The efficacy and safety profiles of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer is unknown. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) vaccine in patients with cancer. For this prospective observational study, we recruited patients with cancer and healthy controls (mostly health-care workers) from three London hospitals between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021. Participants who were vaccinated between Dec 8 and Dec 29, 2020, received two 30 μg doses of BNT162b2 administered intramuscularly 21 days apart; patients vaccinated after this date received only one 30 μg dose with a planned follow-up boost at 12 weeks. Blood samples were taken before vaccination and at 3 weeks and 5 weeks after the first vaccination. Where possible, serial nasopharyngeal real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) swab tests were done every 10 days or in cases of symptomatic COVID-19. The coprimary endpoints were seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein in patients with cancer following the first vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine and the effect of vaccine boosting after 21 days on seroconversion. All participants with available data were included in the safety and immunogenicity analyses. Ongoing follow-up is underway for further blood sampling after the delayed (12-week) vaccine boost. This study is registered with the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (REC ID 20/HRA/2031). 151 patients with cancer (95 patients with solid cancer and 56 patients with haematological cancer) and 54 healthy controls were enrolled. For this interim data analysis of the safety and immunogenicity of vaccinated patients with cancer, samples and data obtained up to March 19, 2021, were analysed. After exclusion of 17 patients who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (detected by either antibody seroconversion or a positive rRT-PCR COVID-19 swab test) from the immunogenicity analysis, the proportion of positive anti-S IgG titres at approximately 21 days following a single vaccine inoculum across the three cohorts were 32 (94%; 95% CI 81–98) of 34 healthy controls; 21 (38%; 26–51) of 56 patients with solid cancer, and eight (18%; 10–32) of 44 patients with haematological cancer. 16 healthy controls, 25 patients with solid cancer, and six patients with haematological cancer received a second dose on day 21. Of the patients with available blood samples 2 weeks following a 21-day vaccine boost, and excluding 17 participants with evidence of previous natural SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 18 (95%; 95% CI 75–99) of 19 patients with solid cancer, 12 (100%; 76–100) of 12 healthy controls, and three (60%; 23–88) of five patients with haematological cancers were seropositive, compared with ten (30%; 17–47) of 33, 18 (86%; 65–95) of 21, and four (11%; 4–25) of 36, respectively, who did not receive a boost. The vaccine was well tolerated; no toxicities were reported in 75 (54%) of 140 patients with cancer following the first dose of BNT162b2, and in 22 (71%) of 31 patients with cancer following the second dose. Similarly, no toxicities were reported in 15 (38%) of 40 healthy controls after the first dose and in five (31%) of 16 after the second dose. Injection-site pain within 7 days following the first dose was the most commonly reported local reaction (23 [35%] of 65 patients with cancer; 12 [48%] of 25 healthy controls). No vaccine-related deaths were reported. In patients with cancer, one dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine yields poor efficacy. Immunogenicity increased significantly in patients with solid cancer within 2 weeks of a vaccine boost at day 21 after the first dose. These data support prioritisation of patients with cancer for an early (day 21) second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. King's College London, Cancer Research UK, Wellcome Trust, Rosetrees Trust, and Francis Crick Institute.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapies have been found to be particularly effective in tumors that harbor deleterious germline or somatic mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, the products of which contribute to the conservative homologous recombination repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Nonetheless, several setbacks in clinical trial settings have highlighted some of the issues surrounding the investigation of PARP inhibitors, especially the identification of patients who stand to benefit from such drugs. One potential approach to finding this patient subpopulation is to examine the tumor DNA for evidence of a homologous recombination defect. However, although the genomes of many breast and ovarian cancers are replete with aberrations, the presence of numerous factors able to shape the genomic landscape means that only some of the observed DNA abnormalities are the outcome of a cancer cell’s inability to faithfully repair DNA double-strand breaks. Consequently, recently developed methods for comprehensively capturing the diverse ways in which homologous recombination deficiencies may arise beyond BRCA1/2 mutation have used DNA microarray and sequencing data to account for potentially confounding features in the genome. Scores capturing telomeric allelic imbalance, loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and large scale transition score, as well as the total number of coding mutations are measures that summarize the total burden of certain forms of genomic abnormality. By contrast, other studies have comprehensively catalogued different types of mutational pattern and their relative contributions to a given tumor sample. Although at least one study to explore the use of the LOH scar in a prospective clinical trial of a PARP inhibitor in ovarian cancer is under way, limitations that result in a relatively low positive predictive value for these biomarkers remain. Tumors whose genome has undergone one or more events that restore high-fidelity homologous recombination are likely to be misclassified as double-strand break repair-deficient and thereby sensitive to PARP inhibitors and DNA damaging chemotherapies as a result of prior repair deficiency and its genomic scarring. Therefore, we propose that integration of a genomic scar-based biomarker with a marker of resistance in a high genomic scarring burden context may improve the performance of any companion diagnostic for PARP inhibitors.

