ABSTRACT
Background The efficacy and safety profile of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have not been definitively established in immunocompromised patient populations. Patients with a known cancer diagnosis were hitherto excluded from trials of the vaccines currently in clinical use.
Methods This study presents data on the safety and immune efficacy of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in 54 healthy controls and 151 mostly elderly patients with solid and haematological malignancies, respectively, and compares results for patients who were boosted with BNT162b2 at 3 weeks versus those who were not. Immune efficacy was measured as antibody seroconversion, T cell responses, and neutralisation of SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan strain and of a variant of concern (VOC) (B.1.1.7). We also collected safety data for the BNT162b2 vaccine up to 5 weeks following first dose.
Findings The vaccine was largely well tolerated. However, in contrast to its very high performance in healthy controls (>90% efficacious), immune efficacy of a single inoculum in solid cancer patients was strikingly low (below 40%) and very low in haematological cancer patients (below 15%). Of note, efficacy in solid cancer patients was greatly and rapidly increased by boosting at 21-days (95% within 2 weeks of boost). Too few haematological cancer patients were boosted for clear conclusions to be drawn.
Conclusions Delayed boosting potentially leaves most solid and haematological cancer patients wholly or partially unprotected, with implications for their own health; their environment and the evolution of VOC strains. Prompt boosting of solid cancer patients quickly overcomes the poor efficacy of the primary inoculum in solid cancer patients.
Evidence before this study Some cancer patients have been shown to exhibit sustained immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion and prolonged viral shedding as a consequence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Consequently, their exclusion and, in particular, the exclusion of patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapies, from the registry trials of the 5 approved COVID-19 vaccines raises questions about the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in this patient population. In addition, whilst the change in the UK’s dosing interval to 12-weeks aimed to maximise population coverage, it is unclear whether this strategy is appropriate for cancer patients and those on systemic anti-cancer therapies.
Added value of this study We report that the RNA-based SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine administered in cancer patients was well tolerated, and we provide first insights into both antibody and T cell responses to the vaccine in an immunocompromised patient population.
Implications of all the available evidence In cancer patients, one dose of 30ug of BNT162b2 yields poor vaccine efficacy, as measured by seroconversion rates, viral neutralisation capacity and T cell responses, at 3- and 5-weeks following the first inoculum. Patients with solid cancers exhibited a significantly greater response following a booster at 21-days. These data support prioritisation of cancer patients for an early (21-day) second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Given the globally poor responses to vaccination in patients with haematological cancers, post-vaccination serological testing, creation of herd immunity around these patients using a strategy of ‘ring vaccination’, and careful follow-up should be prioritised.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
IRAS ID: 282337, REC ID: 20/HRA/2031
Funding Statement
We thank patients and blood donors consenting in this study and the medical and research teams at Guys and St. Thomas Trust (GSTT) hospitals. We thank members of the GSTT and Kings College Hospital (KCH) trial teams who contributed to patient recruitment for the SOAP study at GSTT and KCH hospitals; and clinical colleagues at GSTT, KCH, and PRUH for assisting with patient identification and sample collection. The SOAP study (IRAS 282337) is sponsored by Kings College London and GSTT Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds to S.I. (PS10822), Cancer Research UK to S.I. (C56773 / A24869), program grants from Breast Cancer Now including S.I. at Kings College London and to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London. This work was also supported by the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award to A.C.H. (106292/Z/14/Z), the Rosetrees and John Black Charitable Foundation award to A.C.H ( 11130 ), the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and a UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium (CIC) grant to AH (C33499/A20265); the Kings Together Rapid COVID-19 Call awards to K.J.D and M.H.M and A.C.H; the Foundation Dormeur, Vaduz for funding equipment to K.J.D; the Huo Family Foundation Award to M.H.M and K.J.D; the Cancer Research Institute Irvington Fellowship (D.R.M); the MRC-KCL Doctoral Training Partnership in Biomedical Sciences (C.G., MR/N013700/1); and the Francis Crick Institute (A.C.H.), which receives core funding from Cancer Research UK (FC001093), the MRC (FC001093) and the Wellcome Trust (FC001093).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The SOAP study was sponsored by Kings College London and GSTT Foundation NHS Trust. The study was reviewed and ethical approval given by the London Bridge NHS Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 282337 REC ID: 20/HRA/2031
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Upon request
