Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Operative Experience Among General Surgery Residents: A Multi-Institutional Study from the US ROPE Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between race/ethnicity and case volume among graduating surgical residents. BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic minority individuals face barriers to entry and advancement in surgery; however, no large-scale investigations of the operative experience of racial/ethnic minority residents have been performed. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs of categorical general surgery residents at 20 programs in the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium database was performed. All residents graduating between 2010 and 2020 were included. The total, surgeon chief, surgeon junior, and teaching assistant case volumes were compared between racial/ethnic groups. RESULTS: The cohort included 1343 residents. There were 211 (15.7%) Asian, 65 (4.8%) Black, 73 (5.4%) Hispanic, 71 (5.3%) "Other" (Native American or Multiple Race), and 923 (68.7%) White residents. On adjusted analysis, Black residents performed 76 fewer total cases (95% CI, -109 to -43, P <0.001) and 69 fewer surgeon junior cases (-98 to -40, P <0.001) than White residents. Comparing adjusted total case volume by graduation year, both Black residents and White residents performed more cases over time; however, there was no difference in the rates of annual increase (10 versus 12 cases per year increase, respectively, P =0.769). Thus, differences in total case volume persisted over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional study, Black residents graduated with lower case volume than non-minority residents throughout the previous decade. Reduced operative learning opportunities may negatively impact professional advancement. Systemic interventions are needed to promote equitable operative experience and positive culture change.

Disparities in the Operative Experience Between Female and Male General Surgery Residents: A Multi-institutional Study From the US ROPE Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in resident operative experience between male and female general surgery residents. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing female representation in surgery, sex and gender disparities in residency experience continue to exist. The operative volume of male and female general surgery residents has not been compared on a multi-institutional level. METHODS: Demographic characteristics and case logs were obtained for categorical general surgery graduates between 2010 and 2020 from the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium database. Univariable, multivariable, and linear regression analyses were performed to compare differences in operative experience between male and female residents. RESULTS: There were 1343 graduates from 20 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited programs, and 476 (35%) were females. There were no differences in age, race/ethnicity, or proportion pursuing fellowship between groups. Female graduates were less likely to be high-volume residents (27% vs 36%, P < 0.01). On univariable analysis, female graduates performed fewer total cases than male graduates (1140 vs 1177, P < 0.01), largely due to a diminished surgeon junior experience (829 vs 863, P < 0.01). On adjusted multivariable analysis, female sex was negatively associated with being a high-volume resident (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.98, P = 0.03). Over the 11-year study period, the annual total number of cases increased significantly for both groups, but female graduates (+16 cases/year) outpaced male graduates (+13 cases/year, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Female general surgery graduates performed significantly fewer cases than male graduates. Reassuringly, this gap in operative experience may be narrowing. Further interventions are warranted to promote equitable training opportunities that support and engage female residents.

A multi-institutional study from the US ROPE consortium examining factors associated with endocrine surgery exposure for general surgery residents.

BACKGROUND: Prior analyses of general surgery resident case logs have indicated a decline in the number of endocrine procedures performed during residency. This study aimed to identify factors contributing to the endocrine operative experience of general surgery residents and compare those who matched in endocrine surgery fellowship with those who did not. METHODS: We analyzed the case log data of graduates from 18 general surgery residency programs in the US Resident Operative Experience Consortium over an 11-year period. RESULTS: Of the 1,240 residents we included, 17 (1%) matched into endocrine surgery fellowships. Those who matched treated more total endocrine cases, including more thyroid, parathyroid, and adrenal cases, than those who did not (81 vs 37, respectively, P < .01). Program-level factors associated with increased endocrine volume included endocrine-specific rotations (+10, confidence interval 8-12, P < .01), endocrine-trained faculty (+8, confidence interval 7-10, P < .01), and program co-location with otolaryngology residency (+5, confidence interval 2 -8, P < .01) or endocrine surgery fellowship (+4, confidence interval 2-6, P < .01). Factors associated with decreased endocrine volume included bottom 50th percentile in National Institute of Health funding (-10, confidence interval -12 to -8, P < .01) and endocrine-focused otolaryngologists (-3, confidence interval -4 to -1, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Several characteristics are associated with a robust endocrine experience and pursuit of an endocrine surgery fellowship. Modifiable factors include optimizing the recruitment of dedicated endocrine surgeons and the inclusion of endocrine surgery rotations in general surgery residency.

