What are the impacts of recent changes in UK core surgical training application on current and prospective applicants?

Core Surgical Training (CST) is a 2-year UK training programme, designed to provide junior doctors interested in surgery with formal training and to introduce them to various surgical specialties. The selection process is divided into two stages. In the portfolio stage, applicants submit a score based on a published self-assessment guidance. Only candidates whose scores remain higher than the cut-off after verification will proceed to the interview stage. Finally, jobs are allocated according to the overall performance of both stages. Despite the rising number of applicants, the number of job vacancies remains largely similar. Hence, the intensity of competition has increased over the past few years. The competitive ratio increased from 2.8:1 in 2019 to 4.6:1 in 2021. Hence, several changes have been implemented in the CST application process, with the aim to combat this trend. The recurring changes in the CST application process have sparked considerable discussions among applicants. The effect of the changes on the current and prospective applicants is yet to be explored. This letter aims to highlight the changes and discuss the potential impacts. The CST application from 2020 to 2022 has been compared to identify the changes implemented throughout the years. Specific changes have been highlighted. The impact of changes in the CST application process on applicants has been divided into 'pros' and 'cons' sections. Recently, many specialties have shifted from portfolio-based assessment to Multiple Specialty Recruitment Assessments. In contrast, CST application preserves its emphasis on holistic assessment and academic excellence. However, the application process could be further refined for more impartial recruitment. This would ultimately help alleviate the challenging situation of staff shortage, increase the number of specialist doctors, reduce waiting time for elective surgeries and most importantly, provide better care for our patients in the NHS.

Cohort study of long-term survival and recurrence patterns following operative management of colorectal liver metastasis - is follow-up beyond 5 years warranted?

AIMS: To evaluate the patterns of overall survival (OS) and recurrence following surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: In compliance with STROCSS guideline, a single-centre retrospective cohort study was conducted. All consecutive patients undergoing resection of CRLM between 2003 and 2019 were considered eligible for inclusion. The outcome measures included OS, recurrence-free survival (RFS), recurrence rate, time to recurrence (TTR) and longest TTR. Statistical analyses included simple descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival statistics. RESULTS: We included 486 liver resections in 472 patients. The estimated median OS and RFS were 5.1 years and 3.1 years, respectively. The probability of 1-year, 3-year, 5-year and 10-year OS was 93%, 69%, 50% and 34%, respectively. The probability of 1-year, 3-year, 5-year and 10-year RFS was 81%, 50%, 34% and 33%, respectively. Recurrence occurred in 56% (271/486) of patients, and the median TTR was 1.6 years (IQR: 0.8-2.7) with longest TTR of 4.8 years. Although there were no recurrences in the 66 patients that entered the 6th year, the 95% CI for true rate of recurrence in the population given these data is 0-5.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that recurrences that occur after operative management of CRLM are almost certain to occur within the first 5 years even for patients surviving longer than 5 years. This does not disprove the requirement for follow up beyond 5 years. However, based on this data, we have altered our follow up from 10 to 6 years. The need for the 6th year of follow up will be reassessed in light of further observations.

What are the impacts of recent changes in UK core surgical training application on current and prospective applicants?

Core Surgical Training (CST) is a 2-year UK training programme, designed to provide junior doctors interested in surgery with formal training and to introduce them to various surgical specialties. The selection process is divided into two stages. In the portfolio stage, applicants submit a score based on a published self-assessment guidance. Only candidates whose scores remain higher than the cut-off after verification will proceed to the interview stage. Finally, jobs are allocated according to the overall performance of both stages. Despite the rising number of applicants, the number of job vacancies remains largely similar. Hence, the intensity of competition has increased over the past few years. The competitive ratio increased from 2.8:1 in 2019 to 4.6:1 in 2021. Hence, several changes have been implemented in the CST application process, with the aim to combat this trend. The recurring changes in the CST application process have sparked considerable discussions among applicants. The effect of the changes on the current and prospective applicants is yet to be explored. This letter aims to highlight the changes and discuss the potential impacts. The CST application from 2020 to 2022 has been compared to identify the changes implemented throughout the years. Specific changes have been highlighted. The impact of changes in the CST application process on applicants has been divided into 'pros' and 'cons' sections. Recently, many specialties have shifted from portfolio-based assessment to Multiple Specialty Recruitment Assessments. In contrast, CST application preserves its emphasis on holistic assessment and academic excellence. However, the application process could be further refined for more impartial recruitment. This would ultimately help alleviate the challenging situation of staff shortage, increase the number of specialist doctors, reduce waiting time for elective surgeries and most importantly, provide better care for our patients in the NHS.

How successful is liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases in patients over 75 years old?

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: As populations age, an increased incidence of colorectal cancer will generate an increase in colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM). In order to guide treatment decisions, this study aimed to identify the contemporary complication rates of elderly patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM in a, centralised, UK centre. METHODS: All patients undergoing operative procedures for CRLM between January 2013 and January 2019 were included. Patient, tumour and operative data were analysed, including the prognostic marker; tumour burden score. RESULTS: 339 operations were performed on 289 consecutive patients with CRLM (272 patients ＜75 years old, 67 patients ≥75 years old). Median age was 66 years (range 20-93). There was no difference in major complication rates between the two age cohorts (6.65 vs. 6.0%, p=0.847) or operative mortality (1.1% vs. 1.4%, p=0.794). Younger patients had higher R1 resection rates (20.4% vs. 4.5%, p=0.002) and post-operative chemotherapy rates (60.3% vs. 35.8%, p< 0.001). The 1, 3 and 5-year OS was 90.2%, 70.5% and 52.3% respectively, median 70 months, with no difference between age cohorts (p=0.772). Tumour Burden score and operation type were independent predictors of overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection for CRLM in patients 75 years and older is feasible, safe and confers a similar 5-year survival rate to younger patients. The current outcomes from surgery are better than historical datasets.

Prognostic significance of serum inflammatory markers in esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the relative prognostic value of biomarkers to measure the systemic inflammatory response (SIR) and potentially improve prognostic modeling in patients undergoing potentially curative surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EC). METHODS: Consecutive 330 patients undergoing surgery for EC between 2004 and 2018 within a regional UK cancer network were identified. Serum measurements of haemoglobin, C-reactive protein, albumin, modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), and differential neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were obtained before surgery, and correlated with histopathological factors and outcomes. Primary outcome measures were disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 330 OC patients, 294 underwent potentially curative esophagectomy. Univariable DFS analysis revealed pT, pN, pTNM stage (all p < 0.001), poor differentiation (p = 0.001), vascular invasion (p < 0.001), R1 status (p < 0.001), perioperative chemotherapy (p = 0.009), CRP (p = 0.010), mGPS (p = 0.011), and NLR (p < 0.001), were all associated with poor survival. Multivariable Cox regression analysis of DFS revealed only NLR [Hazard Ratio (HR) 3.63, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.11-6.24, p < 0.001] retained significance. Multivariable Cox regression analysis of OS revealed similar findings: NLR [HR 2.66, (95% CI 1.58-4.50), p < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: NLR is an important SIR prognostic biomarker associated with DFS and OS in EC.