Impact of medical school responses during the COVID-19 pandemic on student satisfaction: a nationwide survey of US medical students.

PURPOSE: Medical schools have faced various challenges in preparing their clinical students for the frontlines of a pandemic. This study investigated medical students' satisfaction with their institutions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with the intention of guiding educators in future public health crises. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study surveying students in clinical rotations, the primary outcome was overall satisfaction regarding medical schools' responses to the pandemic, and the four secondary outcomes were school communication, exposure to COVID-19, availability of personal protective equipment, and access to COVID-19 testing. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to ten medical schools, of which 430 students responded for a response rate of 13.0%. While most students were satisfied (61.9%, n=266) with their schools' response, more than one in five (21.9%, n=94) were dissatisfied. Among the four secondary outcomes, communication with students was most predictive of overall satisfaction. CONCLUSION: In future crises, schools can best improve student satisfaction by prioritizing timely communication.

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

BACKGROUND: Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m2 , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m2 , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. CONCLUSIONS: ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

Recovery of Screening Mammogram Cancellations During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society of Breast Surgeons and American College of Radiology released a joint statement recommending that all breast screening studies be postponed effective March 26, 2020. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of all canceled mammograms at a single tertiary care institution from January 1-August 31, 2020 was performed to evaluate the effect of this recommendation by quantifying both the number and reason for mammogram cancellations before and after March 26, 2020. Utilization of the electronic patient portal for appointment cancellation as a surrogate for telehealth uptake was noted. RESULTS: During the study period, 5340 mammogram appointments were kept and 2784 mammogram appointments were canceled. From a baseline of 30 (10.8%) canceled mammograms in January, cancellations peaked in March (576, 20.6%) and gradually decreased to a low in August (197, 7%). Reasons for cancellations varied significantly by month (P < .0001) and included COVID-19 related (236, 8.5%), unspecified patient reasons (1,210, 43.5%), administrative issues (147, 5.3%), provider requests (46, 1.7%), sooner appointments available (31, 1.1%), and reasons not given (486, 17.5%). In addition, compared to a baseline in January (51, 16.5%), electronic patient portal access peaked in August (67, 34.0%). CONCLUSION: Screening mammogram cancellations have gradually recovered after early COVID-19 restrictions were lifted and increasing use of electronic patient access appears to be sustained. Consequences for future staging at the time of diagnosis remain unknown. Understanding to what extent the pandemic affected screening may help surgeons plan for post-pandemic breast cancer care.