Purpose: To assess humoral responses longitudinally and cellular immunogenicity following SARS-CoV-2-vaccination in patients with hematologic and oncologic malignancies receiving checkpoint-inhibitors. Methods: This prospective multicenter trial of the East-German-Study-Group-for-Hematology-and-Oncology, enrolled 398 adults in a two (patients; n = 262) to one (controls; n = 136) ratio. Pre-vaccination, day 35 (d35), and day 120 (d120) blood samples were analyzed for anti-spike antibodies and d120 IL-2⁺IFNγ⁺TNFα⁺-CD4⁺- and CD8⁺-cells. Laboratories were blinded for patients and controls. Results: Patients belonged to the myeloid (n = 131), lymphoid (n = 104), and checkpoint-inhibitor (n = 17) cohorts. While d35 seroconversion was higher in controls (98%) compared to patients (68%) (p < 0.001), d120 seroconversion improved across all patient cohorts [checkpoint-inhibitors (81% to 100%), myeloid (82% to 97%), lymphoid (48% to 66%)]. CD4⁺- and CovCD8⁺-cells in the lymphoid (71%/31%) and control (74%/42%) cohorts were comparable but fewer in the myeloid cohort (53%, p = 0.003 /24%, p = 0.03). In patients with hematologic malignancies, no correlation between d120 humoral and cellular responses was found. A sizeable fraction of lymphoid patients demonstrated T-cell responses without detectable spike-specific-IgGs. Conclusions: Evidence of vaccine-elicited humoral and/or cellular immunogenicity in most patients is provided. Both humoral and cellular responses are crucial to determine which patients will generate/maintain immunity. The findings have implications on public health policy regarding recommendations for SARS-CoV-2 booster doses.

Background: Understanding the similarities of patients with cancer is essential to advancing personalized medicine, improving patient outcomes, and developing more effective and individualized treatments. It enables researchers to discover important patterns, biomarkers, and treatment strategies that can have a significant impact on cancer research and oncology. In addition, the identification of previously successfully treated patients supports oncologists in making treatment decisions for a new patient who is clinically or molecularly similar to the previous patient. Objective: The planned review aims to systematically summarize, map, and describe existing evidence to understand how patient similarity is defined and used in cancer research and clinical care. Methods: To systematically identify relevant studies and to ensure reproducibility and transparency of the review process, a comprehensive literature search will be conducted in several bibliographic databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, LIVIVIVO, and MEDLINE, covering the period from 1998 to February 2024. After the initial duplicate deletion phase, a study selection phase will be applied using Rayyan, which consists of 3 distinct steps: title and abstract screening, disagreement resolution, and full-text screening. To ensure the integrity and quality of the selection process, each of these steps is preceded by a pilot testing phase. This methodological process will culminate in the presentation of the final research results in a structured form according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) flowchart. The protocol has been registered in the Journal of Medical Internet Research. Results: This protocol outlines the methodologies used in conducting the scoping review. A search of the specified electronic databases and after removing duplicates resulted in 1183 unique records. As of March 2024, the review process has moved to the full-text evaluation phase. At this stage, data extraction will be conducted using a pretested chart template. Conclusions: The scoping review protocol, centered on these main concepts, aims to systematically map the available evidence on patient similarity among patients with cancer. By defining the types of data sources, approaches, and methods used in the field, and aligning these with the research questions, the review will provide a foundation for future research and clinical application in personalized cancer care. This protocol will guide the literature search, data extraction, and synthesis of findings to achieve the review’s objectives. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/58705

