceptible groups to COVID-19, and risk-adjusted models show that most cancer patients have a 25-39% mortality risk if infected with COVID-19. The infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in cancer patients in China was 0.79% (12 of 1524 patients; 95% CI, 0.31.2%). The case fatality rate of COVID-19 in the overall population ranges from 2.3 to 8.0%; among these, the case fatality rate for cancer patients is at 5.6%. In a retrospective cohort study of 28 COVID-19-infected cancer patients, a total of 15 (53.6%) patients had severe outcomes with a mortality rate of 28.6%. In a pooled analysis by Aakash et al, a 2% cancer prevalence was found among admitted patients with COVID-19. In Italy, a report shows that among the 3200 patients who died of SARS-CoV-2, 19.4% were patients with cancer. In New York, 61 (28%) cancer patients succumbed to COVID-19 with a case fatality rate of 37% (20/54) and 25% (41/164) for hematologic and solid malignancies, respectively. Impacts of COVID-19 in cancer care include interruptions of life-saving therapies, distraction effects, and diagnostic overshadowing that involve diverting attention to the pandemic rather than to cancer patients and disruptions of primary palliative care to patients due to forced quarantine. Herein, we review the landscape of COVID-19 in cancer care. We also briefly share our experience and the measures in place to protect cancer patients against COVID-19 in our center.

Consideration in the management of renal cell carcinoma during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction:

Recently the COVID-19 pandemic became the main global priority; main efforts and health infrastructures have been prioritized in favor of COVID-19 battle and the treatment of benign diseases has been postponed. Renal cell cancer (RCC) patients configure a heterogenous populations: some of them present indolent cases which can safely have postponed their treatments, others present aggressive tumors, deserving immediate care. These scenarios must be properly identified before a tailored therapeutic choice.

Objectives

We propose a risk- based approach for patients with RCC, to be used during this unprecedented viral infection time.

Materials and Methods:

After a literature review focused in COVID-19 and current RCC treatments, we suggest therapeutic strategies of RCC in two sections: surgical approach and systemic therapy, in all stages of this malignance.

Results:

Patients with cT1a tumors (and complex cysts, Bosniak III/IV), must be put under active surveillance and delayed intervention. cT1b-T2a/b cases must be managed by partial or radical nephrectomy, some selected T1b-T2a (≤7cm) cases can have the surgery postponed by 60-90 days). Locally advanced tumors (≥cT3 and or N+) must be promptly resected. As possible, minimally invasive surgery and early hospital discharge are encouraged. Upfront cytoreduction, is not recommendable for low risk oligometastatic patients, which must start systemic treatment or even could be put under surveillance and delayed therapy. Intermediate and poor risk metastatic patients must start target therapy and/or immunotherapy (few good responders intermediate cases can have postponed cytoreduction). The recommendation about hereditary RCC syndromes are lacking, thus we recommend its usual care. Local or loco regional recurrence must have individualized approaches. For all cases, we suggest the application of a specific informed consent and a shared therapeutic choice.

Conclusion:

In the pandemic COVID -19 times, a tailored risk-based approach must be used for a safe management of RCC, aiming to not compromise the oncological outcomes of the patients.

On the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with viral infections including COVID-19

The present review summarizes up-to-date evidence addressing the frequently discussed clinical controversies regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients with viral infections, including AIDS, hepatitis B and C, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, influenza, and COVID-19. In detail, we provide available information on (1) safety regarding the risk of new infections, (2) effects on the outcome of pre-existing infections, (3) whether immunosuppressive drugs used to treat ICI-related adverse events affect the risk of infection or virulence of pre-existing infections, (4) whether the use of vaccines in ICI-treated patients is considered safe, and (5) whether there are beneficial effects of ICIs that even qualify them as a therapeutic approach for these viral infections.

