Do You See What I See? A Comparison of CCC and Self-Assigned Milestones Across Military Medical Specialties.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to complete competency-based assessments of medical trainees based on nationally established Milestones. Previous research demonstrates a strong correlation between CCC and resident scores on the Milestones in surgery, but little is known if this is true between specialties. In this study, we investigated a variety of specialties and sought to determine what factors affect self-assessment of milestones. In addition, a post-hoc analysis was completed on the COVID-19 pandemic effects on self-evaluation. METHODS: This is an IRB approved observational study on prospectively collected self-evaluation milestone data that is used within each ACGME program's Clinical Competency Committees. Medical trainees within the San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium were approached for possible participation in this study with permission from program directors. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between self-assessments and CCC-assessments based on self-identified gender or residency type (surgical versus nonsurgical) for any milestone domain. Within the postgraduate year (PGY) groups, the PGY5 and PGY6 tended to rate themselves higher than CCC. Chiefs (Internal Medicine PGY2/3, and General Surgery PGY5/6) tended to be more accurate in scoring themselves than the interns (PGY1) within the milestone of Interpersonal Skills and Communication (chiefs 0.5 vs. interns 0.62, p = 0.03). On post hoc analysis of self-rating, during the first wave of the COVID 19 pandemic, Post-Covid residents were more likely to underrate themselves in Systems-Based Practice compared to the Pre-Covid cohort (-0.49 vs 0.10; p = 0.007) and more likely to rate themselves higher in Professionalism (-0.54 vs. -0.10, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Unique to this study and our institution, there was no gender difference found in self vs CCC evaluations. With the change in learning environment from COVID, there was also a change in ability for some learners to self-assess accurately. As medical educators, we should understand the importance of both encouraging learners to practice self-assessment as well as give feedback to trainees on their progress. We also need to educate our faculty on the use of milestones for assessment to create a true gold standard in the CCC.

Utility of cell-based vaccines as cancer therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cell-based therapeutic cancer vaccines use autologous patient-derived tumor cells, allogeneic cancer cell lines or autologous antigen presenting cells to mimic the natural immune process and stimulate an adaptive immune response against tumor antigens. The primary objective of this study is to perform a systematic literature review with an embedded meta-analysis of all published Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials of cell-based cancer vaccines in human subjects. The secondary objective of this study is to review trials demonstrating biological activity of cell-based cancer vaccines that could uncover additional hypotheses, which could be used in the design of future studies. We performed the systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The final review included 36 studies - 16 single-arm studies, and 20 controlled trials. Our systematic review of the existing literature revealed largely negative trials and our meta-analysis did not show evidence of clinical benefit from cell-based cancer-vaccines. However, as we looked beyond the stringent inclusion criteria of our systematic review, we identified significant examples of biological activity of cell-based cancer vaccines that are worth highlighting. In conclusion, the existing literature on cell-based cancer vaccines is highly variable in terms of cancer type, vaccine therapies and the clinical setting with no overall statistically significant clinical benefit, but there are individual successes that represent the promise of this approach. As cell-based vaccine technology continues to evolve, future studies can perhaps fulfill the potential that this exciting field of anti-cancer therapy holds.

Predictors and benefits of multiagent chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Timing matters.

INTRODUCTION: Adjuvant (A) multiagent chemotherapy (MC) is the standard of care for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Tolerating MC following a morbid operation may be difficult, thus neoadjuvant (NA) treatment is preferable. This study examined how the timing of chemotherapy was related to the regimen given and ultimately the overall survival (OS). METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried from 2006 to 2017 for nonmetastatic PDAC patients who underwent surgical resection and received MC or single-agent chemotherapy (SC) pre- or postresection. Predictors of receiving MC were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Five-year OS was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 12,440 patients (NA SC, n = 663; NA MC, n = 2313; A SC, n = 6152; A MC, n = 3312) were included. MC utilization increased from 2006-2010 to 2011-2017 (33.1%-49.7%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.59; p < 0.001). Younger age, fewer comorbidities, higher clinical stage, and larger tumor size were all associated with receipt of MC (all p < 0.001), but NA treatment was the greatest predictor (OR 5.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.63-5.80; p < 0.001). MC was associated with increased median 5-year OS (26.0 vs. 23.9 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88-0.96) and NA MC was associated with the highest survival (28.2 months) compared to NA SC (23.3 months), A SC (24.0 months), and A MC (24.6 months; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Use and timing of MC contribute to OS in PDAC with an improved 5-year OS compared to SC. The greatest predictor of receiving MC was being given as NA therapy and the greatest survival benefit was the NA MC subgroup. Randomized studies evaluating the timing of effective MC in PDAC are needed.

