Data on the effectiveness and safety of approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in cancer patients are limited. This observational, prospective cohort study investigated the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in 232 cancer patients from 12 HeCOG-affiliated oncology departments compared to 100 healthcare volunteers without known active cancer. The seropositivity rate was measured 2–4 weeks after two vaccine doses, by evaluating neutralising antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein using a commercially available immunoassay. Seropositivity was defined as ≥33.8 Binding-Antibody-Units (BAU)/mL. A total of 189 patients and 99 controls were eligible for this analysis. Among patients, 171 (90.5%) were seropositive after two vaccine doses, compared to 98% of controls (p = 0.015). Most seronegative patients were males (66.7%), >70-years-old (55.5%), with comorbidities (61.1%), and on active treatment (88.9%). The median antibody titers among patients were significantly lower than those of the controls (523 vs. 2050 BAU/mL; p < 0.001). The rate of protective titers was 54.5% in patients vs. 97% in controls (p < 0.001). Seropositivity rates and IgG titers in controls did not differ for any studied factor. In cancer patients, higher antibody titers were observed in never-smokers (p = 0.006), women (p = 0.022), <50-year-olds (p = 0.004), PS 0 (p = 0.029), and in breast or ovarian vs. other cancers. Adverse events were comparable to registration trials. In this cohort study, although the seropositivity rate after two vaccine doses in cancer patients seemed satisfactory, their antibody titers were significantly lower than in controls. Monitoring of responses and further elucidation of the clinical factors that affect immunity could guide adaptations of vaccine strategies for vulnerable subgroups.

Our aim was to evaluate the concordance between the Myriad MyChoice and two alternative homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) assays (AmoyDx HRD Focus NGS Panel and OncoScan™) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Tissue samples from 50 patients with newly diagnosed EOC and known Myriad MyChoice HRD status were included. DNA aliquots from tumor samples, previously evaluated with Myriad MyChoice and centrally reassessed, were distributed to laboratories to assess their HRD status using the two platforms, after being blinded for the Myriad MyChoice CDx HRD status. The primary endpoint was the concordance between Myriad MyChoice and each alternative assay. Tumor samples were evaluated with an AmoyDx^® HRD Focus Panel (n = 50) and with OncoScan™ (n = 43). Both platforms provided results for all tumors. Analysis showed that correlation was high for the Myriad MyChoice GI score and AmoyDx^® HRD Focus Panel (r = 0.79) or OncoScan™ (r = 0.87) (continuous variable). The overall percent agreement (OPA) between Myriad MyChoice GI status (categorical variable) and each alternative assay was 83.3% (68.6–93.3%) with AmoyDx and 77.5% (61.5–89.2%) with OncoScan™. The OPA in HRD status between Myriad MyChoice and AmoyDx was 88.6% (75.4–96.2). False-positive rates were 31.6% (6/19) for AmoyDx GI status and 31.9% (7/22) for OncoScan™, while false-negative rates were 0% (0/28, AmoyDx) and 11.1% (2/18, OncoScan™) compared with the Myriad MyChoice GI status. While substantial concordance between Myriad MyChoice and alternative assays was demonstrated, prospective validation of the analytical performance and clinical relevance of these assays is warranted.