Palliative radiotherapy in advanced cancer patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors: The PRACTICE study

In the present study, the influence of purely palliative radiotherapy (pRT) on the outcomes of patients with advanced cancer undergoing immune checkpoint blockade was evaluated. Patients were stratified into three groups: Patients who had received pRT within 6 months prior to the initiation of immunotherapy (previous pRT); patients who received pRT during immunotherapy (concurrent pRT); and patients who did not receive RT prior to or during immunotherapy (no RT group), and these groups were compared. The median overall survival (mOS), median progression free survival (mPFS) and median time-to-treatment failure (mTTF) for the previous pRT group were significantly shorter compared with the no RT group (mOS, 3.6 vs. 12.1 months, respectively, P=0.0095; mPFS 1.8 vs. 5.4 months, respectively, P=0.0016; mTTF 1.8 vs. 5.7 months, respectively, P=0.0035). The concurrent pRT group had a longer mTTF compared with the previous pRT group and similar outcomes to the no RT group. In the previous pRT group, 26.9% of the patients experienced immune-related adverse events compared with 40.1% of patients in the no RT group. Despite the use of pRT during immunotherapy being considered safe, the results of the present study suggest that pRT has a negative effect on immune balance.

Concomitant medications during immune checkpoint blockage in cancer patients: Novel insights in this emerging clinical scenario

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients is rapidly growing. However, the potential impact of some widely used concomitant medications is still largely unclear. Emerging data suggest that gut microbiota may affect the efficacy of ICIs, leading to the hypothesis that concurrent antibiotics and proton pump inhibitors use could have a detrimental effect. In addition, steroid use might potentially impair the activity of immunotherapy, due its known immunosuppressive effects, and some safety concerns have been raised in patients receiving commonly used vaccination during ICIs. However, all randomized trials evaluating ICIs consistently excluded patients receiving high corticosteroid doses and data regarding other concomitant medications are lacking. Recently, several retrospective studies have tried to address this unmet medical need. Herein we discuss the latest evidence on the influence of these medications, critically analyzing the data reported so far and the possible implications in our clinical practice.

Influenza vaccination and myocarditis among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination (FV) is recommended for patients with cancer. Recent data suggested that the administration of the FV was associated with an increase in immune-related adverse events (irAEs) among patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Myocarditis is an uncommon but serious complication of ICIs and may also result from infection with influenza. There are no data testing the relationship between FV and the development of myocarditis on ICIs.

METHODS

Patients on ICIs who developed myocarditis (n = 101) (cases) were compared to ICI-treated patients (n = 201) without myocarditis (controls). A patient was defined as having the FV if they were administered the FV from 6 months prior to start of ICI to anytime during ICI therapy. Alternate thresholds for FV status were also tested. The primary comparison of interest was the rate of FV between cases and controls. Patients with myocarditis were followed for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, hemodynamically significant complete heart block and cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

The FV was administered to 25% of the myocarditis cases compared to 40% of the non-myocarditis ICI-treated controls (p = 0.01). Similar findings of lower rates of FV administration were noted among myocarditis cases when alternate thresholds were tested. Among the myocarditis cases, those who were vaccinated had 3-fold lower troponin levels when compared to unvaccinated cases (FV vs. No FV: 0.12 [0.02, 0.47] vs. 0.40 [0.11, 1.26] ng/ml, p = 0.02). Within myocarditis cases, those administered the FV also had a lower rate of other irAEs when compared to unvaccinated cases (36 vs. 55% p = 0.10) including lower rates of pneumonitis (12 vs. 36%, p = 0.03). During follow-up (175 [IQR 89, 363] days), 47% of myocarditis cases experienced a MACE. Myocarditis cases who received the FV were at a lower risk of cumulative MACE when compared to unvaccinated cases (24 vs. 59%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The rate of FV among ICI-related myocarditis cases was lower than controls on ICIs who did not develop myocarditis. In those who developed myocarditis related to an ICI, there was less myocardial injury and a lower risk of MACE among those who were administered the FV.