Citations

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed cancer therapy, yet their benefits remain limited to a subset of patients, underscoring the need for more reliable biomarkers and novel therapeutic strategies. The gut microbiome has emerged as a critical modulator of systemic immunity and a promising determinant of ICI response. Evidence links specific microbial features, taxa, and bioactive metabolites to enhanced antitumor immunity, whereas disruptions, such as antibiotic exposure, are associated with poorer outcomes. Advances in sequencing and multi-omics technologies have provided more profound insights into microbiome-immune crosstalk, though methodological heterogeneity continues to challenge reproducibility. Translational studies demonstrate that microbiome-based intervention, including fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), biotics supplementation, and engineered microbial strains, can enhance ICI efficacy or mitigate immune-related toxicities. Despite encouraging early clinical signals, broader implementation requires methodological rigor, standardized protocols, and innovative trial designs that account for host and environmental factors. For clinicians, the most immediate strategies involve prudent antibiotic stewardship and patient enrollment in microbiome-focused clinical trials. Overall, the gut microbiome is a promising biomarker and a therapeutic target, representing a new frontier for personalizing immunotherapy and improving patient outcomes in oncology.

Objectives This study identified the prevalence of second victim experience (SVE) in a multidisciplinary sample of healthcare learners and explored personal experiences of trauma and desired forms of support following traumatic patient care events or situations. Method We used the validated SVE Support Tool-Revised and the Physician Well-Being Index (PWBI) to query healthcare learners at a large academic health system across the institution's medical, graduate medical education, and health sciences schools. The survey was open to all healthcare learners from April 8th, 2022 to May 30th, 2022. Here, we report on an analysis of respondents’ fixed responses describing the prevalence and characteristics of SVE. Results Of 2298 potential respondents, 206 answered at least one question (9.0% response rate). Of the 206 respondents, 205 answered questions inquiring if they had been a part of a stressful or traumatic patient care event or situation and 54.1% (111/205) answered in the affirmative. Of this group, 49.5% (51/103) reported feeling like a second victim (SV). The average PWBI of the exposed group was significantly higher (worse well-being) than the nonexposed group (3.4 vs 2.6, P = .0009). The most common forms of desired support for those exposed to a traumatic event and felt like an SV was conversation with peers 95.3% (41/43), family 81.4% (35/43), and a supervisor or manager 67.4% (29/43). Conclusion Findings suggest that many healthcare learners experience SVE and would benefit from connection to desired support strategies. Strategies to mitigate the impact of SVE on professional self-efficacy should be considered by education administrators. We present strategies from the literature and our institution that may be replicated for early identification and support of learners with SVE.

The optimal patient panel size (PPS) in primary care and the factors determining it remain unclear. We conducted a meta-narrative review of the literature to evaluate factors influencing PPS and assess its association with patient outcomes. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was performed from inception through December 2023, focusing on original studies reporting factors used to determine PPS and related outcomes (eg, clinical outcomes, process measures, and resource utilization). A total of 48 studies were included, identifying 7 key factors influencing PPS. Smaller panels were associated with improved patient satisfaction, continuity of care, and health promotion, while clinical outcomes, utilization, and costs showed minimal impact by PPS. Panel size was primarily associated with patient age, sex, comorbidities, and practice type and structure. Community-based centers typically managed smaller panels, often staffed by female clinicians and serving socioeconomically disadvantaged populations with greater health needs than hospital-based practices. Female clinicians were also independently associated with managing smaller panels, higher quality care indicators, fewer emergency department visits, and improved patient satisfaction. Determining the ideal PPS is a multifaceted process influenced by practice setting, patient demographics, and clinician characteristics. While practice-related factors showed limited association with PPS, patient-reported outcomes were more closely linked to it. Primary care practices should tailor panel sizes to their patient populations, emphasizing a patient-centered approach and ensuring adequate infrastructure support to optimize care delivery.

This study aimed to explore contextual elements of the cancer experience that are consistently distressing and/or psychologically traumatic, as well as explore perceptions of Accelerated Resolution Therapy® (ART®) and its influence on the cancer experience. Using a qualitative descriptive design, semi-structured interviews were completed by 12 participants following the completion of ART. Interview data were analyzed using content analysis to identify major themes and patterns. Four themes included: (a) Cancer as the straw that broke the camel’s back, (b) ART® is different from previous therapy, (c) Don’t need to always be looking in the rearview mirror, and (d) Importance of early psychological intervention. Participants perceived that ART® was different and potentially more effective than other types of therapy they had previously received. Results support the diagnosis of cancer and the cumulative effects of previous life events and cancer-related stressors as traumatic events.