Standardization of Colon Resection for Cancer: An Overview of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 5.6.

The purpose of this editorial is to review the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 5.6, which pertains to curative intent colon resections performed for cancer. We first provide a broad overview of the Operative Standard, followed by the underlying rationale, technical components, and documentation requirements.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind phase 2B trial of the TLPO and TLPLDC vaccines to prevent recurrence of resected stage III/IV melanoma: a prespecified 36-month analysis.

BACKGROUND: The tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine is made by ex vivo priming matured autologous dendritic cells (DCs) with yeast cell wall particles (YCWPs) loaded with autologous tumor lysate (TL). The tumor lysate, particle only (TLPO) vaccine uses autologous TL-loaded YCWPs coated with silicate for in vivo DC loading. Here we report the 36-month prespecified analyses of this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial investigating the ability of the TLPO and TLPLDC (±granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)) vaccines to prevent melanoma recurrence in high-risk patients. METHODS: Patients with clinically disease-free stage III/IV melanoma were randomized 2:1 initially to TLPLDC versus placebo (n=124) and subsequently TLPO versus TLPLDC (n=63). All patients were randomized and blinded; however, the placebo control arm was replaced in the second randomization scheme with another novel vaccine; some analyses in this paper therefore reflect a combination of the two randomization schemes. Patients receiving the TLPLDC vaccine were further divided by their method of DC harvest (with or without G-CSF pretreatment); this was not randomized. The use of standard of care checkpoint inhibitors was not stratified between groups. Safety was assessed and Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analyses compared disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: After combining the two randomization processes, a total of 187 patients were allocated between treatment arms: placebo (n=41), TLPLDC (n=103), or TLPO (n=43). The allocation among arms created by the addition of patients from the two separate randomization schemes does not reflect concurrent randomization among all treatment arms. TLPLDC was further divided by use of G-CSF in DC harvest: no G-CSF (TLPLDC) (n=47) and with G-CSF (TLPLDC+G) (n=56). Median follow-up was 35.8 months. Only two patients experienced a related adverse event ≥grade 3, one each in the TLPLDC+G and placebo arms. DFS was 27.2% (placebo), 55.4% (TLPLDC), 22.9% (TLPLDC+G), and 60.9% (TLPO) (p<0.001). OS was 62.5% (placebo), 93.6% (TLPLDC), 57.7% (TLPLDC+G), and 94.6% (TLPO) (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The TLPO and TLPLDC (without G-CSF) vaccines were associated with improved DFS and OS in this clinical trial. Given production and manufacturing advantages, the efficacy of the TLPO vaccine will be confirmed in a phase 3 trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02301611.

Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes as an endpoint in cancer vaccine trials.

Checkpoint inhibitors have invigorated cancer immunotherapy research, including cancer vaccination. Classic early phase trial design and endpoints used in developing chemotherapy are not suited for evaluating all forms of cancer treatment. Peripheral T cell response dynamics have demonstrated inconsistency in assessing the efficacy of cancer vaccination. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), reflect the local tumor microenvironment and may prove a superior endpoint in cancer vaccination trials. Cancer vaccines may also promote success in combination immunotherapy treatment of weakly immunogenic tumors. This review explores the impact of TILs as an endpoint for cancer vaccination in multiple malignancies, summarizes the current literature regarding TILs analysis, and discusses the challenges of providing validity and a standardized implementation of this approach.

A test of the stress-buffering hypothesis of social support among bariatric surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: The buffering effect of social support against a range of stress-related health outcomes has been well-documented; however, no previous work has examined the applicability of this model to bariatric surgery outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The present study sought to address whether social support interacts with stress in predicting postsurgical outcomes, as well as whether these associations may vary by sex. SETTING: Teaching hospital, United States. METHODS: Data were collected using retrospective chart review (n = 548). Stress, patient sex, and social support were explored as predictors of curvilinear weight loss trajectories during the first year after surgery using growth curve modeling. RESULTS: Attendance at follow-up appointments was poor, with 250 patients at 6 months and 187 at 12 months. On average, these patients lost 27% of their total weight between baseline and the 12-month follow-up. Overall, weight-related emotional support appeared to be most relevant to weight loss/maintenance in this population; cohabitating with a spouse or significant other and attendance at support group meetings did not predict weight loss or show any significant interactions with stress. CONCLUSIONS: The present study found only partial support for the stress-buffering model of social support among bariatric surgery patients. Such findings have important implications for assessment and follow-up care after bariatric surgery, as well as for future research in this area.