Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antiviral response in a pan-tumor immune monitoring (CAPTURE) (NCT03226886) is a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 immunity in patients with cancer. Here we evaluated 585 patients following administration of two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccines, administered 12 weeks apart. Seroconversion rates after two doses were 85% and 59% in patients with solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. A lower proportion of patients had detectable titers of neutralizing antibodies (NAbT) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOC) versus wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2. Patients with hematological malignancies were more likely to have undetectable NAbT and had lower median NAbT than those with solid cancers against both SARS-CoV-2 WT and VOC. By comparison with individuals without cancer, patients with hematological, but not solid, malignancies had reduced neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses. Seroconversion showed poor concordance with NAbT against VOC. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection boosted the NAb response including against VOC, and anti-CD20 treatment was associated with undetectable NAbT. Vaccine-induced T cell responses were detected in 80% of patients and were comparable between vaccines or cancer types. Our results have implications for the management of patients with cancer during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Patients with cancer are currently prioritized in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs globally, which includes administration of mRNA vaccines. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has not been reported with mRNA vaccines and is an extremely rare immune-related adverse event of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We present a case of CRS that occurred 5 d after vaccination with BTN162b2 (tozinameran)—the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine—in a patient with colorectal cancer on long-standing anti-PD-1 monotherapy. The CRS was evidenced by raised inflammatory markers, thrombocytopenia, elevated cytokine levels (IFN-γ/IL-2R/IL-18/IL-16/IL-10) and steroid responsiveness. The close temporal association of vaccination and diagnosis of CRS in this case suggests that CRS was a vaccine-related adverse event; with anti-PD1 blockade as a potential contributor. Overall, further prospective pharmacovigillence data are needed in patients with cancer, but the benefit–risk profile remains strongly in favor of COVID-19 vaccination in this population.

Patients with cancer have higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Here we present the prospective CAPTURE study, integrating longitudinal immune profiling with clinical annotation. Of 357 patients with cancer, 118 were SARS-CoV-2 positive, 94 were symptomatic and 2 died of COVID-19. In this cohort, 83% patients had S1-reactive antibodies and 82% had neutralizing antibodies against wild type SARS-CoV-2, whereas neutralizing antibody titers against the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants were substantially reduced. S1-reactive antibody levels decreased in 13% of patients, whereas neutralizing antibody titers remained stable for up to 329 days. Patients also had detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells and CD4+ responses correlating with S1-reactive antibody levels, although patients with hematological malignancies had impaired immune responses that were disease and treatment specific, but presented compensatory cellular responses, further supported by clinical recovery in all but one patient. Overall, these findings advance the understanding of the nature and duration of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer.

suming that donor-solvent competition does exist, then this suggests that our "corrected" Km' values are slightly lower than what they should be.A final examination of our results suggests that the donor properties exist in the following order: sulfoxide > disulfide > sulfide > sulfone. This is somewhat different than might be expected. In particular, Drago, et al.,1B studied complexes between alkyl sulfoxides, sulfides, sulfones, and either iodine or phenol and determined the order: sulfide > sulfoxide > sulfone. Similarly, Good, et al.,w studied iodine complexes of alkyl sulfides and disulfides. In the latter16 investigation, the sulfide complexes were seen to be slightly stronger than those of the disulfides.These results suggest that the phenyl group may be involved in different inductive effects as one goes from a sulfur atom to a sulfoxide group or that perhaps that steric effects are somewhat different in each case. A final suggestion is that both effects are present simultaneously.A plot of -AH vs. -AS is given in Figure 2. The TNB complexes can be grouped into two classes: (a) the sulfoxides, and (b) the sulfides and disulfide. The 1,2-dichloroethane complexes, generally, do fit into the same class as the TNB-sulfide and -disulfide complexes. This would suggest that the sulfide and disulfide complexes are formed through a similar mechanism. A possible conclusion is that the sulfoxides donate electrons from the sulfur-oxygen group, while the other donors donate a lone-pair electron from the sulfur atom.

No abstract