Background For individuals living with chronic conditions like diabetes mellitus and obesity, there is a need for sustainable behavioral strategies and physiologic tools. These tools support identifying and addressing barriers to healthy eating, reducing body mass index (BMI), and building increased physical resilience in real time. Objective To evaluate whether a 12-week learning management system designed to combine nutritional intervention with education and coaching on improving emotional intelligence (EI) could alter cardiometabolic outcomes. Methods This pre-post prospective study enrolled 37 adult volunteers with BMI greater than 25 to participate in a 12-week learning management system. Primary (BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein [LDL], high-density lipoprotein, and fasting glucose levels) and secondary self-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, and 6 months after enrollment using Short Form-36, Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi), and Whole Health Index (WHI). Linear mixed-effects regression models with random effect were used to estimate changes in primary and secondary outcomes. We adjusted for multiple testing using Holm step-down method. Results BMI and LDL were the only primary endpoints lower at program completion and 6-month follow-up compared to baseline levels (−1.63 and −17.77 mg/dL, respectively; P < .001). Secondary outcomes showing statistically significant improvement from baseline to 6-month follow-up included energy/fatigue (Short Form-36), self-regard (EQi), decision-making (EQi), impulse control (EQi), stress management (EQi), Whole Brain – Form A (WHI), Whole Food – Form C (WHI), and Whole Body – Form D (WHI). Conclusion This study provides preliminary evidence that lifestyle programs combining nutritional interventions and EI can have a significant impact on BMI and LDL. Our study highlights the potential importance of both nutrition and EI in programs targeting diet and lifestyle modification.

Background: About 4 out of 10 fibromyalgia patients suffer from depression. The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) guidelines recommend using antidepressants to treat fibromyalgia. Objective: To determine predictors of improved outcomes following a multicomponent treatment program. Design: We designed this longitudinal treatment outcome study to evaluate the prevalence of depression symptoms in patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia at a tertiary care facility, and the impact of depression on functional outcomes after completing a multicomponent fibromyalgia treatment program. Setting: Tertiary care center. Patients: This study included 411 adult patients with fibromyalgia who completed a multicomponent treatment program for fibromyalgia. Expert physicians performed comprehensive evaluations following American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria to confirm fibromyalgia before referral to the program. Intervention: An intensive outpatient multicomponent treatment program consisting of 16 hours of cognitive behavioral strategies served as the intervention. Measurements: Functional status was assessed using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire Revised (FIQR). Depression was evaluated with the Center for Epidemiologic Study of Depression (CES-D) measure. Measures were administered prior to participation in the program and approximately 5 months following completion of the program. Results: The cohort had a high prevalence of depressive symptoms (73.2% had depression at admission). Higher depression scores at baseline predicted poorer outcomes following multi-component treatment. Effectively treated depression resulted in improved functioning at follow-up. Limitations: Findings limited to tertiary care center cohort of fibromyalgia patients. Patients did not undergo a structured clinical diagnostic interview to diagnose depression. Conclusions: The current data links depression to poorer outcomes in patients with fibromyalgia. Depression is an important modifiable factor in the management of fibromyalgia. Guidelines should reflect the importance of assessing and effectively treating depression at the time of diagnosis of fibromyalgia, to improve functional outcomes. Registration: Specific registry and specific study registration number—Institutional Review Board—(IRB# 19-000495). Funding Source: No funding.

Background: Thirty-six states, including Florida, have legalized marijuana for medical and/or recreational use, yet how it is used and perceived by persons with cancer is not well understood. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify patterns of use, perceived benefits, and side effects of medical marijuana (MMJ) among cancer patients in Florida. Methods: For this descriptive, cross-sectional study, anyone residing within the state of Florida who was diagnosed or treated for a malignancy within the last five years and had used MMJ was eligible. An online survey containing questions about dosing, side effects, perceived benefits, and barriers to use was used. Descriptive statistics including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations were used to analyze quantitative data. Responses to open-ended questions were coded and categorized. Results: Sleep ( n = 112), pain ( n = 96), and anxiety ( n = 82) were the most common symptoms participants used MMJ to relieve and overall felt it was highly effective. MMJ was well tolerated with a minority (10.3%) reporting any adverse effects. Cost was the most frequent barrier reported by participants (42.8%). A variety of legal, bureaucratic, and system-related barriers were described. Conclusion: Participants perceived MMJ to be helpful in alleviating cancer symptoms. They held negative perceptions of the way MMJ is implemented and integrated into their oncology treatment plan. Enhanced communication and patient/provider education on MMJ are needed to inform patient decision making.