Recognizing resistance or susceptibility to the current standard cisplatin and paclitaxel treatment could improve therapeutic outcomes of metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. Forty-five tissue samples from patients participating in a phase II trial of cisplatin and ifosfamide, with or without paclitaxel were collected for retrograde analysis. Immunohistochemistry and genotyping was performed to test ERCC1, III β-tubulin, COX-2, CD4, CD8 and ERCC1 (C8092A and N118 N) and MDR1 (C3435T and G2677 T) gene polymorphisms, as possible predictive and prognostic markers. Results were statistically analyzed and correlated with patient characteristics and outcomes. Patients with higher levels of ERCC1 expression had shorter PFS and OS than patients with low ERCC1 expression (mPFS:5.1 vs 10.2 months, p = 0.027; mOS:10.5 vs. 21.4 months, p = 0.006). Patients with TT in the site of ERCC1 N118 N and GT in the site of MDR1 G2677 T polymorphisms had significantly longer PFS (p = 0.006 and p = 0.027 respectively). ERCC1 expression and the ERCC1 N118 N polymorphism remained independent predictors of PFS. Interestingly, high III beta tubulin expression was associated with chemotherapy resistance and fewer responses [5/20 (25%)] compared to lower III β-tubulin expression [15/23 (65.2%)] (p = 0.008). Finally, ΙΙΙ β-tubulin levels and chemotherapy regimen were independent predictors of response to treatment. ERCC1 expression proved to be a significant prognostic factor for survival in our metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer population treated with cisplatin based chemotherapy. ERCC1 N118 N and MDR1 G2677 T polymorphism also proved of prognostic significance for disease progression, while overexpression of III β-tubulin was positively correlated with chemotherapy resistance.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common distressing complaint of breast cancer (BC) patients treated with chemotherapy. Nutritional quality plays a pivotal role in CRF, while increased interest towards new pharmacological agents has been observed. Melatonin, an endogenous hormone that regulates the human sleep–wake cycle, could alleviate CRF. In the present randomized, placebo-controlled 3-month trial, we investigated the effects of melatonin intake (i.e., 1 mg/day) vs. placebo in BC patients on CRF. In both arms, the Mediterranean diet (MD) was implemented. Medical history, anthropometry and blood withdrawal were performed. CRF was evaluated by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Fatigue questionnaire and MD adherence by the MedDietScore. In total, 49 BC women (median age 52 years) were recruited, namely N = 23 in the intervention arm and N = 26 in the placebo arm. At baseline, CRF was positively associated with body mass index (BMI), even when adjusted for age, waist circumference and blood indices related to disease prognosis (beta = −0.882, p = 0.003). At 3 months, both groups showed a BMI decrease (p < 0.05), but only the intervention group improved CRF compared to baseline (p = 0.003). No differences in CRF were observed between the groups. In conclusion, melatonin oral supplementation could ameliorate CRF in BC patients.

Background: Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes are responsible for approximately 5–10% of all diagnosed cancer cases. In order to identify individuals at risk in a cost-efficient manner, family members of individuals carrying pathogenic alterations are tested only for the specific variant that was identified in their carrier relative. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical use and implementation of cascade family testing (CFT) in families of breast cancer patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PVs/LPVs) in cancer-related predisposition genes. Methods: Germline sequencing was carried out with NGS technology using a 52-gene panel, and cascade testing was performed by Sanger sequencing or MLPA. Results: In a cohort of 1785 breast cancer patients (families), 20.3% were found to have PVs/LPVs. Specifically, 52.2%, 25.1%, and 22.7% of patients had positive findings in high-, intermediate-, and low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes, respectively. Although CFT was recommended to all families, only 117 families (32.3%) agreed to proceed with genetic testing. Among the first-degree relatives who underwent CFT, 70.3% were female, and 108 of 121 (89.3%) were cancer free. Additionally, 42.7%, 36.7%, and 20.6% were offspring, siblings, and parents of the subject, respectively. Our data suggest that CFT was mostly undertaken (104/117, 88.8%) in families with positive findings in high-risk genes. Conclusions: Cascade family testing can be a powerful tool for primary cancer prevention by identifying at-risk family members. It is of utmost importance to implement genetic counseling approaches leading to increased awareness and communication of genetic testing results.

The oral problems of 24 cancer patients on immunotherapy between 2017–2022 and referred by their oncologists, were reported. The age range was 49–80 years, and the median was 64 years. Lung cancer was the most common disease. Three patients a had history of autoimmune disease prior to cancer diagnosis. Patients received immunotherapy for two to 48 months. Prior to immunotherapy, 17 patients received cytotoxic chemotherapy, five angiogenesis inhibitors and one1 radiotherapy to head/neck. During immunotherapy, four patients received chemotherapy, one received bevacizumab, and eight received bone targeting agents, either alone or in combination. Presenting symptoms were oral pain (18 patients, 75%), dental pain (five patients), xerostomia (five patients), burning/itching (seven patients), bleeding (three patients), swelling (three patients), and taste problems (dysgeusia) (three patients). One patient was asymptomatic. Immune-related lesions were observed in 15 patients (62.50%), of which three were exacerbations of prior autoimmune disease. Three patients reported severe deterioration and itching after using a mouthwash. We also observed six (25%) infections (four candidiasis and two herpes simplex), and six (25.00%) cases of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). Five of those MRONJ cases developed among the eight patients with the administration of bone targeting agents and one in a patient with bevacizumab. Two patients presented with more than one lesion. In conclusion, immune-related lesions were most common; oral infections and MRONJ were also observed. Various oral complications might be related to the interplay between immunotherapy and other therapies prior or concurrent to immunotherapy.