Background: The majority of NSCLC patients treated with immunecheckpoint inhibitors (ICI) develop acquired resistance. Conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the treatment of choice for those patients. There are case reports on re-administration of ICIs for advanced NSCLC; however, these case series are difficult to draw definitive conclusions. We therefore retrospectively reviewed the efficacy of retreatment with ICI in our hospital. Method: Patients with pathologically confirmed advanced NSCLC who were treated with ICI in Kindai University hospital were retrospectively reviewed from December 2015 to July 2017. Among 212 NSCLC patients treated with ICIs, 10 patients (4.7 %) were retreated with ICI. Result: Number of patients treated with Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab and Atezolizumab were four, five and one, respectively. The best response of initial treatment with ICIs among 10 patients were five partial response (PR), two stable disease (SD) and three progressive disease (PD). Whereas, three patients (30%) showed SD and the others (70%) had PD to ICI retreatment. No severe adverse events attributable to the ICIs were noted. Conclusion: In the limited number of retrospective study, we could not find good responders for retreatment with ICIs. Best overall response during the previous treatment period is not related to the efficacy of retreatment with ICIs. At present, former responder to ICI therapy may not be the proper candidate for ICI re-challenge treatment strategy. Further biomarker analysis and treatment strategy is warranted for the patients and physicians to retreat with ICIs.

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to map the available literature on the role of specialist lung cancer nurses. Introduction: The international literature acknowledges the importance of specialist cancer nurses who provide supportive care to patients. Historically, however, there has been a lack of consistent evidence to inform development and implementation of the role. Inclusion criteria: This review will consider quantitative and qualitative studies of any design or methodology that report on role characteristics or behaviors, practices, or activities, or other aspects of specialist lung cancer nurses in the acute care setting. Systematic reviews, professional body reports, as well as unpublished or published studies and reports will also be considered for inclusion. Textual or opinion papers will be excluded. Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Relevant papers from 2006 to 2022, in any language, will be searched for in the following databases and registries: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Websites to be searched will include the World Health Organization, International Council of Nurses, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest) and Grey Matters (CADTH) will be searched for unpublished literature. Results will be presented in tabular and narrative format and mapped according to the specified concepts of interest, as well as to the domains of practice for specialist nursing roles.

Background Rapidly implementing telehealth-facilitated healthcare services in a COVID-19 environment generates relational challenges for people with intellectual disability. Disability Nurse Navigators assume a critical intermediary role between the healthcare system and this population. Aim To discuss the impact that rapid service change, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, can have on people with disability and the work of Disability Nurse Navigators who support them. Methods This clinical case discussion comprises two parts. First, a discussion on the impact that COVID-19 pandemic management has had on one person with an intellectual disability is framed using intersecting notions of cumulative complexity and Burden of Treatment Theory. Following, through a Latourian lens, the role of the Disability Nurse Navigator is explored. Findings During COVID-19, telehealth has proved an important tool for healthcare continuity. Yet, for some people with some disabilities who live with additional and cumulative layers of health and social complexity, the healthcare workload that is transferred to them is exacerbated as they try to interact with disabling infrastructure. Discussion The Disability Nurse Navigator recognises that people with disability are not independent of the technologies and structures that make up the healthcare system but that they are mutually constitutive. The Disability Nurse Navigator thus works to stabilise the relationships between changed service provision and the healthcare workload and capacity of people with disability. Conclusion The work of the Disability Nurse Navigator ultimately mitigated the disruption and additional treatment burden that is transferred to people with disability because of unintended consequences arising from the rapid introduction of service change.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of a brief tailored non-pharmacological intervention comprising breathing retraining and psychosocial support for managing dyspnea in cancer patients.Design: Multicenter, single blinded, parallel group, randomized controlled trial.Setting: Four major public hospitals, Brisbane, Australia.Participants: One hundred and forty four cancer patients, including 81 who received an 8-week tailored intervention and 63 who received standard care.Inclusion Criteria: Diagnosis of small or non-small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma or lung metastases; completed first line therapy for the disease; average dyspnea rating >2 on (0–10) rating scale in past week; anticipated life expectancy ≥3 months.Outcomes: The primary outcome measure was change in “worst” dyspnea at 8 weeks compared to baseline. Secondary outcomes were change in: dyspnea “at best” and “on average”; distress; perceived control over dyspnea; functional status, psychological distress; and use of non-pharmacological interventions to manage dyspnea at 8 weeks relative to baseline.Results: The mean age of participants was 67.9 (SD = 9.6) years. Compared to the control group, the intervention group demonstrated a statistically significant: (i) improvement in average dyspnea from T1(M = 4.5, SE = 0.22) to T3 (M = 3.6, SE = 0.24) vs. (M = 3.8, SE = 0.24) to (M = 4.1, SE = 0.26); (ii) greater control over dyspnea from T1 (M = 5.7, SE = 0.28) to T3 (M = 7.5, SE = 0.31) vs. (M = 6.8, SE = 0.32) to (M = 6.6, SE = 0.33); and (iii) greater reduction in anxiety from T1 (M = 5.4, SE = 0.43) to T3 (M = 4.5, SE = 0.45) vs. (M = 4.2, SE = 0.49) to (M = 4.6, SE = 0.50). This study found no intervention effect for best and worst dyspnea, distress from breathlessness, functional status, and depression over time.Conclusions: This study demonstrates efficacy of tailored non-pharmacological interventions in improving dyspnea on average, control over dyspnea, and anxiety for cancer patients.Clinical Trial Registration: The trial is registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au). The registration number is ACTRN12607000087459.