Gender disparity trends in genitourinary oncology academic publishing over the past 3 decades: A bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine gender disparities in genitourinary (GU) oncology academic publishing over the past three decades. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a bibliometric analysis of eight academic journals featuring GU oncology research articles: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Cancer, European Journal of Cancer, European Urology, Journal of Urology, BJU International, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. After selecting four time points (1990, 2000, 2010, 2020), we recorded the gender of the first and senior authors and investigated their association with independent variables including publication year, research field, and geographic continent. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 14,786 articles were included in our analyses. Females comprised 25.7% of first and 18.1% of senior authors. Compared to 1990, there was a trend of progressively higher female first author (OR 1.47 [95% CI 1.27-1.69] in 2000; 2.28 [95% CI 2.00-2.59] in 2010; 3.10 [95% CI 2.71-3.55] in 2020) and senior author positions (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.05-1.45] in 2000; 1.67 [95% CI 1.45-1.93] in 2010; 2.55 [95% CI 2.20-2.96] in 2020). Compared to GU oncology, non-GU oncology articles were more likely to have female first (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.38-2.86) or senior authors (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.35-2.91). Articles from Asia (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38-0.51), Africa (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.91), and international collaborations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.76) had a lower proportion of female first authors compared to North America. First authors were significantly more likely to be female when senior authors were also female (OR 2.45, 95% CI 2.23-2.69). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the bridging trend demonstrated, GU oncology remains a male-predominant discipline. Female leadership and mentorship are pivotal in achieving gender parity in the academic medicine community.

Greek translation and cultural adaptation of the scored patient-generated subjective global assessment: A nutritional assessment tool suitable for cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with cancer frequently present with disease-related malnutrition and functional decline. The scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA©) is a malnutrition screening and assessment tool commonly used in patients with cancer. The aim of the current study was to translate and culturally adapt the original English PG-SGA for the Greek setting, including assessment of comprehensibility, difficulty and content validity in patients and healthcare professionals. METHODS: Our study was conducted according to the ten steps of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Principles of Good Practice for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Comprehensibility and difficulty of the Greek translation were assessed in 100 patients and 100 healthcare professionals (HCPs) from Greece. Content validity of the translation was assessed among HCPs. Item and scale indices were calculated for comprehensibility (I-CI; S-CI), difficulty (I-DI; S-DI), and content validity (I-CVI; S-CVI). RESULTS: Patient perceived comprehensibility and difficulty of the PG-SGA were considered to be excellent (S-CI = 0.97, S-DI = 0.97). HCPs perceived content validity for the patient component was also excellent (S-CVI = 0.95). The perceived content validity, comprehensibility and difficulty for the professional component of the PG-SGA, as perceived by the HCPs, was excellent (S-CVI = 0.94, S-CI = 0.94, S-DI = 0.90), with the physical exam being perceived as most difficult (I-DI = 0.78-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Our study resulted in the successful translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original English PG-SGA for the Greek setting. The Greek language version of the PG-SGA is characterized by high comprehensibility, low difficulty, and is considered relevant for use in Greece.

Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: An update on epidemiology, classification, diagnosis and management.

BACKGROUND: Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (CHC) is a rare subtype of primary hepatic malignancies, with variably reported incidence between 0.4%-14.2% of primary liver cancer cases. This study aimed to systematically review the epidemiological, clinicopathological, diagnostic and therapeutic data for this rare entity. DATA SOURCES: We reviewed the literature of diagnostic approach of CHC with special reference to its clinical, molecular and histopathological characteristics. Additional analysis of the recent literature in order to evaluate the results of surgical and systemic treatment of this entity has been accomplished. RESULTS: The median age at CHC's diagnosis appears to be between 50 and 75 years. Evaluation of tumor markers [alpha fetoprotein (AFP), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)] along with imaging patterns provides better opportunities for CHC's preoperative diagnosis. Reported clinicopathologic prognostic parameters possibly correlated with increased tumor recurrence and grimmer survival odds include advanced age, tumor size, nodal and distal metastases, vascular and regional organ invasion, multifocality, decreased capsule formation, stem-cell features verification and increased GGT as well as CA19-9 and CEA levels. In case of inoperable or recurrent disease, combinations of cholangiocarcinoma-directed systemic agents display superior results over sorafenib. Liver-directed methods, such as transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), radioembolization and ablative therapies, demonstrate inferior efficacy than in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to CHC's common hypovascularity. CONCLUSIONS: CHC demonstrates an overlapping clinical and biological pattern between its malignant ingredients. Natural history of the disease seems to be determined by the predominant tumor element. Gold standard for diagnosis is histology of surgical specimens. Regarding therapeutic interventions, major hepatectomy is acknowledged as the cornerstone of treatment whereas minor hepatectomy and liver transplantation may be applied in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Despite all therapeutic attempts, prognosis of CHC remains dismal.