Emotional intelligence in undergraduate medical students: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: To perform a scoping review to determine what is known about emotional intelligence (EI) in undergraduate medical education (UME). Two main questions were asked: A. What medical student characteristics are associated with EI? Are there correlations with demographic or other factors? B. What research studies have been done on EI in UME? For example, is there evidence EI changes over time as a result of personal experiences? Should EI be used as an admission criterion? Can EI improve as a result of experiences or deliberate interventions? METHOD: The authors searched four databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, Education Resources Information Center, and Web of Science) for all papers published up to and including December 2020. Two reviewers independently screened articles to determine if they met inclusion criteria. All authors extracted and analyzed data. RESULTS: A set of 1520 papers on the topic of emotional intelligence was identified, with 119 papers meeting inclusion criteria. Most studies were done at international locations with only 17 done at US medical schools. Seventy-five were cohort or cross-sectional studies. Study populations were mixed among the studies, with year of medical study, inclusion of other healthcare students, and participation rates among the inter-study differences noted. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous gaps in the literature on EI exist with several points being clear: (1) there is disagreement on the definition of EI, (2) it is undetermined whether EI is a trait or an ability, and (3) there is marked variability among the instruments used to measure EI. It is also becoming apparent that using EI determination may be helpful as a component of the admission process, higher EI is likely related to improved clinical reasoning, and higher EI contributes to more effective stress management.

PD-L1 Expression by Two Complementary Diagnostic Assays and mRNA In Situ Hybridization in Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic antibodies to immune checkpoints show promising results. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), an immune checkpoint ligand, blocks the cancer immunity cycle by binding the PD-L1 receptor (programmed death 1). We investigated PD-L1 protein expression and messenger RNA (mRNA) levels in SCLC. METHODS: PD-L1 protein expression and mRNA levels were determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) with SP142 and Dako 28-8 PD-L1 antibodies and in situ hybridization in primary tumor tissue microarrays in both tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (TIICs) obtained from a limited-disease SCLC cohort of 98 patients. An additional cohort of 96 tumor specimens from patients with extensive-disease SCLC was assessed for PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells with Dako 28-8 antibody only. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells was 16.5%. In the limited-disease cohort, the prevalences of PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells with SP142 and Dako 28-8 were 14.7% and 19.4% (tumor proportion score cutoff ≥1%) and PD-L1 mRNA ISH expression was positive in 15.5% of tumor samples. Increased PD-L1 protein/mRNA expression was associated with the presence of more TIICs (p < 0.05). The extensive-disease cohort demonstrated a 14.9% positivity of PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells with Dako 28-8 antibody. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of SCLCs is characterized by positive PD-L1 and/or mRNA expression in tumor cells. Higher PD-L1 and mRNA expression correlate with more infiltration of TIICs. The prevalence of PD-L1 in SCLC is lower than that published for NSCLC. The predictive role of PD-L1 expression in SCLC treatment remains to be established.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Gemcitabine Plus TH-302 Versus Gemcitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: TH-302 is an investigational hypoxia-activated prodrug that releases the DNA alkylator bromo-isophosphoramide mustard in hypoxic settings. This phase II study (NCT01144455) evaluated gemcitabine plus TH-302 in patients with previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)), gemcitabine plus TH-302 240 mg/m(2) (G+T240), or gemcitabine plus TH-302 340 mg/m(2) (G+T340). Randomized crossover after progression on gemcitabine was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), tumor response, CA 19-9 response, and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen patients (77% with metastatic disease) were enrolled between June 2010 and July 2011. PFS was significantly longer with gemcitabine plus TH-302 (pooled combination arms) compared with gemcitabine alone (median PFS, 5.6 v 3.6 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87; P = .005; median PFS for metastatic disease, 5.1 v 3.4 months, respectively). Median PFS times for G+T240 and G+T340 were 5.6 and 6.0 months, respectively. Tumor response was 12%, 17%, and 26% in the gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 arms, respectively (G+T340 v gemcitabine, P = .04). CA 19-9 decrease was greater with G+T340 versus gemcitabine (-5,398 v -549 U/mL, respectively; P = .008). Median OS times for gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 were 6.9, 8.7, and 9.2 months, respectively (P = not significant). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, nausea, and peripheral edema (frequencies similar across arms). Skin and mucosal toxicities (2% grade 3) and myelosuppression (55% grade 3 or 4) were the most common TH-302-related AEs but were not associated with treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: PFS, tumor response, and CA 19-9 response were significantly improved with G+TH-302. G+T340 is being investigated further in the phase III MAESTRO study (NCT01746979).