Quality of life after tonsillectomy in adult patients with recurrent acute tonsillitis: a systematic review

xlomafota13 shared this article with you from Inoreader Quality of life after tonsillectomy in adult patients with recurrent acute tonsillitis: a systematic review Via http://link.springer.com/journal/405,European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology,The European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022 Jan 19. doi: 10.1007/s00405-022-07260-7. Online ahead of print. ABSTRACT PURPOSE: The aims of this systematic review were to (1) explore the evidence for improved quality of life (QOL) in adult patients undergoing tonsillectomy because of recurrent acute tonsillitis (RT) and (2) evaluate which set of guidelines for tonsillectomy in adult RT patients is preferable, using QOL as outcome measure. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. RCT/cohort studies exploring the effect of elective tonsillectomy in adult RT patients using any QOL assessment tool no less than 6 months after surgery were included. Studies were divided into two guideline groups based on the number of tonsillitis episodes required for tonsillectomy (Group 1: ≥ 5; Group 2: ≤ 4). RESULTS: A total of 364 unique records were identified. Seven studies (n = 409 patients) were includ ed in a qualitative analysis and four studies were included in a meta-analysis. Patients' QOL rose significantly, primarily because of improvements in the general and physical domains. In the meta-analysis, 96% (293/304) of patients benefitted from tonsillectomy. Patients included in guideline Group 1 studies had significantly higher QOL scores (Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) 39.6) compared to patients in Group 2 studies (GBI 24.9) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Adult patients undergoing tonsillectomy because of RT reported improved QOL 6-84 months after surgery. The benefit of tonsillectomy was higher among patients in studies with a higher minimum number of tonsillitis episodes compared to those included in studies with less strict criteria. Whether the improved QOL outweigh the morbidity associated with surgery in both guideline groups remains unclear. PMID:35044507 | DOI:10.1007/s00405-022-07260-7 View on the web Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid 3 Expression Is Increased In Non‐Lesional Skin Of Atopic Dermatitis Patients

xlomafota13 shared this article with you from Inoreader Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid 3 Expression Is Increased In Non‐Lesional Skin Of Atopic Dermatitis Patients Via Experimental Dermatology Abstract TRPV3 (transient receptor potential vanilloid 3) is a pro-inflammatory ion channel mostly expressed by keratinocytes of the human skin. Previous studies have shown that the expression of TRPV3 is markedly upregulated in the lesional epidermis of atopic dermatitis (AD) patients suggesting a potential pathogenetic role of the ion channel in the disease. In the current study, we aimed at defining the molecular and functional expression of TRPV3 in non-lesional skin of AD patients as previous studies implicated that healthy-appearing skin in AD are markedly distinct from normal skin with respect to terminal differentiation and certain immune function abnormalities. By using multiple, complementary immunolabeling and RT-qPCR technologies on full-thickness and epidermal shave biopsy samples from AD patients (lesional, non-lesional) and healthy volunteers, we provide the first evidence that the expression of TRPV3 is markedly upregulated in non-lesional human AD epidermis, similar to les ional AD samples. Of further importance, by using the patch-clamp method on cultured healthy and non-lesional AD keratinocytes, we also show that this upregulation is functional as determined by the significantly augmented TRPV3-specific ion current (induced by agonists) on cultured non-lesional AD keratinocytes when compared to healthy ones. View on the web Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

How Often Does Retrieval of a Clipped Lymph Node Change Adjuvant Therapy Recommendations? A Prospective, Consecutive, Patient Cohort Study

