The BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents and young adults with cancer: A monocentric experience.
Adolescent
Age Factors
Antibodies, Neutralizing
/ blood
Antibodies, Viral
/ blood
BNT162 Vaccine
COVID-19
/ immunology
COVID-19 Vaccines
/ administration & dosage
France
Humans
Immunization
/ adverse effects
Immunogenicity, Vaccine
Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Retrospective Studies
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
AYA
Covid-19
Oncology
Paediatric oncology
Serology
Vaccine
Journal
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
ISSN: 1879-0852
Titre abrégé: Eur J Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005373
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
received:
26
05
2021
revised:
30
05
2021
accepted:
03
06
2021
pubmed:
8
7
2021
medline:
19
8
2021
entrez:
7
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
COVID-19 infection in paediatric patients with cancer is severe or critical in 20% of the patients. It can therefore directly affect paediatric patients with cancer and/or their care. We aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents and young adults (AYA) with solid tumour. This study includes a retrospective analysis of safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered to patients, ≥16 years old, under treatment for a solid tumour or within 6 months after treatment from 15th February 2021 to 15th April 2021. Two administrations of the vaccine 3 weeks apart were given. Sera were tested for anti-SARS-Cov-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies directed against the S1 domain of the spike protein. In case of positive serology, neutralisation of SARS-Cov-2 was tested. Twenty-three patients with solid tumours were identified and proposed to get vaccinated. Nine patients refused, and 1 previously developed COVID-19 infection with positive serology. At the time of writing, 13 patients (10 M/2 F; median age: 17) started vaccination. All patients received 2 injections except 2 patients who stopped vaccination because of tumour progression. Ten patients were under treatment (alone or in combination: chemotherapy: 7 patients [pts], immunotherapy: 2 pts, targeted therapy: 3 pts, follow-up: 3 patients). Overall, vaccines were well tolerated. Five patients did not report any side-effects after the first injection and 4 after the second injection. The main local reactivity symptom was mild pain at the site of injection (6 and 2 pts). Fatigue (2 pts and 5 pts) was the most frequent systemic symptom. One patient refused serology testing. All patients but 1 had pre-vaccination negative serology; 7 of 10 patients tested had positive serology before second vaccine injection, and 9 of 10 patients had positive serology one month after the second injection. All patients with seroconversion had positive COVID-19 neutralisation test. No patient developed COVID infections. We report the good safety profile and good efficacy of the BNT162B2 vaccine in AYA with solid tumours. Larger series and monitoring of the kinetics of anti-Sars-Cov-2 IgG antibodies for several months are mandatory to confirm these preliminary results and to determine long-term vaccination.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
COVID-19 infection in paediatric patients with cancer is severe or critical in 20% of the patients. It can therefore directly affect paediatric patients with cancer and/or their care. We aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents and young adults (AYA) with solid tumour.
METHODS
This study includes a retrospective analysis of safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered to patients, ≥16 years old, under treatment for a solid tumour or within 6 months after treatment from 15th February 2021 to 15th April 2021. Two administrations of the vaccine 3 weeks apart were given. Sera were tested for anti-SARS-Cov-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies directed against the S1 domain of the spike protein. In case of positive serology, neutralisation of SARS-Cov-2 was tested.
RESULTS
Twenty-three patients with solid tumours were identified and proposed to get vaccinated. Nine patients refused, and 1 previously developed COVID-19 infection with positive serology. At the time of writing, 13 patients (10 M/2 F; median age: 17) started vaccination. All patients received 2 injections except 2 patients who stopped vaccination because of tumour progression. Ten patients were under treatment (alone or in combination: chemotherapy: 7 patients [pts], immunotherapy: 2 pts, targeted therapy: 3 pts, follow-up: 3 patients). Overall, vaccines were well tolerated. Five patients did not report any side-effects after the first injection and 4 after the second injection. The main local reactivity symptom was mild pain at the site of injection (6 and 2 pts). Fatigue (2 pts and 5 pts) was the most frequent systemic symptom. One patient refused serology testing. All patients but 1 had pre-vaccination negative serology; 7 of 10 patients tested had positive serology before second vaccine injection, and 9 of 10 patients had positive serology one month after the second injection. All patients with seroconversion had positive COVID-19 neutralisation test. No patient developed COVID infections.
CONCLUSIONS
We report the good safety profile and good efficacy of the BNT162B2 vaccine in AYA with solid tumours. Larger series and monitoring of the kinetics of anti-Sars-Cov-2 IgG antibodies for several months are mandatory to confirm these preliminary results and to determine long-term vaccination.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34233234
pii: S0959-8049(21)00357-9
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.002
pmc: PMC8220943
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Neutralizing
0
Antibodies, Viral
0
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
BNT162 Vaccine
N38TVC63NU
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
30-34Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Jul 15;110(4):957-961
pubmed: 33677050
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 25;384(8):693-704
pubmed: 32678530
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733
pubmed: 31978945
Eur J Cancer. 2020 Dec;141:82-91
pubmed: 33129040
Eur J Cancer. 2020 Jun;132:11-16
pubmed: 32305831
Ann Intensive Care. 2021 Feb 18;11(1):36
pubmed: 33604873
Ann Oncol. 2021 May;32(5):673-674
pubmed: 33529740
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2021 Oct 1;43(7):e1045-e1046
pubmed: 33625085
Antiviral Res. 2020 Sep;181:104880
pubmed: 32679056
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Jun;22(6):765-778
pubmed: 33930323
Pediatrics. 2021 May;147(5):
pubmed: 33853889
Eur J Cancer. 2021 May;148:316-327
pubmed: 33770576
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Sep 1;6(9):1459-1460
pubmed: 32401276
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020 Jul;67(7):e28397
pubmed: 32383819
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020 Jul;67(7):e28392
pubmed: 32383827
Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2020 Aug 1;319(2):L211-L217
pubmed: 32519894
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Jun;48(6):1854-1863
pubmed: 33774684
Eur J Cancer. 2021 Aug;153:257-259
pubmed: 34147290
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 31;383(27):2603-2615
pubmed: 33301246
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020 Sep;67(9):e28427
pubmed: 32588960
Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Mar 19;9(3):
pubmed: 33808758
Eur J Cancer. 2021 Aug;153:260-264
pubmed: 34183225