Summary Haemato‐oncological patients are at risk in case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection. Currently, vaccination is the best‐evaluated preventive strategy. In the present study, we aimed to assess serological response, predictive markers, and safety of BNT162b2 in haemato‐oncological patients. A total of 259 haemato‐oncological patients were vaccinated with two 30 µg doses of BNT162b2 administered 21 days apart. Serological response was assessed by ELECSYS® Anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2‐S immunoassay before vaccination, and at 3 and 7 weeks after the first dose (T1, T2). Safety assessment was performed. At T2 spike protein receptor binding domain (S/RBD) antibodies were detected in 71·4% of haematological and in 94·5% of oncological patients (P < 0·001). Haematological patients receiving systemic treatment had a 14·2‐fold increased risk of non‐responding (95% confidence interval 3·2–63·3, P = 0·001). Subgroups of patients with lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia were at highest risk of serological non‐response. Low immunoglobulin G (IgG) level, lymphocyte‐ and natural killer (NK)‐cell counts were significantly associated with poor serological response (P < 0·05). Vaccination was well tolerated with only 2·7% of patients reporting severe side‐effects. Patients with side‐effects developed a higher S/RBD‐antibody titre compared to patients without side‐effects (P = 0·038). Haematological patients under treatment were at highest risk of serological non‐response. Low lymphocytes, NK cells and IgG levels were found to be associated with serological non‐response. Serological response in oncological patients was encouraging. The use of BNT162b2 is safe in haemato‐oncological patients.
Summary Patients with haemato‐oncological malignancies are one of the high‐risk groups for a severe course in case of COVID‐19 infections. Furthermore, vaccination results in significantly lower response rates in haematological malignancies and lower antibody levels in patients with solid cancer. We investigated efficacy and safety of a heterologous booster vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S DNA vector vaccine in haemato‐oncological patients without antibody response after double‐dose BNT162b2 messenger (m‐)RNA COVID‐19 vaccine. A total of 32 haemato‐oncological non‐responders to double‐dose BNT162b2 received a heterologous booster vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S. Blood samples were assessed directly before the vaccination (T0) and four weeks after (T1). Safety assessment was performed using a standardised questionnaire. The overall response rate was 31%, with a mean (SD) antibody titre of 693·79 (1 096·99) binding activity units (BAU)/ml. Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or lymphoma showed a significantly lower response rate (P = 0·048). Adverse events were reported in 29·6% of patients, of which 7·1% were graded as severe, including grade III and IV events following the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE). The heterologous booster vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S led to a serological response in nine out of 29 patients without response after double‐dose BNT162b2. Furthermore, the vaccination was safe in our cohort, leading to mainly mild local and systemic reactions. Overall, this vaccination regimen should be further evaluated to increase the response rate in the highly vulnerable population of haemato‐oncological patients.
Cell surface syndecans and glypicans play important roles in the development and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Their soluble forms from proteoglycan shedding can be detected in blood and have been proposed as new prognostic biomarkers in several cancer entities. However, studies on circulating syndecan-1 (SDC1) and glypican-4 (GPC4) in CRC are limited. We, therefore, evaluated the impact of plasma SDC1 and GPC4 on the prognosis of metastatic (m)CRC patients. The present study included 93 patients with mCRC. The endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at 12 months. SDC1 and GPC4 levels were measured in plasma using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Plasma levels of SDC1 and GPC4 were significantly correlated. Significant correlations of these two markers were also found with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). Kaplan-Meier curve analyses indicated that PFS and OS probabilities significantly decreased with increasing levels of SDC1 and GPC4, respectively. Multivariable Cox regression analyses showed that both markers were significantly associated with PFS and OS independently from clinicopathological characteristics including CEA. Respective adjusted hazard ratios (HR) together with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for one standard deviation change of SDC1 were 1.32 [1.02-1.84] for PFS and 1.48 [1.01-2.15] for OS. Adjusted HRs [95% confidence intervals] of GPC4 were 1.42 [1.07-1.89] for PFS and 2.40 [1.51-3.81] for OS. Results from area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses suggest that GPC4 and SDC1 add additional prognostic values to CEA for OS. In conclusion, we showed significant associations of circulating SDC1 and GPC4 with poor survival of mCRC patients.