xlomafota13 shared this article with you from Inoreader How Often Does Retrieval of a Clipped Lymph Node Change Adjuvant Therapy Recommendations? A Prospective, Consecutive, Patient Cohort Study Via radioactive iodine Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 Jan 18. doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11324-7. Online ahead of print. ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Prior studies examining sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for cN1 patients have demonstrated that 20% of biopsied, clipped lymph nodes (cLNs) are nonsentinel lymph nodes (non-SLNs). Our goal was to determine how often the cLN was a non-SLN among both cN0 and cN1 patients and how often cLN pathology impacted management. METHODS: Overall , 238 patients treated with NAC and surgery January 2019 to June 2020 were prospectively examined. Patients underwent routine axillary ultrasound, biopsy of suspicious nodes, and clip placement. Radioactive iodine-125 seed localization of the cLN was performed in cN1 patients only. Isolated tumor cells (ITCs) were considered node positive (ypN+) for both cN0 and cN1 cohorts. Chart review was performed to determine if cLNs were non-SLN and their ypN status. RESULTS: Of 118 cN0 patients, 115 of 118 (97%) underwent successful SLNB, 33 of whom had a cLN present; 21 of 33 (64%) cLNs were non-SLNs. Overall, 9 of 118 (8%) were ypN+; no cLN was ypN+ without additional +SLNs. Of 120 cN1 patients, 104 of 120 (87%) converted to cN0, 98 of 104 (94%) of which had attempted SLNB, and 95 of 98 (97%) successfully mapped. The cLN was a non-SLN in 18 of 95 (19%). Overall, 58 of 104 (56%) cN1 patients were ypN+. One patient had a positive cLN in the absence of +SLNs. This patient underwent axill ary lymph node dissection (ALND); adjuvant treatment recommendations were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: The cLN was a non-SLN in 19% of cN1 patients. cLN pathology did not impact adjuvant therapy recommendations, calling into question the utility of routinely clipping biopsied lymph nodes. PMID:35041097 | DOI:10.1245/s10434-022-11324-7 View on the web Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Markers to sensibility and relapse on IMR-32 neuroblastoma cell line cultured in monolayer (2D) and neurosphere (3D) models cisplatin-treated

xlomafota13 shared this article with you from Inoreader Markers to sensibility and relapse on IMR-32 neuroblastoma cell line cultured in monolayer (2D) and neurosphere (3D) models cisplatin-treated Via histochem Acta Histochem. 2022 Jan 13;124(2):151849. doi: 10.1016/j.acthis.2022.151849. Online ahead of print. ABSTRACT The complexity of different components of tumor stroma poses huge challenges for therapies targeting the neuroblastoma (NB) microenvironment. The present study aimed to evaluate platinum-based response in IMR-32 neuroblastoma cell line cultured in monolayer (2D) and neurosphere (3D) models. For this, we evaluated mRNA expression of heat shock proteins HSPA1A, HSPB1, TRAP1, HSPA1AL, HSPD1, and DNA damage repair gene ERCC1. After treatment, residual cells were grafted on CAM (chicken chorioallantoic membrane) to evaluate the growth capability and histological paraffin sections were made to assess Ki-67 and HER-2 proteins by immunofluorescence. Our results showed that cisplatin induces mRNA downregulation of Heat Shock Proteins and ERCC1 in IMR-32 cells cultured in 2D or 3D models. In addition, the cisplatin-treatment approach increased HER-2 expression in residual IMR-32 cells grafted on the CAM. Therefore, these insights provide many advances in neuroendocrine tumor biology and knowledge about cisplatin-response in neuroblastoma. PMID:35033934 | DOI:10.1016/j.acthis.2022.151849 View on the web Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Benefit on daily listening with technological advancements: comparison of basic and premium category hearing aids

xlomafota13 shared this article with you from Inoreader Benefit on daily listening with technological advancements: comparison of basic and premium category hearing aids Via http://link.springer.com/journal/405,European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology,The European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022 Jan 17. doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-07240-3. Online ahead of print. ABSTRACT PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare the user-rated benefit of two categories of hearing aids, mainly the basic and premium categories of hearing aids. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered on 102 hearing aids users (47 basic and 55 premium category users) with severity of hearing loss ranging from mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss. The questionnaire administered was divided into mainly seven subscales which included speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise, ease of communication, the efficiency of noise reduction, localization, quality of music perception and cost effectiveness. The effect of duration of daily usage of hearing aids on performance among these different subscales was also assessed. RESULTS: Ease of communication was rated better by premium hearing aid users, whereas the cost effectiveness was rated to be better by basic users. There was no significant difference observed between performances of basic versus premium category of hearing aids in other listening domains assessed. There was no significant difference in any of the listening domains with daily usage duration for both categories of hearing aid users. CONCLUSION: The users of premium category devices revealed better ease of communication in daily environments, whereas performance of these devices on other listening domains remains questionable. Cost effectiveness was reported to be better by the users of basic hearing aids. A prospective and controlled paired series comparison of hearing aid performance needs to be performed to confirm these findings. PMID:35038028 | DOI:10.1007/s00405-021-07240-3 View on the web Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

