Tumor Budding Assessment in Colorectal Carcinoma: Normalization Revisited.

Tumor budding (TB) is a powerful prognostic factor in colorectal cancer (CRC). An internationally standardized method for its assessment (International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference [ITBCC] method) has been adopted by most CRC pathology protocols. This method requires that TB counts are reported by field area (0.785 mm 2 ) rather than objective lens and a normalization factor is applied for this purpose. However, the validity of this approach is yet to be tested. We sought to validate the ITBCC method with a particular emphasis on normalization as a tool for standardization. In a cohort of 365 stage I-III CRC, both normalized and non-normalized TB were significantly associated with disease-specific survival and recurrence-free survival ( P <0.0001). Examining both 0.95 and 0.785 mm 2 field areas in a subset of patients (n=200), we found that normalization markedly overcorrects TB counts: Counts obtained in a 0.95 mm 2 hotspot field were reduced by an average of 17.5% following normalization compared with only 3.8% when counts were performed in an actual 0.785 mm 2 field. This resulted in 45 (11.3%) cases being downgraded using ITBCC grading criteria following normalization, compared with only 5 cases (1.3%, P =0.0007) downgraded when a true 0.785 mm 2 field was examined. In summary, the prognostic value of TB was retained regardless of whether TB counts in a 0.95 mm 2 field were normalized. Normalization resulted in overcorrecting TB counts with consequent downgrading of most borderline cases. This has implications for risk stratification and adjuvant treatment decisions, and suggests the need to re-evaluate the role of normalization in TB assessment.

Gender-based discrimination and son preference in Punjabi-Canadian families: a community-based participatory qualitative research study.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a qualitative study, guided by the principles of community-based participatory research, with the following objectives: (1) to provide a conceptual framework describing the drivers of son preference; (2) to understand experiences of son preference among Punjabi-Canadians and (3) with this understanding, identify and co-design an appropriate educational tool. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, METHODS: Qualitative study consisting of four bilingual (Punjabi and English) focus group discussions with 11 mothers, 4 fathers and 17 grandmothers in Toronto and Brampton, Canada. Participants were queried about experiences and perspectives related to reproductive decision-making, gender equity and son preference, and for appropriate approaches to reducing inequities. Transcripts were simultaneously translated and written in English and thematic analysis was conducted. An infoposter was identified as a feasible educational tool and was co-designed by researchers and community partners. RESULTS: Participants identified patrilocality (ie, married sons reside with parents, married daughters with in-laws) and patrilineality (ie, sons inherit assets, daughters' husband receives a dowry) as structural precursors to proximal drivers (ie, old-age security) of son preference. Mothers' and grandmothers' value to their families depended strongly on having a son but did not guarantee security. Pressures (ie, internalised discrimination, reproductive coercion) to conceive a son were common after the birth of at least one daughter in the absence of sons. Participants did not know anyone who had a sex selective abortion in Canada; however, traditional sex selection methods (eg, herbal medicines) were mentioned. Our co-designed infoposter entitled 'Truths About Son Preference' addressed three misconceptions identified in discussions. CONCLUSION: This study may be useful to health and social care providers in providing structurally competent and culturally humble counselling and care, particularly after the birth of daughters in the absence of sons. Community engagement is necessary for future intervention development.

Reviewing the Reviewers Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest in Editorial Boards of Surgery Journals.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence, magnitude, and disclosure status of industry funding in editorial boards of surgery journals. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Financial COI can bias research. Although authors seeking to publish in peer-reviewed surgery journals are required to provide COI disclosures, editorial board members' COI disclosures are generally not disclosed to readers. METHODS: We present a cross-sectional analysis of industry funding to editorial board members of high-impact surgery journals. We reviewed top US-based surgery journals by impact factor to determine the presence of financial COI in members of each journal's editorial board. The prevalence and magnitude of COI was determined using 2018 industry reported payments found in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Journal websites were also reviewed looking for the presence of editorial board disclosure statements. RESULTS: A total of 1002 names of editorial board members from the top 10 high-impact American surgery journals were identified. Of 688 individual physicians based in the USA, 452 (65.7%) were found to have received industry payments in 2018, totaling $21,916,503 with a median funding amount per physician of $1253 (interquartile range $156-$10,769). Funding levels varied by surgical specialty and journal. Editorial board disclosure information was found in only 3.3% of physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Industry funding to editorial board members of high impact surgery journals is prevalent and underreported. Mechanisms of disclosure for COI are needed at the editorial board level to provide readers full transparency. This would acknowledge this COI of editorial board members, and thereby attempt to potentially further reduce the risk of bias in editorial decisions.