Bridging the Gap Between Practice Guidelines and the Therapy Room: Community-Derived Practice Adaptations for Psychological Services with Transgender and Gender Diverse Adults in the Central United States

Individuals who identify as transgender and gender diverse (TGD) are presenting at mental health clinicians’ offices with increasing frequency. Many TGD clients are seeking care related to affirming their gender identity but also may present with anxiety, depression, trauma, substance abuse, or other problems forwhich a clinician may commonly provide services. Some clinicians may hesitate to accept TGD clients into their practice if they have little specialized training to work with this population in an affirming manner, especially in more underserved areas where a generalist practice is the norm. Numerous professional associations and experts have developed guidelines for affirmative behavioral health care for TGDpeople.However, what is needed are community-informed recommendations to bridge from the official guidelines to clinicians’ in-session activities. The Trans Collaborations Practice Adaptations for Psychological Interventions for Transgender and Gender Diverse Adults are derived from iterative interviews with TGD community members and affirming mental health clinicians in the Central United States. The 12 practice adaptations are intended to guide clinicians to adapt their usual treatment approach to be TGD affirming, especially in underserved and rural areas. The practice adaptations cover numerous aspects of practice including the office setting and paperwork, understanding gender identity and incorporating it into the case conceptualization, therapist’s self-awareness, and referrals. The Trans Collaborations Practice Adaptations will help clinicians work confidently and competently with adult TGD clients, regardless of the presenting problem, to ensure TGD communities receive the best interventions for their behavioral health concerns

Radiographic Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Pleural Mesothelioma Should Serve as a Guide for Patient Selection for Cytoreductive Operations

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is associated with poor prognosis despite advances in multimodal therapeutic strategies. While patients with resectable disease may benefit from added survival with oncologic resection, patient selection for mesothelioma operations often relies on both objective and subjective evaluation metrics. We sought to evaluate factors associated with improved overall survival (OS) in patients with mesothelioma who underwent macroscopic complete resection (MCR). METHODS: Patients with MPM who received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent MCR were identified in a prospectively maintained departmental database. Clinicopathologic, blood-based, and radiographic variables were collected and included in a Cox regression analysis (CRA). Response to neoadjuvant therapy was characterized by a change in tumor thickness from pretherapy to preoperative scans using the modified RECIST criteria. RESULTS: In this study, 99 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age of the included patients was 64.7 years, who were predominantly men, had smoking and asbestos exposure, and who received neoadjuvant therapy. The median change in tumor thickness following neoadjuvant therapy was -16.5% (interquartile range of -49.7% to +14.2%). CRA demonstrated reduced OS associated with non-epithelioid histology [hazard ratio (HR): 3.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.62-5.78, p \u3c 0.001] and a response to neoadjuvant therapy inferior to the median (HR: 2.70, CI: 1.55-4.72, p \u3c 0.001). Patients who responded poorly (below median) to neoadjuvant therapy had lower median survival (15.8 months compared to 38.2 months, p \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSION: Poor response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with MPM is associated with poor outcomes even following maximum surgical cytoreduction and should warrant a patient-centered discussion regarding goals of care and may therefore help guide further therapeutic decisions