FOCUS THEME ISSUE: CONCISE COMMUNICATION Dysbiosis of nail microbiome in patients with psoriasis

xlomafota13 shared this article with you from Inoreader FOCUS THEME ISSUE: CONCISE COMMUNICATION Dysbiosis of nail microbiome in patients with psoriasis Via Experimental Dermatology ABSTRACT Shifts in skin microbiome are considered to be involved in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. However, data on the microbial dysbiosis of nail psoriasis is scarce. In this study, we aim to investigate and characterize the nail bacterial and fungal microbiome in patients with psoriasis. Nail samples were collected prospectively from 36 subjects with nail psoriasis, 24 psoriatic subjects without nail involvement, and 32 healthy controls. Amplicon sequencing was performed to evaluate the bacterial and fungal community compositions. Significant alterations in the bacterial microbiome were found in the nail samples of psoriatic patients. The unaffected nails in psoriatic patients were associated with higher bacterial diversity, and a higher relative abundance of Enhydrobacter, whereas nail psoriasis was correlated with a decreased relative abundance of Anaerococcus. Shifts in fungal community composition was reflected by a higher proportion of Malassezia in the unaffec ted nails of psoriatic patients and an increased proportion of Candida in psoriatic nails. Shifts in the nail microbiome in psoriasis suggest a potential role of microbes in the development of nail psoriasis. Future researches focusing on these microorganisms may help to explain the pathogenesis of psoriasis. View on the web Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Specificities of supportive care in geriatric oncology

xlomafota13 shared this article with you from Inoreader Specificities of supportive care in geriatric oncology Via Association française pour l'étude du cancer Bull Cancer. 2022 Jan 10:S0007-4551(21)00679-2. doi: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2021.12.004. Online ahead of print. ABSTRACT Supportive care in geriatric oncology is crucial care that should be proposed from the beginning of cancer treatment. More than the quantity of life, the quality of life is a primary goal when treating cancer in the older patients. An initial assessment of the frailty of the older patients should be carried out. The eight domains requiring in-depth assessment are social environment, functional status, walking and balance, cognition, psychological status, co-morbidity and polypharmacy, nutrition and sensory deficiencies. The alteration of these domains has an impact on the patient's outcome, his quality of life and the tolerance of the treatment. One of the major challenges is to maintain the autonomy of the older patient, which involves preserving his functional status, his neuropsychological state and his nutritional stat e. Corrective actions for each of the domains must be implemented and must be adjusted throughout the course. It is also important to anticipate risks that may compromise or delay the continuation of anti-tumor treatment such as falls, delirium, organ decompensation, iatrogenic risk and social isolation. PMID:35027163 | DOI:10.1016/j.bulcan.2021.12.004 View on the web Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Analysis of clinicopathologic features and gene mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a series of 58 patients

xlomafota13 shared this article with you from Inoreader Analysis of clinicopathologic features and gene mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a series of 58 patients Via International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2021 Dec 15;14(12):1128-1137. eCollection 2021. ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: In gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), mutually exclusive gain-of-function mutations of c-kit and PDGFRα are associated with different mutation-dependent clinical features. We analyzed clinico-pathologic features and genotypes of GIST among patients in China. METHODS: Adult patients with GIST in the stomach, small intestine, colorectum, or extra-gastrointestinal areas were enrolled in this study. These patients had been subjected to surgical resection without imatinib (Gleevec) treatment at the Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 2009 to January 2019. Samples were obtained for histopathologic examination. Mutations in c-kit and PDGFRα genes were analyzed by PCR and next generation sequencing (NGS). Clinico-pathologic characteristics of each gene were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 58 GIST patien ts was enrolled in this study. In terms of genotypes, there were 51 (87.9%) c-kit mutations, 5 (8.6%) PDGFRα mutations, and 2 (3.4%) wild-type mutations. In terms of cell types, there were 40 cases (69.0%) with spindle cell type, 3 cases (5.2%) with epithelioid cell type and 3 cases (5.2%) with mixed spindle-epithelioid cell type. Among the 4 mutant forms of c-kit exon-11, the most common were point mutations in 16 cases (38.1%), deletion mutations in 13 cases (31.0%), insertion mutations in 4 cases (9.5%), and mixed mutations in 9 cases (21.4%). Based on risk grade classification of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 3 cases (5.2%) were very-low risk, 9 cases (15.5%) were low risk, 19 cases (32.8%) were medium risk, and 23 cases (39.7%) were high risk. Significant differences in cell type were identified across different gene types (P = 0.022). Similarly, differences in tumor risk were found among different mutant forms of c-kit gene exon-11 (P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: With c-kit mutations, spindle cell type prevalence exceeded that of the epithelioid cell type and mixed spindle-epithelioid cell type. Spindle and mixed spindle-epithelioid cell types were the most prevalent in the category of PDGFRα mutations. In wild type cases, spindle and epithelioid cell types were the most common. A high risk of deletion and mixed mutations, and intermediate risk of point and insertion mutations were observed in c-kit exon-11 mutation type. PMID:35027993 | PMC:PMC8748011 View on the web Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Recommendations to protect patients with cancer against the Omicron variant

xlomafota13 shared this article with you from Inoreader Message: Préconisations pour protéger les patients de la filière oncologique face au variant OmicronRecommendations to protect patients with cancer against the Omicron variant Author links open overlay panelJérômeBarrière1GérardZalcman2LaurentFignon3NathanPeiffer-Smadja4ClarisseAudigier-Valette5MichelCarles6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bulcan.2021.12.007Get rights and content La protection contre le SARS-CoV-2 des patients suivis pour cancer sous traitement antinéoplasique est un enjeu prioritaire de la communauté oncologique depuis le début de la pandémie. Cet objectif s'est concrétisé en France par des actions fortes et rapides : la sanctuarisation « COVID-free » dès mars 2020 des services de chimiothérapie, l'accès prioritaire dès janvier 2021 [[1], [2]] à la vaccination et l'autorisation dès avril 2021 d'une troisième dose vaccinale précoce (DGS urgent avril 21) en cas de facteurs de risque d'immunodépression. Nous avons récemment proposé un arbre décisionnel en fonction du taux d'anticorps (Ac) anti-Spike (S) après la deuxième dose, dans le but d'identifier les patients pouvant bénéficier d'une troisième dose précoce, en priorisant ceux ayant un taux < 260 BAU/mL [3]. Il s'agissait là de permettre un schéma vaccinal complet accéléré pour répondre au variant Delta [4]. L'émergence en Europe [5] et dans le monde, fin 2021, du variant Omicron à forte contagiosité impose une réponse rapide. Ce variant est caractérisé par un échappement immunitaire partiel à important, à la fois contre l'immunité post-infectieuse, post-vaccinale et contre les anticorps monoclonaux anti-SARS-CoV-2, qui est lié à de nombreuses mutations de la protéine S [[6], [7]]. Plusieurs raisons justifient cette urgence. D'une part, l'émergence d'Omicron s'est partout traduite à ce jour par la disparition rapide des autres variants en circulation. C'est donc la souche qui menace aujourd'hui les patients y compris oncologiques. D'autre part, l'efficacité de la réponse immunitaire liée soit à une infection préalable par d'autres souches, soit à la vaccination, semble fragilisée par Omicron [[7], [8]]. Enfin, la neutralisation du SARS-Cov2 obtenue par les combinaisons d'anticorps monoclonaux anti-SARS-CoV-2 disponibles (casirivimab/imdevimab et tixagevimab/cilgavimab) apparaît sur les données préliminaires de tests de neutralisation in vitro nulle pour les premiers et très incertaine pour les derniers [9]. Or, ces anticorps, lorsqu'ils étaient administrés en prophylaxie permettaient de diminuer significativement le risque d'infection à SARS-CoV-2 (étude PROVENT, [10]) et, lorsqu'ils étaient administrés en traitement précoce, le risque de COVID-19 sévère [11]. Nous alertons la