RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Breast angiosarcoma is a tumor that can arise as a primary breast tumor or in association with prior radiation therapy. Angiosarcomas are uniquely sensitive to paclitaxel. This study evaluated the impact neoadjuvant paclitaxel (NAC) therapy has on surgical outcomes, tumor recurrence, and survival in breast angiosarcomas. METHODS: Patients with angiosarcoma of the breast, either primary or radiation-associated, were identified from a prospective institutional database. Patients receiving NAC were compared to those treated with upfront surgery. Clinical and pathological variables were compared using Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test, differences in survival were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with angiosarcoma of the breast were identified, 10 with primary angiosarcoma and 14 with radiation-associated angiosarcoma. Twelve patients received NAC, 6 of each with primary angiosarcoma or radiation-associated angiosarcoma. Of these 12 patients, 11 had a margin negative resection (91%) of which, nine had a complete pathological response on surgical pathology. Of the 12 surgery-first patients, four (n = 4/12, 33%) had positive surgical margins, two of the four underwent reoperation. With a median follow-up of 16 months, four NAC patients had recurrence (33%) compared to six patients in the surgery-first group (58%) (p = 0.41). While not statistically significant, NAC patients had a 33% less risk of recurring compared to surgery-first patients ([hazard ratio =0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.16-2.72; p = 0.6]). CONCLUSION: NAC for breast angiosarcoma may be associated with high rates of complete pathological response and margin-negative resection. However, this did not impact overall survival. Future prospective control studies and longer follow-up periods are warranted to understand the impact on recurrence and survival.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: There are few assessments of the competence and growth of surgical residents as educators. We developed and piloted an observation-based feedback tool (FT) to provide residents direct feedback during a specific teaching session, as perceived by medical students (MS). We hypothesized that residents' performance would improve with frequent, low stakes, observation-based feedback. SETTING: This prospective study took place at an academic general surgery program. PARTICIPANTS: Focus groups of MS, surgical residents, and faculty informed FT development. MS completed the FT regarding resident teaching. DESIGN: The FT utilized 5 slider-bar ratings (0 to 100) about the teaching encounter and a checklist of 16 desirable teaching behaviors. QR codes and weekly email links were distributed for 12 months (6 clerkship blocks) to promote use. Residents were sent their results after each block. A survey after each block assessed motivation for use and gathered feedback on the FT. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis (medians, IQRs). Primary measures of performance were median of the slider-bar scores and the number of teaching behaviors. RESULTS: The FT was used 111 times; 37 of 46 residents were rated by up to 65 MS. The median rating on the slider-bars was 100 and the median number of desirable teaching behaviors was 12; there were no differences based on gender or PGY level. 10 residents had 5 or more FT observations during the year. Four residents had evaluations completed in 4 or more blocks and 19 residents had evaluations completed in at least 2 blocks. Over time, 13 residents had consistent slider-bar scores, 1 resident had higher scores, and 5 residents had lower scores (defined as a more than 5-point change from initial rating). Frequency of use of the FT decreased over time (38, 32, 9, 21, 7, 5 uses per block). The post-use survey was completed by 24 MS and 19 residents. Most common reasons for usage were interest in improving surgical learning environment, giving positive feedback (MS), and improving teaching skills (residents). Most common reasons for lack of usage from residents were "I did not think I taught enough to ask for feedback," "I forgot it existed," and "I did not know it existed." CONCLUSIONS: The FT did not lead to any meaningful improvement in resident scores over the course of the year. This may be due to overall high scores, suggesting that the components of the FT may require reevaluation. Additionally, decreased utilization of the instrument over time made it challenging to assess change in performance of specific residents, likely due to lack of awareness of the FT despite frequent reminders. Successful implementation of observation-based teaching assessments may require better integration with residency or clerkship objectives.