Search

Objectives: The current study aims to survey the willingness of parents to vaccinate their children, who are childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia survivors (CALLS), and identify factors associated with vaccine acceptance. Methods: Parents of CALLS on/off treatment, with the general condition of being amendable to vaccination, were recruited for interviews with attending oncologists about COVID-19 vaccination acceptance from July to November 2021 in China. After controlling for socioeconomic factors, the Association of Oncologists' recommendations and parent–oncologist alliance with acceptance status were investigated. For validation, propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was used. Results: A total of 424 families were included in the study, with CALLS mean remission age of 5.99 ± 3.40 years. Among them, 91 (21.4%) agreed, 168 (39.6%) hesitated, and 165 (38.9%) parents disagreed with the vaccination. The most common reason that kept parents from vaccinating their children was lack of recommendations from professional personnel (84/165, 50.9%), and massive amounts of internet information (78/175, 44.6%) was the main nonhealthcare resource against vaccination. Logistic regression analysis showed that only the recommendation from the oncologist was associated with parents' vaccine acceptance (OR = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.93–5.20), as demonstrated by PSM comparison (42 in recommendation group vs. 18 in nonrecommendation group among 114 pairs, p < 0.001). An exploratory analysis revealed that parents with a better patient–oncologist alliance had a significantly higher level of acceptance (65.6% in alliance group vs. 15.6% in nonalliance group among 32 pairs, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Due to a lack of professional recommendation resources and the potential for serious consequences, parents were generally reluctant to vaccinate their CALLS. The recommendation of oncologists, which was influenced by the parent–oncologist alliance, significantly increased acceptance. This study emphasizes the critical role of oncologists in vaccinating cancer survivors and can be used to promote COVID-19 vaccines among vulnerable populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the impact of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRA) on the survival outcomes of multiple myeloma patients with extramedullary disease (EMD) in the era of novel agents, utilizing the largest dataset of extramedullary multiple myeloma patients in China., Methods: This study included a total of 371 patients with EMD, comprising 113 patients with de novo EME and 258 patients with EMB., Results: Patients with one HRA and those with ≥ 2 HRA demonstrated significantly worse overall survival (OS) (P < 0.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (P < 0.01) compared to patients without HRA. Additionally, 1q21 gain/amplification (1q21 +) remained a predictor of poor prognosis in EMD. CD38 monoclonal antibody-based therapy and single transplantation were less effective in improving survival outcomes for EMD with ≥ 2 HRA. Multivariable analysis identified LDH levels > 250 U/L, creatinine levels > 177 μmol/L, extramedullary extraosseous (EME), 1 HRA, and ≥ 2 HRA as independent adverse prognostic factors in patients with EMD., Conclusion: Patients with EMD who had ≥ 2 HRA experienced an extremely poor prognosis, which could not be improved by single transplantation or CD38 monoclonal antibody-based treatment. The number of HRA could serve as an important factor in guiding treatment choices and predicting prognosis in patients with EMD. Furthermore, 1q21 + remained a significant factor associated with worse survival outcomes in EMD., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was approved by Institutional Ethical Review Board of Sun Yat-Sen university cancer center. Informed consent requirements were also waived by Institutional Ethical Review Board of Sun Yat-Sen university cancer center. The International Conference on Harmonization's Good Clinical Practice standards and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later revisions served as the foundation for the study's methodology. Consent for publication: Not Applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)