communauté oncologique sur le risque supplémentaire de COVID-19 grave lié à l'émergence du variant Omicron, pour les patients suivis pour cancer. Prenant en compte les données disponibles en population générale, ce risque est majeur dans la population oncologique, comme pour d'autres populations immunodéprimées (thérapies ciblées anti-CD20 par exemple). Néanmoins, la quantification précise de ce risque en termes d'hospitalisation et de décès n'est pas connue à ce jour. Afin d'anticiper cette nouvelle menace, à la fois du point de vue du risque de contagiosité que de l'échappement à la réponse immune, nos six propositions sont les suivantes : Proposition 1 : recommander une troisième dose vaccinale pour tous avec contrôle du taux résiduel d'Ac anti-S à trois mois. Face au variant Omicron, les données déjà disponibles objectivent une diminution de l'efficacité vaccinale plus rapide que par rapport au variant Delta, avec manifestement une protection accrue du booster (dose 3) [12]. Le niveau d'Ac anti-S obtenu après une dose 3 a été rapporté environ neuf fois supérieur qu'après une dose 2 dans la population générale [13]. En oncologie les données sont encore trop peu nombreuses mais certains patients semblent tirer nettement bénéfice du boosteravec des taux d'Ac anti-S sous chimiothérapie qui dépassent les taux atteints après deux doses [14], qui rappelons-le demeurent significativement inférieurs à la population générale à quatre semaines de la dose 2 [15]. Recommander la dose 3 précocement (à trois ou quatre mois de la dose 2) pour tous les patients oncologiques désormais (certains n'ont à ce jour encore uniquement reçu deux doses), et administrer une dose 4 pour ceux ayant déjà fait leur dose 3 depuis trois à quatre mois en fonction du taux d'Ac anti-S résiduel, apparaît opportun pour tenter de protéger au mieux ces patients face au variant Omicron qui nécessite un taux d'anticorps protecteurs plus élevés que face aux précédents variants. Ayant montré que les traitements par anticorps anti-CD20 constituent un facteur de risque majeur d'absence de réponse humorale à la vaccination chez les patients atteints de leucémie lymphoïde chronique ou lymphome, même avec une troisième dose vaccinale précoce [16], la dose 4 a cependant très peu de chances d'être efficace dans ce sous-groupe de patients. Proposition 2 : retenir le seuil de 1000 BAU/mL comme taux d'Ac anti-S pour une dose vaccinale additionnelle (dose 4). Si le taux d'anti-S mesuré est < 1000 BAU/mL, une dose additionnelle est proposée. Ce seuil correspond en effet à celui obtenu environ trois à quatre mois après dose 2 dans une population sans comorbidité [17] et à qui désormais une dose 3 est proposée de manière anticipée pour conférer rapidement une protection sérologique optimale face à Omicron. Ce seuil pourrait donc être la valeur retenue pour la surveillance des patients immunodéprimés, en particulier les patients oncologiques, afin de proposer une dose vaccinale additionnelle, c'est-à-dire une dose 4. Proposition 3 : prescription en prophylaxie primaire pré-exposition de l'association d'anticorps monoclonaux tixagevimab/cilgavimab (EVUSHELD®, AstraZeneca), pour les patients sans séroconversion après dose 3–4. Cette association d'anticorps à demi-vie longue demeure efficace in vitro sur le variant Delta. Lorsque Omicron sera le variant majoritaire, le risque de perte de sensibilité décrit in vitro devrait alors faire prioriser l'anticorps sotrovimab (XEVUDY®, GSK) [18] semblant moins affecté in vitro par les mutations d'Omicron [9] même si les données d'efficacité clinique de l'association tixagevimab/cilgavimab face à Omicron pourraient s'avérer suffisantes, avec possiblement la nécessité d'une deuxième administration précoce pour maintenir un taux élévé des anticorps dans le sang ou d'une augmentation de la dose. Actuellement seuls les patients atteints d'hémopathies lymphoïdes ou ayant reçu une greffe de cellules souches hématopoïétiques sont éligibles en oncologie à la procédure d'accès précoce. Il nous semble opportun d'élargir à l'ensemble de la population oncologique sous traitement actif les indications, face au risque omicron, en l'absence de séroconversion après un schéma vaccinal à quatre doses. Le seuil de 264 BAU/mL actuellement seuil de prescription reste à préciser face au variant Omicron et pourrait nécessiter un relèvement à 1000 BAU/mL. Proposition 4 : vaccination complète (trois doses) pour les proches des patients sous chimiothérapie. Nous recommandons également la vaccination des enfants de cinq à onze ans en contact de parents immunodéprimés, en accord avec la plupart des sociétés savantes pédiatriques mondiales et les autorités américaines (FDA) et européennes (EMA) du médicament. Proposition 5 : port d'un masque de protection de type Filtering Face Piece type 2 (FFP2/N95) pour les patients