GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Cancer Medicine, Wiley, Vol. 12, No. 12 ( 2023-06), p. 12967-12974
    Abstract: Cancer patients are frail individuals, thus the prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection is essential. To date, vaccination is the most effective tool to prevent COVID‐19. In a previous study, we evaluated the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA‐based vaccines (BNT162b2 or mRNA‐1273) in solid cancer patients. We found that seroconversion rate in cancer patients without a previous exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 was lower than in healthy controls (66.7% vs. 95%, p  = 0.0020). The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the vaccination in the same population. Methods This is a single‐institution, prospective observational study. Data were collected through a predefined questionnaire through phone call in the period between the second and third vaccine dose. The primary objective was to describe the clinical efficacy of the vaccination, defined as the percentage of vaccinated subjects who did not develop symptomatic COVID‐19 within 6 months after the second dose. The secondary objective was to describe the clinical features of patients who developed COVID‐19. Results From January to June 2021, 195 cancer patients were enrolled. Considering that 7 (3.59%) patients tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 and 5 developed symptomatic disease, the clinical efficacy of the vaccination was 97.4%. COVID‐19 disease in most patients was mild and managed at home; only one hospitalization was recorded and no patient required hospitalization in the intensive care unit. Discussion Our study suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster doses, could improve the prevention of infection, hospitalization, serious illness, and death in the frail population of cancer patients.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2045-7634 , 2045-7634
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2659751-2
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 39, No. 15_suppl ( 2021-05-20), p. e24119-e24119
    Abstract: e24119 Background: COVID-19 pandemic led to a reorganization of Health Care System for cancer pts, also because of the application of containment measures. The aim of our study was to investigate the emotional discomfort of pts and their CGs who needed to access the day-hospital to receive treatment during pandemic. Methods: This is a single-institution, prospective, cross-sectional study. From 5 th May to 5 th June 2020 a survey was conducted at a Department of Oncology in the midst of the Italian outbreak. We compared the points of view of both the “players” through 2 different multiple-choice questionnaires enquiring demographic characteristics, changes in emotional status, interpersonal relationships with health professionals (HCPs) and self-perception of treatment outcomes. Results: 625 pts and 254 CGs were enrolled. Female were prevalent (pts:65%, CGs:56%). Pts were generally older than CGs (pts:70% 〉 60 y, CGs:50.4% 41-60 y; p 〈 0.001). 50.5% pts had a low education level (EL) while 67.5% CGs had a higher degree. About half of pts (52.8%) reached the hospital with their own CG who lived together in the 58.3% of cases. 52.5% of pts felt more vulnerable to COVID-19 compared to CGs. Differently, CGs did not feel more exposed to infection, although they were involved in taking care or lived together with pts. The EL influenced the risk contagion perception: people with a lower EL were less worried about being infected with SARS-CoV-2. Regardless of the perceived contagion risk, study participants considered the containment measures a valid support to avoid the spread of infection (pts:92%, CGs:89%; p = 0.163) without an excessive loss of time (pts:78%, CGs:88.6%; p = 0.003). A personal emotional change caused by waiting and performing visits/treatments alone was reported more by CGs (66%) than by pts (32.7%; p 〈 0.001). Specifically, CGs had greater anxiety (58.8%) and fear of not properly managing pts at home (19.8%). The majority of pts (73%) and CGs (62%) thought that the pandemic didn’t influence treatment outcomes. The relationship with HCPs was not negatively affected for both pts (79.6%) and CGs (95%), but about a quarter of pts (25%) and CGs (29%) thought that the attention of HCPs was more focused on COVID-19 than on cancer treatment. Conclusions: The majority of pts felt at higher risk of COVID-19 infection and therefore approved the application of safety standards to help them feel more protected. Good relationships with HCPs contributed to receive treatments without experiencing additional distress. For CGs the main troubles are limitations which don’t allow to fully share the pts' care route and the perceive an impairment in HCPs relationship. Starting from these data, we can better understand the current psychological distress of pts and their families in order to develop potential strategies to support them in this strenuous period of crisis.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: International Journal of Cancer, Wiley, Vol. 152, No. 4 ( 2023-02-15), p. 661-671
    Abstract: Previous studies on the immunogenicity of SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA vaccines showed a reduced seroconversion in cancer patients. The aim of our study is to evaluate the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA vaccines in solid cancer patients with or without a previous exposure to the virus. This is a single‐institution, prospective, nonrandomized study. Patients in active treatment and a control cohort of healthy people received two doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech/Pfizer, The United States) or mRNA‐1273 (Spikevax, Moderna). Vaccine was administered before starting anticancer therapy or on the first day of the treatment cycle. SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody levels against S1, RBD (to evaluate vaccine response) and N proteins (to evaluate previous infection) were measured in plasma before the first dose and 30 days after the second one. From January to June 2021, 195 consecutive cancer patients and 20 healthy controls were enrolled. Thirty‐one cancer patients had a previous exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2. Cancer patients previously exposed to the virus had significantly higher median levels of anti‐S1 and anti‐RBD IgG, compared to healthy controls ( P  = .0349) and to cancer patients without a previous infection ( P   〈  .001). Vaccine type (anti‐S1: P   〈  .0001; anti‐RBD: P  = .0045), comorbidities (anti‐S1: P  = .0274; anti‐RBD: P  = .0048) and the use of G‐CSF (anti‐S1: P  = .0151) negatively affected the antibody response. Conversely, previous exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 significantly enhanced the response to vaccination (anti‐S1: P   〈  .0001; anti‐RBD: P  = .0026). Vaccine immunogenicity in cancer patients with a previous exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 seems comparable to that of healthy subjects. On the other hand, clinical variables of immune frailty negatively affect humoral immune response to vaccination.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0020-7136 , 1097-0215
    URL: Issue
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 218257-9
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1474822-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...