Gender, Productivity, and Philanthropic Fundraising in Academic Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Philanthropic donations are important funding sources in academic oncology but may be vulnerable to implicit or explicit biases toward women. However, the influence of gender on donations has not been assessed quantitatively. METHODS: We queried a large academic cancer center's development database for donations over 10 years to the sundry funds of medical and radiation oncologists. Types of donations and total amounts for medical oncologists and radiation oncologists hired prior to April 1, 2018 (allowing ≥2 years on faculty prior to query), were obtained. We also obtained publicly available data on physician/academic rank, gender, specialty, disease site, and Hirsch-index (h-index), a metric of productivity. RESULTS: We identified 127 physicians: 64% men and 36% women. Median h-index was higher for men (31; range, 1-100) than women (17; range, 3-77; P=.003). Men were also more likely to have spent more time at the institution (median, 15 years; range, 2-43 years) than women (median, 12.5 years; range, 3-22 years; P=.025). Those receiving donations were significantly more likely to be men (70% vs 30%; P=.034). Men received significantly higher median amounts ($259,474; range, $0-$29,507,784) versus women ($37,485; range, $0-$7,483,726; P=.019). On multivariable analysis, only h-index and senior academic rank were associated with donation receipt, and only h-index with donation amount. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant gender disparities in receipt of philanthropic donations on unadjusted analyses. However, on multivariable analyses, only productivity and rank were significantly associated with donations, suggesting gender disparities in productivity and promotions may contribute to these differences.

Brain-Specific Relative Biological Effectiveness of Protons Based on Long-term Outcome of Patients With Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Uncertainties in relative biological effectiveness (RBE) constitute a major pitfall of the use of protons in clinics. An RBE value of 1.1, which is based on cell culture and animal models, is currently used in clinical proton planning. The purpose of this study was to determine RBE for temporal lobe radiographic changes using long-term follow-up data from patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five hundred sixty-six patients with newly diagnosed nasopharyngeal carcinoma received double-scattering proton therapy or intensity modulated radiation therapy at our institutions. The 2 treatment cohorts were well matched. Proton dose distributions were simulated using Monte Carlo and compared with those obtained from the proton clinical treatment planning system. Late treatment effect was defined as development of enhancement of temporal lobe on T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, with or without accompanying clinical symptoms. The tolerance dose was calculated with receiving operator characteristic analysis and the Youden index. Tolerance curves, expressed as a cumulative dose-volume histogram, were generated using the cutoff points. RESULTS: With a median follow-up period >5 years for both cohorts, 10% of proton patients and 4% of patients undergoing intensity modulated radiation therapy developed temporal lobe enhancement in unilateral temporal lobe. There was no significant difference in dose distributions between the Monte Carlo method and treatment planning system. The tolerance dose-volume levels were V10 (26.1%), V20 (21.9%), V30 (14.0%), V40 (7.7%), V50 (4.8%), and V60 (3.3%) for proton therapy (P < .03). Comparison of the two tolerance curves revealed that tolerance doses of proton treatments were lower than that of photon treatments at all dose levels. The dose tolerance at D1% was 58.56 Gy for protons and 69.07 Gy for photons. The RBE for temporal lobe enhancement from proton treatments were calculated to be 1.18. CONCLUSIONS: Using long-term clinical outcome of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma, our data suggest that the RBE for temporal lobe enhancement is 1.18 at D1%. A prospective study in a large cohort would be necessary to confirm these findings.

Green eggs and ham: Strategies to address the growing phenomenon of selling a medical school's name.

In 2008, the authors published a review that highlighted an emerging trend for medical schools to change their names to those of wealthy donors. Since 2008, the names of ten benefactors have been added to the medical schools receiving their gifts. Twenty-three of the 141 U.S. medical schools accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education are currently named after donors. Large donations have the potential to positively affect all stakeholders by improving the resources that are available for research, teaching, and clinical care, but the rapid increase in the naming of medical schools after wealthy benefactors raises important concerns for those same stakeholders. In this perspective, the authors explore such concerns and identify mitigating strategies that institutions facing these issues in the future can use to ensure that the benefit associated with a gift outweighs any adverse impact. The authors argue for a strong presumption of impropriety when a donor possesses a conflict of interest with the potential to affect clinicians' judgment. They go on to assess how donors' control of funds may have an impact on institutional mission and research agenda, and analyze the right of an organization to remove a benefactor's name for alleged wrongdoing. The perspective considers how renaming may negatively affect brand recognition and the associated impact on students, residents, faculty, and alumni. Finally, it concludes with an analysis of taxpayer-funded organizations and the concern that educational renaming will lead to a slippery slope in which other public goods are effectively purchased by wealthy donors.

Neurocognitive assessment following whole brain radiation therapy and radiosurgery for patients with cerebral metastases.

The treatment of metastatic brain lesions remains a central challenge in oncology. Because most chemotherapeutic agents do not effectively cross the blood-brain barrier, it is widely accepted that radiation remains the primary modality of treatment. The mode by which radiation should be delivered has, however, become a source of intense controversy in recent years. The controversy involves whether patients with a limited number of brain metastases should undergo whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivered only to the radiographically visible tumours. Survival is comparable for patients treated with either modality. Instead, the controversy involves the neurocognitive function (NCF) of radiating cerebrum that appeared radiographically normal relative to effects of the growth from micro-metastatic foci. A fundamental question in this debate involves quantifying the effect of WBRT in patients with cerebral metastasis. To disentangle the effects of WBRT on neurocognition from the effects inherent to the underlying disease, we analysed the results from randomised controlled studies of prophylactic cranial irradiation in oncology patients as well as studies where patients with limited cerebral metastasis were randomised to SRS versus SRS+WBRT. In aggregate, these results suggest deleterious effects of WBRT in select neurocognitive domains. However, there are insufficient data to resolve the controversy of upfront WBRT versus SRS in the management of patients with limited cerebral metastases.

Sociodemographic indicators and risk of brain tumours.

BACKGROUND: To better understand patterns of occurrence or diagnosis of brain tumours in different segments of the population, we evaluated associations between sociodemographic variables and the relative incidence of brain tumours as part of a multi-faceted case-control study. METHODS: The study was conducted at hospitals in three US cities between 1994 and 1998. In all, 489 glioma cases (354 high-grade, 135 low-grade), 197 meningioma cases, 96 acoustic neuroma cases, and 799 controls admitted to the same hospitals for any of a variety of non-neoplastic diseases or conditions were enrolled and interviewed. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR), calculate 95% CI, and test for trends. RESULTS: The OR showed significant positive associations with household income for low-grade glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma, but not for high-grade glioma. Positive associations were observed with level of education for low-grade glioma and acoustic neuroma, but not for high-grade glioma or meningioma. Jewish religion was associated with a significantly elevated risk for meningioma (OR = 4.3; 95% CI: 2.0-9.0). Being single at the time of tumour diagnosis or enrolment was associated with significantly reduced risks for meningioma (OR = 0.4; 95% CI: 0.3-0.6) and low- or high-grade glioma (OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.5-0.8), but not for acoustic neuroma. CONCLUSIONS: Associations with sociodemographic variables varied considerably among the different subtypes of brain tumour, including between low-grade and high-grade glioma. The general pattern was for associations with indicators of affluence and education to be stronger for tumours that tend to grow more slowly and have less catastrophic effects, although the evidence was mixed for meningioma. We cannot isolate the specific factors underlying the observed associations, but intrapopulation differences in the completeness or timing of diagnosis may have played a role. There is less opportunity for such influences to operate for the rapidly progressing, high-grade gliomas than for more slowly growing tumours.