Introduction: Patients with head and neck cancer (PwHNC) benefit from targeted exercise interventions: symptom relief, compensation for dysfunction, improvement in quality of life (QoL). Data on acceptance physical interventions in PwHNC are rare. The ‘OSHO #94’ trial investigates the short- and medium-term effects of individualized home exercise in PwHNC on QoL, physical activity and functionality. The study includes a feasibility phase (proof of concept) in order to evaluate the acceptance. Here we present the study protocol as well as the feasibility results. Methods and analysis: This prospective, multicentre, single-arm intervention study includes PwHNC ≥18 years of age in aftercare or palliative care with stable remission under immunotherapy. The study opened in January 01, 2021, with estimated completion by December 31, 2024. The PwHNC receive an individualized home exercise program consisting of mobilization, coordination, strengthening and stretching exercises. This should be carried out at least three times a week over 12 weeks for 15 to 30 minutes, supplemented by aerobic training two to three times a week for 30 minutes (intervention). Once weekly telephone calls with a physiotherapist are performed. Subsequently, there is a 12-week follow-up (FU) without exercise specifications/contact. Outcomes are measured before and after the intervention and following the FU. Primary outcome of the feasibility phase (n = 25) was the determination of the dropout rate during the intervention with a termination cut off if more than 30% PwHNC withdrew premature. The primary outcome of the OSHO #94’ trial (N = 53) is the change in global QoL score from pre- to post-intervention (EORTC QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes include clinical and patient-reported measures, training details as well as functional diagnostic data (e.g. level of physical activity, training frequency, flexibility, fall risk and aerobic performance). Results: 25 PwHNC were enrolled onto the feasibility cohort. Only16% (4/25 patients) did not complete the study. Therefore, recruitment of PwHNC was continued. The dropout rate was adjusted from 30% (N = 60) to 20% (N = 53, calculated sample size n = 42 PwHNC and 20% (n = 11) to dropout). Conclusions: Individualized home exercise programs in PwHNC in aftercare seem feasible. Consequently, the aim is now to evaluate the short and medium-term effects of individualized home exercise.

Background: Patient similarity analysis is pivotal in cancer research and clinical oncology, aiding in identifying patterns among patients with similar clinical and molecular profiles to guide therapeutic decisions, particularly in Molecular Tumor Boards (MTB), where therapy decisions are frequently informed by the treatment experiences of previously treated similar patients. However, the lack of standardized tools for automation and visualization limits efficiency here, especially in individualized MTB decisions. Objective: This study aims to develop a graphical user interface that aligns with clinician preferences to enhance patient similarity assessments and support decision-making in MTBs. Methods: Visualization concepts were developed through iterative design and evaluation cycles involving clinical experts. Mock-ups were created to represent various approaches for displaying patient similarities, focusing on molecular data relevant to MTB decisions. Results: Various designs were developed for visualizing patient similarity in cBioPortal. These include tabular views, network representations, and radar plots. Conclusions: These visualizations offer promise in enhancing decision-making in MTBs by making patient similarity assessments more accessible. Future development will focus on additional functionalities and better integration into clinical workflows.

In order to elucidate mechanisms for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination success in hematological neoplasia, we, herein, provide a comprehensive characterization of the spike-specific T-cell and serological immunity induced in 130 patients in comparison with 91 healthy controls. We studied 121 distinct T-cell subpopulations and the vaccination schemes as putative response predictors. In patients with lymphoid malignancies an insufficient immunoglobulin G (IgG) response was accompanied by a healthy CD4+ T-cell function. Compared with controls, a spike-specific CD4+ response was detectable in fewer patients with myeloid neoplasia whereas the seroconversion rate was normal. Vaccination-induced CD4+ responses were associated to CD8+ and IgG responses. Vector-based AZD1222 vaccine induced more frequently detectable specific CD4+ responses in study participants across all cohorts (96%; 27 of 28), whereas fully messenger RNA-based vaccination schemes resulted in measurable CD4+ cells in only 102 of 168 participants (61%; P < .0001). A similar benefit of vector-based vaccination was observed for the induction of spike-specific CD8+ T cells. Multivariable models confirmed vaccination schemes that incorporated at least 1 vector-based vaccination as key feature to mount both a spike-specific CD4+ response (odds ratio, 10.67) and CD8+ response (odds ratio, 6.56). Multivariable analyses identified a specific CD4+ response but not the vector-based immunization as beneficial for a strong, specific IgG titer. Our study reveals factors associated with a T-cell response in patients with hematological neoplasia and might pave the way toward tailored vaccination schemes for vaccinees with these diseases. The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register as #DRKS00027372.