Production systems of the automotive industry process parts that were previously designed and manufactured according to different manufacturing technologies. In car body architectures, additive manufacturing (AM) has become a relevant technology for supplementing conventional manufacturing technologies, e.g., casting or forming technologies. This paper presents a methodology for an automatic and objective early-stage analysis of part features and the subsequent identification of the parts’ most suitable manufacturing technology. For this purpose, a comprehensive database is required, in which several technological and economic parameters need to be derived and predicted, including part requirements, production inherences, expected lifecycle costs, as well as geometric information. Based on this, data screening allows to effectively evaluate the technological and economic potential for a component to be manufactured either conventionally or additively in early product development phases. One core element is the part requirements derivation and analysis within one novel module of the part screening methodology. Subsequently, the product development process and the production system can be adapted according to the identified, most promising manufacturing technologies. Hence, this early-stage decision allows for cost reduction through an increased planning reliability. This work thus contributes to a successful co-evolution of smart product development and the production processes.
Background Safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer could be demonstrated in predominantly Asian cohorts, whereas data in Western patients outside of clinical trials are vastly missing. Methods In this multi-institutional retrospective analysis conducted at nine oncologic centers in Austria, we tried to assess feasibility of checkpoint inhibitors in advanced gastric/GEJ cancer in a real-world Western cohort. Results In total, data from 50 patients with metastatic gastric/GEJ cancer who received nivolumab or pembrolizumab in a palliative setting between November 2015 and April 2020 have been evaluated. The median number of previous palliative therapy lines was two. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 2.1 (95% CI: 1.4–2.8) and 6.3 (95% CI: 3.3–9.3) months, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in median OS according to microsatellite or PD-L1 status. However, a trend towards prolonged PFS and OS for the microsatellite instability high subgroup could be observed. Patients with an ECOG Performance Status (PS) ≥ 2 displayed a significantly worse outcome than those with an ECOG PS ≤ 1 (p = .03). Only one patient discontinued immunotherapy due to treatment-related toxicity. Conclusions Our results support feasibility of nivolumab and pembrolizumab in pre-treated patients with metastatic gastric and GEJ cancer in a Western real-world cohort. Further phase II/III studies are needed to confirm clinical efficacy.
Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by serial relapses, necessitating the application of sequential lines of therapy (LoT). Reports on attrition rates (ARs) vary widely. The present study analysed ARs from the Austrian Myeloma Registry. Attrition was defined as being either deceased, progressive without having received another LoT, or lack of follow-up for ≥5 years. A total of 571 patients diagnosed between January 2009 and August 2021 were included (median age: 72 years; median follow-up: 50.8 months). Some 507 patients received at least one LoT. Of the total, 43.6% underwent autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT, transplant eligible = TE)) with primarily VRd (Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone) given as induction (26.5%), followed by lenalidomide maintenance in 55.7% of cases. Transplant-ineligible (NTE) patients were predominantly treated with Vd (Bortezomib/Dexamethasone, 21.6%), receiving maintenance in 27.1%. A total of 37.5% received a second LoT. ARs across one to five LoTs were 16.7–27%. Frontline induction/ SCT followed by maintenance reduced ARs associated with age and achievement of deep remission in the frontline. Deep remission prolongs follow-up and time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), while high-risk-cyctogenetics negatively affected these outcomes. Our results demonstrate considerably lower ARs for MM patients within the AMR data versus other healthcare systems. Young age and the achievement of significant remissions after optimal frontline therapy resulted in particularly low ARs. These promising results support a key role for the ease of drug access and reimbursement policies in governing long-term MM patient outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.