Cancer cells tend to metastasize first to tumor-draining lymph nodes, but the mechanisms mediating cancer cell invasion into the lymphatic vasculature remain little understood. Here, we show that in the human breast tumor microenvironment (TME), the presence of increased numbers of RORγt⁺ group 3 innate lymphoid cells (ILC3) correlates with an increased likelihood of lymph node metastasis. In a preclinical mouse model of breast cancer, CCL21-mediated recruitment of ILC3 to tumors stimulated the production of the CXCL13 by TME stromal cells, which in turn promoted ILC3–stromal interactions and production of the cancer cell motile factor RANKL. Depleting ILC3 or neutralizing CCL21, CXCL13, or RANKL was sufficient to decrease lymph node metastasis. Our findings establish a role for RORγt⁺ILC3 in promoting lymphatic metastasis by modulating the local chemokine milieu of cancer cells in the TME. Cancer Res; 77(5); 1083–96. ©2017 AACR.

In breast cancer, humoral immune responses may contribute to clinical outcomes, especially in more immunogenic subtypes. Here, we investigated B lymphocyte subsets, immunoglobulin expression, and clonal features in breast tumors, focusing on aggressive triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC). In samples from patients with TNBC and healthy volunteers, circulating and tumor-infiltrating B lymphocytes (TIL-B) were evaluated. CD20+CD27+IgD− isotype-switched B lymphocytes were increased in tumors, compared with matched blood. TIL-B frequently formed stromal clusters with T lymphocytes and engaged in bidirectional functional cross-talk, consistent with gene signatures associated with lymphoid assembly, costimulation, cytokine–cytokine receptor interactions, cytotoxic T-cell activation, and T-cell–dependent B-cell activation. TIL-B–upregulated B-cell receptor (BCR) pathway molecules FOS and JUN, germinal center chemokine regulator RGS1, activation marker CD69, and TNFα signal transduction via NFκB, suggesting BCR–immune complex formation. Expression of genes associated with B lymphocyte recruitment and lymphoid assembly, including CXCL13, CXCR4, and DC-LAMP, was elevated in TNBC compared with other subtypes and normal breast. TIL-B–rich tumors showed expansion of IgG but not IgA isotypes, and IgG isotype switching positively associated with survival outcomes in TNBC. Clonal expansion was biased toward IgG, showing expansive clonal families with specific variable region gene combinations and narrow repertoires. Stronger positive selection pressure was present in the complementarity determining regions of IgG compared with their clonally related IgA in tumor samples. Overall, class-switched B lymphocyte lineage traits were conspicuous in TNBC, associated with improved clinical outcomes, and conferred IgG-biased, clonally expanded, and likely antigen-driven humoral responses.Significance: Tumor-infiltrating B lymphocytes assemble in clusters, undergoing B-cell receptor–driven activation, proliferation, and isotype switching. Clonally expanded, IgG isotype-biased humoral immunity associates with favorable prognosis primarily in triple-negative breast cancers.

While desired for the cure of allergy, regulatory immune cell subsets and nonclassical Th2‐biased inflammatory mediators in the tumour microenvironment can contribute to immune suppression and escape of tumours from immunological detection and clearance. A key aim in the cancer field is therefore to design interventions that can break immunological tolerance and halt cancer progression, whereas on the contrary allergen immunotherapy exactly aims to induce tolerance. In this position paper, we review insights on immune tolerance derived from allergy and from cancer inflammation, focusing on what is known about the roles of key immune cells and mediators. We propose that research in the field of AllergoOncology that aims to delineate these immunological mechanisms with juxtaposed clinical consequences in allergy and cancer may point to novel avenues for therapeutic interventions that stand to benefit both disciplines.