COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer:immunogenicity, efficacy and safety

Patients with cancer have a higher risk of severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. Owing to this increased risk, patients with cancer have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination globally, for both primary and booster vaccinations. However, given that these patients were not included in the pivotal clinical trials, considerable uncertainty remains regarding vaccine efficacy, and the extent of humoral and cellular immune responses in these patients, as well as the risks of vaccine-related adverse events. In this Review, we summarize the current knowledge generated in studies conducted since COVID-19 vaccines first became available. We also highlight critical points that might affect vaccine efficacy in patients with cancer in the future

Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Testing prior to Treatment with 5-Fluorouracil, Capecitabine, and Tegafur: A Consensus Paper

Background: 5-Fluorouracil (FU) is one of the most commonly used cytostatic drugs in the systemic treatment of cancer. Treatment with FU may cause severe or life-threatening side effects and the treatment-related mortality rate is 0.2–1.0%. Summary: Among other risk factors associated with increased toxicity, a genetic deficiency in dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), an enzyme responsible for the metabolism of FU, is well known. This is due to variants in the DPD gene (DPYD). Up to 9% of European patients carry a DPD gene variant that decreases enzyme activity, and DPD is completely lacking in approximately 0.5% of patients. Here we describe the clinical and genetic background and summarize recommendations for the genetic testing and tailoring of treatment with 5-FU derivatives. The statement was developed as a consensus statement organized by the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology in cooperation with 13 medical associations from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Key Messages: (i) Patients should be tested for the 4 most common genetic DPYD variants before treatment with drugs containing FU. (ii) Testing forms the basis for a differentiated, risk-adapted algorithm with recommendations for treatment with FU-containing drugs. (iii) Testing may optionally be supplemented by therapeutic drug monitorin

Evaluating requests for physician‐assisted suicide. A survey among German oncologists

Abstract Background Cancer patients form a notable proportion of requestors for physician‐assisted suicide (PAS). This manuscript provides data on German oncologists' views concerning due criteria for the assessment of requests for PAS and quality assurance. Methods The German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) has conducted a survey among its members to elicit data about practices and views on regulating PAS in March 2021. Descriptive analysis and bivariate logistic regression of quantitative data on socio‐demographic and other determinants possibly associated with respondents' views on PAS as well as content analysis of qualitative data were performed. Results About 57.1% (n = 425) of respondents (n = 745) indicated that they had been asked for information about PAS by patients. Information about palliative (92.7%; n = 651) and psychological care options (85.6%; n = 598) was deemed most important in cases of requests for PAS. More than half of the respondents (57.6%; n = 429) were in favour of a formal expert assessment of decisional capacity and about 33.4% (n = 249) favoured a time span of 14 days between the counselling and prescription of a lethal drug. There was no association between participants who received more requests and a preference for disclosing publicly their willingness to assist with suicide. A majority of respondents requested measures of quality assurance (71.3%; n = 531). Conclusion According to respondents' views, the regulation of PAS will require diligent procedures regarding the assessment of decisional capacity and counselling. The findings suggest that the development of adequate and feasible criteria to assess the quality of practices is an important task

Afatinib

Das erneute Verfahren zu Afatinib (Giotrif®) bei Patienten mit nichtkleinzelligem Lungenkarzinom und aktivierenden EGFR-Mutationen wird nach Ablauf der in der Erstbewertung vom 8. Mai 2014 festgesetzten Frist durchgeführt. Afatinib gehört zur Substanzklasse der Tyrosinkinase-Inhibitoren (TKI). Der G-BA hat Subgruppen auf der Basis der Vorbehandlung und des Allgemeinzustandes definiert. Die festgelegten Vergleichstherapien unterscheiden sich in einigen Punkten vom ersten Verfahren. Einen Überblick über die Subgruppen und die Bewertungsvorschläge von pharmazeutischem Unternehmer und IQWiG gibt Tabelle 1