"It's Time to Do It, to Make It a Major Part of Medicine": Faculty Experience With a Shift Toward an Antioppressive Medical School Curriculum.

PURPOSE: Health inequities compel medical educators to transform curricula to prepare physicians to improve the health of diverse populations. This mandate requires curricular focus on antioppression, which is a change for faculty who learned and taught under a different paradigm. This study used the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) to explore faculty perceptions of and experiences with a shift to a curriculum that prioritizes antioppressive content and process. METHOD: In this qualitative study, authors interviewed faculty course directors and teachers at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine from March 2021 to January 2022. Questions addressed faculty experience and understanding regarding the curriculum shift toward antioppression, perceptions of facilitators and barriers to change, and their interactions with colleagues and learners about this change. Using the CBAM components as sensitizing concepts, the authors conducted thematic analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen faculty participated. Their perceptions of their experience with the first year of an antioppression curriculum initiative were characterized by 3 broad themes: (1) impetus for change, (2) personal experience with antioppressive curricular topics, and (3) strategies necessary to accomplish the change. Faculty described 3 driving forces for the shift toward antioppressive curricula: moral imperative, response to national and local events, and evolving culture of medicine. Despite broad alignment with the change, faculty expressed uncertainties on 3 subthemes: uncertainty about what is an antioppressive curriculum, the scientific perspective, and fear. Faculty also reflected on primary facilitators and barriers to accomplishing the change. CONCLUSIONS: The shift to an antioppressive curriculum compels faculty to increase their knowledge and skills and adopt a critical, self-reflective lens on the interplay of medicine and oppression. This study's findings can inform faculty development efforts and highlight curricular leadership and resources needed to support faculty through this type of curricular change.

The effect of histologic grade on neoadjuvant treatment outcomes in esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The gold standard for locoregional esophageal cancer (LEC) treatment includes preoperative chemoradiation and surgical resection, with possible perioperative or adjuvant systemic therapy. With few data associating histologic grade and prognosis in LEC patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by resection, we seek to evaluate this association. METHODS: Our institutional esophagectomy database between 1999 and 2019 was queried, selecting esophageal adenocarcinoma patients who completed neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), followed by esophagectomy. Propensity-score matching of low- and high-histologic grade groups was performed to assess survival metrics using initial clinical grade (cG) and final pathologic grade (pG). We performed a multivariable logistic regression to study predictors of pathologic complete response as a secondary objective. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients met the inclusion criteria. Kaplan-Meier analysis of the matched dataset showed no difference in initial or 5-year recurrence-free survival or overall survival (OS) between cG1 and cG2 versus cG3 based on original grade. When matched according to pG, cG1-2 had improved median survival parameters compared to cG3, with 5-year OS for cG1-2 of 45% versus 27% (p = 0.001). Higher pG, pathologic N stage, and poor response to NAT are predictors of poor survival. CONCLUSION: Patients with post-NAT pG1-2 demonstrated improved survival. Integrating histologic grade into postneoadjuvant staging may be warranted.

"There Is a Lot of Change Afoot": A Qualitative Study of Faculty Adaptation to Elimination of Tiered Grades With Increased Emphasis on Feedback in Core Clerkships.

PURPOSE: Medical schools responding to challenges with fairness, equity, learning environments, and student wellness have reconsidered clerkship grades. This study used the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) to explore how faculty responded to a change in the approach to assessment from focus on grades toward focus on feedback. METHOD: This qualitative study used an inductive approach to analyze data from semistructured interviews with teaching faculty and education leaders at University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine 6 months following the elimination of traditional tiered clerkship grades. Participants were recruited in 2019 using purposive sampling. Interview questions addressed participants' perceptions of the new approach to assessment and grading that emphasizes assessment for learning, including advantages and concerns. The authors analyzed data using thematic analysis informed by sensitizing concepts from CBAM. RESULTS: Nineteen faculty participated (11 medicine, 8 surgery). Faculty expressed optimism about the impact of the change on their clinical educator roles and sought faculty development to enhance feedback and assessment skills. Perceived benefits to students addressed learning and wellness, with concern for students' motivation and professional development. Faculty shared uncertainty about their roles and larger systemic consequences involving the residency match and institutional reputation. Participants acknowledged that traditional grading is imperfect, yet felt a departure from this system represented significant culture change. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty perceptions of the assessment and grade change in 2 large departments demonstrated tensions around grading. Their descriptions of change as an ongoing process aligned with CBAM and required them to consider new approaches and perspectives. While discourse about assessment and grading frequently focuses on learners, these findings support institutional consideration of the impact of changes in assessment on teaching faculty.

Radiation-induced hepatitis masquerading as metastatic disease: the importance of correlating diagnostic imaging with treatment planning.

We are presenting a 63-year-old Caucasian male who complained of 2 months of progressive dysphagia. Upper endoscopy discovered a mass in the distal esophagus near the gastroesophageal junction. Biopsy was consistent with adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) showed extension beyond the muscularis propria, with an enlarged paraesophageal lymph node (T3N1). Initial positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) showed hypermetabolic portocaval lymphadenopathy presumed to be metastatic, but otherwise without distant disease extension. Neoadjuvant treatment included induction FOLFOX followed by 5,600 cGy over 28 fractions in combination with 5-FU and oxaliplatin. Approximately 3.5 weeks after completion, a repeat PET/CT revealed reduced uptake in both the primary esophageal mass and regional lymph nodes. Of note there were several new mass-like foci of hypermetabolism in the liver, specifically the left lobe, concerning for metastatic disease. Image-guided biopsy did not show any identifiable lesions, but sampling was performed based on anatomical landmarks. Pathology revealed benign parenchyma with minimal inflammation and mild reactive regeneration. In light of this, the patient proceeded to undergo definitive resection via robotic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with only 1 positive lymph node. Given pleural involvement by the tumor, staging was revised to pT4aN1 with final histology characterized as adenosquamous carcinoma. Postoperative course was fairly uneventful, with a mild exacerbation of his chronic heart failure. The patient was discharged on post-operative day 7, with his feeding tube removed at his 2-week post-operative clinic visit. This scenario is of particular educational value from the standpoint that when the post-treatment PET/CT images are registered to the radiotherapy treatment planning CT and dose, the areas of abnormal uptake in the liver fall within the higher dose regions. Given this and the liver biopsy findings, caution should be exercised before declaring progressive disease following radiotherapy without first reviewing the treatment plan.