Moving from conventional to adaptive risk stratification for oropharyngeal cancer.

Oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) poses a complex therapeutic dilemma for patients and oncologists alike, made worse by the epidemic increase in new cases associated with the oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV). In a counterintuitive manner, the very thing which gives patients hope, the high response rate of HPV-associated OPC to conventional chemo-radiation strategies, has become one of the biggest challenges for the field as a whole. It has now become clear that for ~30-40% of patients, treatment intensity could be reduced without losing therapeutic efficacy, yet substantially diminishing the acute and lifelong morbidity resulting from conventional chemotherapy and radiation. At the same time, conventional approaches to de-escalation at a population (selected or unselected) level are hampered by a simple fact: we lack patient-specific information from individual tumors that can predict responsiveness. This results in a problematic tradeoff between the deleterious impact of de-escalation on patients with aggressive, treatment-refractory disease and the beneficial reduction in treatment-related morbidity for patients with treatment-responsive disease. True precision oncology approaches require a constant, iterative interrogation of solid tumors prior to and especially during cancer treatment in order to tailor treatment intensity to tumor biology. Whereas this approach can be deployed in hematologic diseases with some success, our ability to extend it to solid cancers with regional metastasis has been extremely limited in the curative intent setting. New developments in metabolic imaging and quantitative interrogation of circulating DNA, tumor exosomes and whole circulating tumor cells, however, provide renewed opportunities to adapt and individualize even conventional chemo-radiation strategies to diseases with highly variable biology such as OPC. In this review, we discuss opportunities to deploy developing technologies in the context of institutional and cooperative group clinical trials over the coming decade.

Trends in Residency Academic Productivity of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Fellows Between 2012 and 2019.

PURPOSE: To characterize research productivity of ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery (OPRS) fellows during residency. METHODS: A database was compiled of OPRS fellows listed on the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) Annual Fall Scientific Symposium program books who began their fellowship between 2012 and 2019. PubMed was searched for all publications published between July 1st of the year they began residency and September 30th of the year they began fellowship training. Bibliometric variables captured for each fellow included: the number of publications, first-author publications, and ophthalmology-related publications. RESULTS: A total of 197 OPRS fellows who began their fellowship training between 2012 and 2019 published a mean (± SD) of 2.42 ± 2.80 publications, 1.43 ± 1.85 first-author publications, and 2.33 ± 2.74 ophthalmology-related publications during residency. Linear regression revealed that the number of publications ( P < 0.001), first-author publications ( P < 0.001), and ophthalmology-related publications ( P < 0.001) that OPRS fellows published during residency have all significantly increased over the time assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The academic productivity of OPRS fellows during residency was quantified through bibliometric analysis to establish a national benchmark for the benefit of both prospective applicants and program directors. Residency research output of OPRS fellows has significantly increased between 2012 and 2019. Since ASOPRS program requirements necessitate academic productivity and thesis completion, publication records and involvement in research become valuable considerations when evaluating fellowship applicants. The knowledge of what accepted fellows have published provides the opportunity to make historical comparisons and may prove useful in the evaluation of the competitiveness of a given year's applicant pool.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Ophthalmology Resident Research Productivity in the United States.

Background The extent and impact of ophthalmology resident scholarly output is not well known. The authors aim to quantify scholarly activity of ophthalmology residents during residency and assess what factors may be associated with greater research productivity of these residents. Material and Methods Ophthalmology residents who graduated in 2021 were identified from their respective program Web sites. Bibliometric data published by these residents between the beginning of their postgraduate year 2 (July 1, 2018) until 3 months after graduation (September 30, 2021) were captured through searches via PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The association of the following factors with greater research productivity numbers was analyzed: residency tier, medical school rank, sex, doctorate degree, type of medical degree, and international medical graduate status. Results We found 418 ophthalmology residents from 98 residency programs. These residents published a mean (±standard deviation [SD]) number of 2.68 ± 3.81 peer-reviewed publications, 2.39 ± 3.40 ophthalmology-related publications, and 1.18 ± 1.96 first-author publications each. The mean (±SD) Hirsch index (h-index) for this cohort was 0.79 ± 1.17. Upon multivariate analysis, we discovered significant correlations between both residency tier and medical school rank and all bibliometric variables assessed. Pairwise comparisons revealed that residents from higher tier programs had greater research productivity numbers than those from lower tier programs. Conclusion We obtained bibliometric standards for ophthalmology residents on a national scale. Residents who graduated from higher-ranked residency programs and medical schools possessed higher h-indices and published more peer-reviewed publications, ophthalmology-related articles, and first-author publications.

Social Media Impact of Articles Published by Dermatology Residents During Medical School: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The Altmetric score (AS) is a novel measure of publication impact that is calculated by the number of mentions across various social media websites. This method may have advantages over traditional bibliometrics in the context of research by medical students. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether dermatology matriculants who graduated from higher-ranked medical schools published more articles with greater impact (ie, a higher AS) than those from lower-ranked institutions. METHODS: A PubMed search for articles published by dermatology residents who started medical school in 2020 was conducted. Demographic information and Altmetric data were collected, and medical schools were sorted according to US News' top-25 and non-top-25 categories. RESULTS: Residents who completed their medical training at a top-25 institution published more papers (mean 4.93, SD 4.18 vs mean 3.11, SD 3.32; P<.001) and accrued a significantly higher total AS (mean 67.9, SD 160 vs mean 22.9, SD 75.9; P<.001) and average AS (mean 13.1, SD 23.7 vs mean 6.71, SD 32.3; P<.001) per article than those who graduated from non-top-25 schools. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that students in top-25 schools may have greater access to research resources and opportunities. With a pass/fail United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam that may increasingly shift focus toward scholarly output from medical students, further discussion on how to create a more equitable dermatology match is essential.