4.7 Article

Assessment of Postvaccination Neutralizing Antibodies Response against SARS-CoV-2 in Cancer Patients under Treatment with Targeted Agents

期刊

VACCINES
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10091474

关键词

SARS-CoV-2; vaccination; cancer; ARTA; CDK4/6 inhibitors; PARP inhibitors

资金

  1. SYN-ENOSIS (Greece)
  2. AEGEAS (Greece)
  3. IEMBITHEK (Greece)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Administration of a third dose of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 enhances protection in cancer patients receiving targeted therapies. Neutralizing antibody levels were lower in cancer patients compared to healthy individuals, but increased after the third dose. Antibody titers waned over time but remained above protective levels at 6 months post-second dose.
The administration of a third dose of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 has increased protection against disease transmission and severity. However, the kinetics of neutralizing antibodies against the virus has been poorly studied in cancer patients under targeted therapies. Baseline characteristics and levels of neutralizing antibodies at specific timepoints after vaccination were compared between patients suffering from breast, ovarian or prostate cancer and healthy individuals. Breast cancer patients were treated with cyclin D kinase 4/6 inhibitors and hormonal therapy, ovarian cancer patients were treated with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and prostate cancer patients were treated with an androgen receptor targeted agent. Levels of neutralizing antibodies were significantly lower in cancer patients compared to healthy individuals at all timepoints. Antibodies' titers declined over time in both groups but remained above protective levels (>50%) at 6 months after the administration of the second dose. The administration of a third dose increased neutralizing antibodies' levels in both groups. The titers of protective against SARS-CoV-2 antibodies wane over time and increase after a third dose in cancer patients under treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据