en cours de traitement actif, dont certains (avec cancer pulmonaire, hémopathie lymphoïde…) ont un risque de décès de 30 % ou plus en cas de contamination, dans les lieux avec du public. De récentes données comparatives en conditions expérimentales évaluent une protection individuelle supérieure par rapport au port de masques chirurgicaux [19]. Le gain peut apparaître cependant limité si le port des masques chirurgicaux était bien respecté par tous, mais cette condition apparaît peu réaliste dans les lieux avec public (cinéma, transports en commun etc.) ou encore lors des transports en VSL/ambulance, voire lors des séances de chimiothérapie en salle commune. La protection d'un masque de type FFP2 nous apparaît ainsi être une recommandation basée sur le principe de précaution (accord d'experts) en période de forte circulation virale d'un agen t pathogène très contagieux pour protéger une population immunodéprimée. Ces masques représentent un surcoût non négligeable par rapport aux masques dits chirurgicaux simples, eux remboursés. Nous recommandons donc de manière rapide leurs remboursements sur prescription médicale. Proposition 6 : favoriser si disponibilité l'inclusion des patients suivis pour une néoplasie dans les essais thérapeutiques innovants que ce soit en prophylaxie primaire ou post-exposition, en cas de PCR positive en ciblant les anticorps monoclonaux ou thérapies antivirales à venir telles que l'association PF-07321332 et ritonavir (PAXLOVID®, Pfizer) dont les données d'efficacité contre le variant Omicron, ou dans une population immunodéprimée ne sont pas encore connues. En conclusion, la mise en œuvre de ces six propositions est de nature à protéger au mieux les patients suivis pour cancer, en particulier ceux en soins actifs, avec des données suffisantes pour formuler des recommandations complètes associant plusieurs mesures de protection qui prennent en compte le risque d'inefficacité vaccinale. Dans un contexte de reprise épidémique avec un nouveau variant hautement contagieux et échappant au moins partiellement à l'immunité acquise, nous n'avons pas le temps d'attendre des études à plus large échelle. Pour les patients immunodéprimés, c'est une menace immédiate dès janvier 2022 à laquelle nous devons apporter une réponse rapide, qui s'adaptera aux futures informations dès qu'elles seront disponibles. Financement aucun. Déclaration de liens d'intérêts M. Carles, N. Peiffer-Smadja et L. Fignon déclarent ne pas avoir de liens d'intérêts. Références [1] J.P. Spano, F. Barre-Sinoussi, M.P. Kieny, A.G. Marcelin, J.Y. Blay Vaccination anti COVID-19 pour les personnes souffrant de cancer : un impératif médical et éthique [COVID-19 vaccination for cancer patients: Medical and ethical need] Bull Cancer, 108 (3) (2021), pp. 225-227, 10.1016/j.bulcan.2021.02.001 [French. Epub 2021 Feb 16] ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [2] J. Barrière, C. Audigier-Valette, D. Borchiellini, B. Hoch, O. Castelnau, E. François, et al. Nous devons respecter le schéma vaccinal anti-SARS-CoV-2 sans décalage chez les patients atteints de cancer sous traitement [We must respect the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine schedule without delay in cancer patients under treatment] Bull Cancer, 108 (4) (2021), pp. 341-342, 10.1016/j.bulcan.2021.02.003 French. Epub 2021 Mar 5 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [3] J. Barrière, M. Carles, C. Audigier-Valette, D. Re, A. Zoubir, B. Seitz-Polski, et al. Third dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for patients with cancer: Should humoral responses be monitored? A position paper Eur J Cancer (2021), 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.12.011 [S0959804921012752] Google Scholar [4] J. Barrière, D. Re, F. Peyrade, M. Carles Current perspectives for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination efficacy improvement in patients with active treatment against cancer Eur J Cancer, 154 (2021), pp. 66-72, 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.008 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [5] Weekly epidemiological update: Omicron variant of concern (VOC)–week 50 (data as of 19 December 2021). https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/weekly-epidemiological-update-omicron-variant-concern-voc-week-50-data-19-december-2021. Google Scholar [6] V.M. Ferré, N. Peiffer-Smadja, B. Visseaux, D. Descamps, J. Ghosn, C. Charpentier Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant: what we know and what we don't Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med, 41 (1) (2021), p. 100998, 10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100998 Google Scholar [7] J.R.C. Pulliam, C. van Schalkwyk, N. Govender, A. von Gottberg, C. Cohen, M.J. Groome, et al. Increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection associated with emergence of the Omicron variant in South Africa medRxiv (2021) [2021.11.11.21266068] Google Scholar [8] L. Lu, et al. Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant by sera from BNT162b2 or Coronavac vaccine recipients Clin Infect Dis (2021), 10.1093/cid/ciab1041 [ciab1041] Google Scholar [9] D. Planas, et al. Considerable escape of SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron to antibody neutralization (2021), 10.1101/2021.12.14.472630 http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2021.12.14.472630 Google Scholar [10] "AZD7442 request for Emergency Use Authorization for COVID-19 prophylaxis filed in US". AstraZeneca (Press release). 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2021. Google Scholar [11] D.M. Weinreich, S. Sivapalasingam, T. Norton, S. Ali, H. Gao, et al. REGEN-COV Antibody Combination and Outcomes in Outpatients with Covid-19 N Engl J Med, 385 (23) (2021), p. e81, 10.1056/NEJMoa2108163 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [12] H. Gruell, et al. mRNA booster immunization elicits potent neutralizing serum activity against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (2021), 10.1101/2021.12.14.21267769 http://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2021.12.14.21267769 Google Scholar [13] D.H. Canaday, O.A. Oyebanji, E. White, D. Keresztesy, M. Payne, D. Wilk, et al. Significantly elevated antibody levels and neutralization titers in nursing home residents after SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA booster vaccination medRxiv [Preprint] (2021), 10.1101/2021.12.07.21267179 [2021.12.07.21267179] Google Scholar [14] V. Gounant, et al. Efficacy of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Vaccine in Patients With Thoracic Cancer: A Prospective Study Supporting a Third Dose in Patients With Minimal Serologic Response After Two Vaccine Doses J Thorac Oncol (2021), 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.10.015 [S155608642103286X] Google Scholar [15] J. Barrière, et al. Impaired immunogenicity of BNT162b2 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients treated for solid tumors Ann Oncol, 32 (2021), pp. 1053-1055 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [16] D. Re, et al. Humoral and cellular responses after a third dose of BNT162b2 vaccine in patients treated for lymphoid malignancies (2021), 10.1101/2021.07.18.21260669 http://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2021.07.18.21260669 Google Scholar [17] A. Israel, Y. Shenhar, I. Green, E. Merzon, A. Golan-Cohen, A.A. Schäffer, et al. Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection medRxiv [Preprint] (2021), 10.1101/2021.08.19.21262111 [2021.08.19.21262111] Google Scholar [18] A. Gupta, Y. Gonzalez-Rojas, E. Juarez, M. Crespo Casal, J. Moya, D.R. Falci, et al. Early treatment for covid-19 with SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody sotrovimab N Engl J Med, 385 (21) (2021), pp. 1941-1950, 10.1056/NEJMoa2107934 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [19] G. Bagheri, B. Thiede, B. Hejazi, O. Schlenczek, E. Bodenschatz An upper bound on one-to-one exposure to infectious human respiratory particles Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 118 (49) (2021), 10.1073/pnas.2110117118 [e2110117118] Google Scholar View Abstract © 2021 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved. Recommended articles Linkage and association of PAX7 polymorphisms (rs742071, rs766325, and rs4920520) with the risk of non-syndromic cleft lip with/without cleft palate: A systematic review and meta-analysis Meta Gene, Volume 31, 2022, Article 101007 Purchase PDFView details Quand évoquer une maladie héréditaire du métabolisme devant des troubles de conscience? Journal Européen des Urgences et de Réanimation, Volume 28, Issue 1, 2016, pp. 39-41 Purchase PDFView details Two methodologies of the rendezvous procedure to establish ureteral continuity from a delayed ureteral leak following pelvic surgery Surgical Oncology, Volume 40, 2022, Article 101697 Purchase PDFView details 12Next Citing articles (0) Elsevier logo About ScienceDirect Remote access Shopping cart Advertise Contact and support Terms and conditions Privacy policy We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By continuing you agree to the use of cookies. Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. RELX group home page Provide feedback Recommendations to protect patients with cancer against the Omicron variant Via Association française pour l'étude du cancer Bull Cancer. 2022 Jan 11:S0007-4551(21)00685-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2021.12.007. Online ahead of print. NO ABSTRACT PMID:35031126 | DOI:10.1016/j.bulcan.2021.12.007 View on the web Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.