Intellectual Property, Open Science and Research Biobanks

In biomedical research and translational medicine, the ancient war between exclusivity (private control over information) and access to information is proposing again on a new battlefield: research biobanks. The latter are becoming increasingly important (one of the ten ideas changing the world, according to Time magazine) since they allow to collect, store and distribute in a secure and professional way a critical mass of human biological samples for research purposes. Tissues and related data are fundamental for the development of the biomedical research and the emerging field of translational medicine: they represent the “raw material” for every kind of biomedical study. For this reason, it is crucial to understand the boundaries of Intellectual Property (IP) in this prickly context. In fact, both data sharing and collaborative research have become an imperative in contemporary open science, whose development depends inextricably on: the opportunities to access and use data, the possibility of sharing practices between communities, the cross-checking of information and results and, chiefly, interactions with experts in different fields of knowledge. Data sharing allows both to spread the costs of analytical results that researchers cannot achieve working individually and, if properly managed, to avoid the duplication of research. These advantages are crucial: access to a common pool of pre-competitive data and the possibility to endorse follow-on research projects are fundamental for the progress of biomedicine. This is why the "open movement" is also spreading in the biobank's field. After an overview of the complex interactions among the different stakeholders involved in the process of information and data production, as well as of the main obstacles to the promotion of data sharing (i.e., the appropriability of biological samples and information, the privacy of participants, the lack of interoperability), we will firstly clarify some blurring in language, in particular concerning concepts often mixed up, such as “open source” and “open access”. The aim is to understand whether and to what extent we can apply these concepts to the biomedical field. Afterwards, adopting a comparative perspective, we will analyze the main features of the open models – in particular, the Open Research Data model – which have been proposed in literature for the promotion of data sharing in the field of research biobanks. After such an analysis, we will suggest some recommendations in order to rebalance the clash between exclusivity - the paradigm characterizing the evolution of intellectual property over the last three centuries - and the actual needs for access to knowledge. We argue that the key factor in this balance may come from the right interaction between IP, social norms and contracts. In particular, we need to combine the incentives and the reward mechanisms characterizing scientific communities with data sharing imperative

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab in Operable Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase 2 Platform NEOSTAR Trial

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab (Ipi+Nivo) and nivolumab + chemotherapy (Nivo+CT) induce greater pathologic response rates than CT alone in patients with operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The impact of adding ipilimumab to neoadjuvant Nivo+CT is unknown. Here we report the results and correlates of two arms of the phase 2 platform NEOSTAR trial testing neoadjuvant Nivo+CT and Ipi+Nivo+CT with major pathologic response (MPR) as the primary endpoint. MPR rates were 32.1% (7/22, 80% confidence interval (CI) 18.7–43.1%) in the Nivo+CT arm and 50% (11/22, 80% CI 34.6–61.1%) in the Ipi+Nivo+CT arm; the primary endpoint was met in both arms. In patients without known tumor EGFR/ALK alterations, MPR rates were 41.2% (7/17) and 62.5% (10/16) in the Nivo+CT and Ipi+Nivo+CT groups, respectively. No new safety signals were observed in either arm. Single-cell sequencing and multi-platform immune profiling (exploratory endpoints) underscored immune cell populations and phenotypes, including effector memory CD8+ T, B and myeloid cells and markers of tertiary lymphoid structures, that were preferentially increased in the Ipi+Nivo+CT cohort. Baseline fecal microbiota in patients with MPR were enriched with beneficial taxa, such as Akkermansia, and displayed reduced abundance of pro-inflammatory and pathogenic microbes. Neoadjuvant Ipi+Nivo+CT enhances pathologic responses and warrants further study in operable NSCLC. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03158129.

Current Surgical Indications for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

With recent strides made within the field of thoracic oncology, the management of NSCLC is evolving rapidly. Careful patient selection and timing of multi-modality therapy to permit the optimization of therapeutic benefit must be pursued. While chemotherapy and radiotherapy continue to have a role in the management of lung cancer, surgical therapy remains an essential component of lung cancer treatment in early, locally and regionally advanced, as well as in selected, cases of metastatic disease. Recent and most impactful advances in the treatment of lung cancer relate to the advent of immunotherapy and targeted therapy, molecular profiling, and predictive biomarker discovery. Many of these systemic therapies are a part of the standard of care in metastatic NSCLC, and their indications are expanding towards surgically operable lung cancer to improve survival outcomes. Numerous completed and ongoing clinical trials in the surgically operable NSCLC speak to the interest and importance of the multi-modality therapy even in earlier stages of NSCLC. In this review, we focus on the current standard of care indications for surgical therapy in stage I-IV NSCLC as well as on the anticipated future direction of multi-disciplinary lung cancer therapy