Fear of Saying No (FOSNO): Setting Boundaries With Our Patients and Ourselves.

Cancer is an inherently complex and intense medical condition that often requires prolonged treatment and surveillance over years. Treatments can lead to frequent side effects and anxiety, requiring constant communication and follow-up with patients. Oncologists have the unique privilege of developing close relationships with their patients that evolve through the course of their disease. The advent of newer technology and the changing landscape of medicine have drastically altered how oncologists now manage patient needs. These changes have allowed for much quicker and closer communication but are not without personal and professional challenges. Some may wonder how accessible they can and should be to their patients-essentially, the boundaries they may place to protect their own identities and well-being. An oncologist might wonder how much of their personal contact information they should provide to patients and how often they should be available for questions and discussions when away from the clinic without impairing their relationship. Here, we define and explore the role of boundaries in medicine, and review common ethical dilemmas that oncologists face daily when trying to balance patient care and lives outside of medicine. Although we recognize there is no clear single solution, we will propose possible approaches to setting boundaries and potential pitfalls.

A Phase 1b Adaptive Androgen Deprivation Therapy Trial in Metastatic Castration Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Background: We hypothesize that cancer survival can be improved through adapting treatment strategies to cancer evolutionary dynamics and conducted a phase 1b study in metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Methods: Men with asymptomatic mCSPC were enrolled and proceeded with a treatment break after achieving > 75% PSA decline with LHRH analog plus an NHA. ADT was restarted at the time of PSA or radiographic progression and held again after achieving >50% PSA decline. This on-off cycling of ADT continued until on treatment imaging progression. Results: At data cut off in August 2022, only 2 of the 16 evaluable patients were off study due to imaging progression at 28 months from first dose of LHRH analog for mCSPC. Two additional patients showed PSA progression at 12.4 and 20.5 months and remain on trial. Since none of the 16 patients developed imaging progression at 12 months, the study succeeded in its primary objective of feasibility. The secondary endpoints of median time to PSA progression and median time to radiographic progression have not been reached at a median follow up of 26 months. Conclusions: It is feasible to use an individual's PSA response and testosterone levels to guide intermittent ADT in mCSPC.

Pathology of Seminoma Coinciding With Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma/Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

We present the case of a 71-year-old male with an incidental diagnosis of seminoma coinciding with small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the retroperitoneum. This case report illustrates the cytology, histology, immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, and fluorescence in situ hybridization features of this exceptional case and sheds light on the importance of a collaborative multidisciplinary team in delivering quality patient care.

Malignant mesothelioma clinical trial combines immunotherapy drugs.

Immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitor is effective for a number of solid tumors including malignant mesothelioma. Studies utilizing single-agent PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor for mesothelioma have reported tumor response rates in approximately 10-20% of patients treated. Given the success of combining these agents with CTLA-4 inhibitor in melanoma, there is a strong rationale to study it in mesothelioma. Recently results from clinical trials investigating this approach have been released. Though limited by small sample size, the studies conclusively demonstrated feasibility and suggested a modestly higher tumor response rate than one would expect from treatment with single-agent PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Nevertheless, toxicity was also increased. Immunotherapy-related deaths due to encephalitis, renal failure and hepatitis were observed. Further studies are warranted.

Cardiac allograft rejection as a complication of PD-1 checkpoint blockade for cancer immunotherapy: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: The increased availability of immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of a wide array of cancer in the general oncology practice setting will reveal rare and unique toxicities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mechanism of cardiac allograft rejection in the context of PD-1 antibody therapy was explored in a patient with cutaneous squamous cell cancer complicating long-standing cardiac allograft. Immune cell infiltrate in the myocardium and peripheral blood lymphocyte repertoire were assessed using myocardial biopsy and temporal analysis of peripheral blood samples. The efficacy of high-intensity immunosuppression to reverse graft rejection was explored. RESULTS: Endomyocardial biopsy showed acute moderate diffuse cellular rejection with a predominant population of CD3+, CD8+ and CD4+ infiltrating lymphocytes; peripheral blood circulating lymphocytes showed a high frequency of proliferating and activated CD8+ T cells expressing PD-1 compared to a normal control. There was no difference in the activation and proliferation of CD4+ T cells compared to a normal control. Cardiac function improved following high-intensity immunosuppression and patient survived for up to 7 months after discontinuation of nivolumab. CONCLUSIONS: Immune checkpoint inhibitors should be avoided in allograft recipients but high-intensity immunosuppression is effective to salvage allograft rejection induced by these agents.