Maria Jose Monroy-Iglesias

Ms. Maria Jose Monroy-Iglesias

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
16 July 2021 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ASAlfred So
Alfred So
HMHarriet McGrath
Harriet McGrath
JTJonathan Ting
Jonathan Ting
KSKrishnie Srikandarajah
Krishnie Srikandarajah
SGStyliani Germanou
Styliani Germanou
DEDeborah Enting
Deborah Enting
Emergency approval of vaccines against COVID-19 provides an opportunity for us to return to pre-pandemic oncology care. However, safety data in cancer patients is lacking due to their exclusion from most phase III trials. We included all patients aged less than 65 years who received a COVID-19 vaccine from 8 December 2020 to 28 February 2021 at our London tertiary oncology centre. Solicited and unsolicited vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) were collected using telephone or face-to-face consultation. Within the study period, 373 patients received their first dose of vaccine: Pfizer/BioNTech (75.1%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (23.6%), Moderna (0.3%), and unknown (1.1%). Median follow-up was 25 days (5–85). Median age was 56 years (19–65). Of the patients, 94.9% had a solid malignancy and 76.7% were stage 3–4. The most common cancers were breast (34.0%), lung (13.4%), colorectal (10.2%), and gynaecological (10.2%). Of the patients, 88.5% were receiving anti-cancer treatment (36.2% parenteral chemotherapy and 15.3% immunotherapy), 76.1% developed any grade VRAE of which 2.1% were grade 3. No grade 4/5 or anaphylaxis were observed. The most common VRAEs within 7 days post-vaccination were sore arm (61.7%), fatigue (18.2%), and headaches (12.1%). Most common grade 3 VRAE was fatigue (1.1%). Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines in oncology patients have mild reactogenicity.

17 August 2020 in International Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MMMaria Jose Monroy-Iglesias
Maria Jose Monroy-Iglesias
BRBeth Russell
Beth Russell
DCDanielle Crawley
Danielle Crawley
NANaomi E. Allen
Naomi E. Allen
RTRuth C. Travis
Ruth C. Travis
KBKerri Beckmann
Kerri Beckmann

1 July 2021 in European Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JWJoseph Ward
Joseph Ward
IKIan King
Ian King
MMMaria Jose Monroy-Iglesias
Maria Jose Monroy-Iglesias
BRBeth Russell
Beth Russell
MHMieke van Hemelrijck
Mieke van Hemelrijck
AKAadil A. Khan
Aadil A. Khan

4 April 2022 in Clinical and Experimental Immunology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MMMaria Jose Monroy-Iglesias
Maria Jose Monroy-Iglesias
SCSilvia Crescioli
Silvia Crescioli
KBKerri Beckmann
Kerri Beckmann
NLNga Le
Nga Le
Sophia N KaragiannisSophia N Karagiannis
Sophia N Karagiannis
ASaida santaolalla
aida santaolalla
Increasing evidence has linked the humoral immune response with the development of various cancers. Therefore, there is growing interest in investigating the predictive value of antibodies to assess overall and tissue site-specific cancer risk. Given the large amount of antibody types and the broad scope of the search (i.e. cancer risk), the primary aim of this systematic review was to present an overview of the most researched antibodies (i.e. immunoglobulin (Ig) isotypes (IgG, IgM, IgA, and IgE), tumour and self-antigen-reactive antibodies, infection-related antibodies) in relation to overall and site-specific cancer risk. We identified various antibody types that have been associated with the risk of cancer. While no significant associations were found for IgM serum levels, studies found an inconsistent association among IgE, IgA, and IgG serum levels in relation to cancer risk. When evaluating antibodies against infectious agents, most studies reported a positive link with specific cancers known to be associated with the specific agent recognized by serum antibodies (i.e. helicobacter pylori and gastric cancer, hepatitis B virus and hepatocellular carcinoma, and human papillomavirus and cervical cancer). Several reports identified autoantibodies, as single biomarkers (e.g. anti-p53, anti-MUC1, and anti-CA125) but especially in panels of multiple autoantibodies, to have potential as diagnostic biomarkers for specific cancer types. Overall, there is emerging evidence associating certain antibodies to cancer risk, especially immunoglobulin isotypes, tumour-associated antigen-specific, and self-reactive antibodies. Further experimental studies are necessary to assess the efficacy of specific antibodies as markers for the early diagnosis of cancer.

4 November 2021 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MMMaria Jose Monroy-Iglesias
Maria Jose Monroy-Iglesias
CMCharlotte Moss
Charlotte Moss
KBKerri Beckmann
Kerri Beckmann
NHNiklas Hammar
Niklas Hammar
GWGoran Walldius
Goran Walldius
ASaida santaolalla
aida santaolalla
Bilirubin has strong antioxidant properties that have been hypothesized to be preventive against the development of cancer. Thus, we aimed to investigate the association between serum total bilirubin (STB) and risk of overall and site-specific cancers in the large Swedish Apolipoprotein Mortality Risk (AMORIS) cohort. We also performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for specific cancer types (colorectal, breast and lung). We found no association between high levels of STB and risk of overall cancer. Regarding site-specific cancer, there was an inverse association between increased STB and lung cancer (Hazard Ratio (HR) for the 4th quartile (Q4) vs. Q1: 0.50; 95%CI: 0.44–0.59) and gynecological cancer (HR for Q4 vs. Q1: 0.86; 95%CI: 0.76–0.99). A positive association was found with melanoma (HR for Q4 vs. Q1: 1.25; 95%CI: 1.06–1.47) and breast cancer (HR for Q4 vs. Q1: 1.13; 95%CI: 1.01–1.25) risk. The meta-analysis showed an inverse association between high levels of STB and risk of lung cancer (Relative risk (RR): 0.69; 95%CI: 0.55–0.86). No associations were seen for colorectal and breast cancer risk. Further studies are required to establish if bilirubin can be used as a biomarker for risk assessment and/or as a novel therapeutic target.

30 March 2021 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MMMaria Jose Monroy-Iglesias
Maria Jose Monroy-Iglesias
MTMarta Tagliabue
Marta Tagliabue
HDHarvey Dickinson
Harvey Dickinson
GRGraham Roberts
Graham Roberts
RBRita De Berardinis
Rita De Berardinis
Mieke Van HemelrijckMieke Van Hemelrijck
Mieke Van Hemelrijck
The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a large effect on the management of cancer patients. This study reports on the approach and outcomes of cancer patients receiving radical surgery with curative intent between March and September 2020 (in comparison to 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Both institutions implemented a COVID-19 minimal pathway where patients were required to self-isolate prior to admission and were swabbed for COVID-19 within 72 h of surgery. Positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. At IEO, radical surgeries declined by 6% as compared to the same period in 2019 (n = 1477 vs. 1560, respectively). Readmissions were required for 3% (n = 41), and <1% (n = 9) developed COVID-19, of which only one had severe disease and died. At SELCA, radical surgeries declined by 34% (n = 1553 vs. 2336). Readmissions were required for 11% (n = 36), <1% (n = 7) developed COVID-19, and none died from it. Whilst a decline in number of surgeries was observed in both centres, the implemented COVID-19 minimal pathways have shown to be safe for cancer patients requiring radical treatment, with limited complications and almost no COVID-19 infections.