A multi-institutional study from the US ROPE Consortium examining factors associated with directly entering practice upon residency graduation.

BACKGROUND: There is concern regarding the competency of today's general surgery graduates as a large proportion defer independent practice in favor of additional fellowship training. Little is known about the graduates who directly enter general surgery practice and if their operative experiences during residency differ from graduates who pursue fellowship. METHODS: Nineteen Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited general surgery programs from the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium were included. Demographics, career choice, and case logs from graduates between 2010 to 2020 were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 1,264 general surgery residents who graduated over the 11-year period. A total of 248 (19.6%) went directly into practice and 1,016 (80.4%) pursued fellowship. Graduates directly entering practice were more likely to be a high-volume resident (43.1% vs 30.5%, P < .01) and graduate from a high-volume program (49.2% vs 33.0%, P < .01). Direct-to-practice graduates performed 53 more cases compared with fellowship-bound graduates (1,203 vs 1,150, P < .01). On multivariable analysis, entering directly into practice was positively associated with total surgeon chief case volume (odds ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.84, P < .01) and graduating from a US medical school (odds ratio = 2.54, 95% confidence interval 1.45-4.44, P < .01) while negatively associated with completing a dedicated research experience (odds ratio = 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.45, P < .01). CONCLUSION: This is the first multi-institutional study exploring resident operative experience and career choice. These data suggest residents who desire immediate practice can tailor their experience with less research time and increased operative volume. These data may be helpful for programs when designing their experience for residents with different career goals.

Risk Factors for Appendiceal Cancer After Appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Appendiceal cancer (AC) is a rare malignancy usually diagnosed incidentally after appendectomy. Risk factors for AC are poorly understood. We sought to provide a descriptive analysis for patients with AC discovered after appendectomy for acute appendicitis (AA). METHODS: The 2016-2017 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Procedure-Targeted Appendectomy database was queried for adult patients who underwent appendectomy for image-suspected AA. Patients with pathology consistent with AA were compared to patients found to have AC. A multivariable logistic regression model was used for analysis. RESULTS: From 21 058 patients, 203 (1.0%) were found to have AC on pathology. Compared to patients with AA, patients with AC were older (median, 48 vs. 40 years old, P < .001). The AA group had a similar rate of perforated appendix compared to the AC group (16.3% vs. 13.4% P = .32). After adjusting for covariates, associated risk factors for AC were: age ≥65 years old (odds ratio (OR) 2.25, 1.5-3.38, P < .001), absence of leukocytosis (OR 1.58, 1.16-2.17, P = .004), and operative time ≥1 hour (OR 1.57, 1.14-2.16, P = .006). Gender, race, and history of smoking were not independent associated risk factors for AC. CONCLUSION: The incidence of AC after appendectomy for suspected AA is approximately 1% in a large national analysis. These factors may be used to help identify patients at higher risk for AC after appendectomy.

pAKT Expression and Response to Sorafenib in Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.

Sorafenib has an antitumor activity in patients with radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid carcinoma (RAIR-DTC). Prior research has implicated signaling through the MAPK and AKT/PI3K pathways in the progression of DTC. To assess whether the activity of these pathways is predictive of response to sorafenib, we retrospectively studied molecular tumor markers from these two pathways from a phase 2 study of sorafenib in RAIR-DTC. Tumor samples from 40 of 53 DTC subjects obtained prior to initiation of sorafenib were immunostained with DAB-labeled antibodies to phospho-AKT (pAKT), phospho-ERK (pERK), and phospho-S6 (pS6). BRAFV600E genetic mutation analysis was performed on all samples. Expression levels and mutational status were compared to response and progression-free survival (PFS) for each patient. Low tumor expression of nuclear pAKT was associated with partial response to sorafenib (p < 0.01). Patients with nuclear pAKT expression that was below the median for our sample were more than three times as likely to have a partial response as patients with equal to or above median expression. There was no correlation between tumor expression of nuclear pERK or pS6 and response. Endothelial cell and pericyte expression of pERK, pAKT, and pS6 were not predictive of response. There was no correlation between BRAFV600E mutation status and partial response. No correlation was observed between either the expression of pAKT, pERK, or pS6, or the presence of the BRAFV600E mutation, and PFS. In conclusion, lower tumor expression of nuclear pAKT was associated with higher rate of response to sorafenib. This observation justifies evaluation of combination therapy with sorafenib and an inhibitor of the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway in RAIR-DTC.