Concurrent chemoradiation versus radiotherapy alone for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer in a low-resource setting

Our goal was to determine the clinical treatment response following radiation administered with or without chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancers in Honduras. This is a retrospective study of patients treated with either concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone at a hospital in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. 70 Gy of EBRT to the pelvis was given in all cases. Brachytherapy was not available. Chemotherapy was given when available. Extrafascial hysterectomy was performed 6 weeks after completion of treatment in patients with a complete clinical response (cCR). Records for 165 women with locally advanced cervical cancer were reviewed; 25 (15.2%) stage IB2, 15 (9.1%) stage IIA, 90 (54.5%) stage IIB, and 35 (21.2%) stage IIIB. Ninety (54.5%) patients received EBRT alone; 75 (45.5%) received CCRT. Twenty-three (33.3%) of CCRT patients received weekly cisplatin, the remainder receiving other agents. Seventy (77.8%) of the 90 patients who received EBRT had a cCR; 25 out of 75 (33.3%) patients in the CCRT group achieved a cCR. The CCRT group treated with weekly cisplatin achieved an 80% cCR; while the CCRT group given alternative agents had only a 31% cCR. Patients unable to receive platinum-based CCRT had the worst outcome, and their responses were inferior to patients who received EBRT. The challenges of treating women with locally advanced cervical cancer in a low-resource setting are multifactorial and include treatment delays, the lack of brachytherapy and the unpredictable availability of chemotherapy

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health