Search

Objective: To determine the association between objective (geospatial) and subjective (perceived) measures of neighborhood disadvantage (ND) and aggressive breast cancer tumor biology, defined using validated social adversity-associated transcription factor (TF) activity and clinical outcomes. Background: ND is associated with shorter breast cancer recurrence-free survival (RFS), independent of individual, tumor, and treatment characteristics, suggesting potential unaccounted biological mechanisms by which ND influences RFS. Methods: We quantified TF-binding motif prevalence within promoters of differentially expressed genes for 147 tissue samples prospectively collected on the protocol. Covariate-adjusted multivariable regression analyzed objective and subjective ND scores with 5 validated TFs of social adversity and aggressive biology--pro-inflammatory activity [nuclear factor-κB (NF-kB), activator protein 1 (AP-1)], sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity [cyclic 3'-5' adenosine monophosphate response element-binding protein (CREB)], and protective cellular responses [interferon-regulatory factor (IRF) and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT)]. To clinically validate these TFs as prognostic biomarkers of aggressive biology, logistic regression and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models analyzed their association with Oncotype DX scores and RFS, respectively. Results: Increasing objective ND was associated with aggressive tumor biology (up-regulated NF-kB, activator protein 1, down-regulated IRF, and signal transducer and activator of transcription) and SNS activation (up-regulated CREB). Increasing subjective ND (eg, threat to safety) was associated with up-regulated NF-kB and CREB and down-regulated IRF. These TF patterns were associated with high-risk Oncotype DX scores and shorter RFS. Conclusions: In the largest human social genomics study, objective and subjective ND were significantly associated with TFs of aggressive biology and SNS activation. These TFs also correlated with worse clinical outcomes, implicating SNS activation as one potential mechanism behind ND survival disparities. These findings remain to be validated in a national cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess contemporary trends in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Career Development (K) Awards within the Departments of Surgery and its impact on the likelihood of achieving independent R01 grants. Background: The NIH provides K-type Career Development Awards to nurture young clinicians toward a productive academic career, thereby maintaining a pipeline of physician-scientists. However, the impact of K awards on career trajectory of surgeons remains unclear. Methods: The NIH grant data was queried for all new K08/K23 grants awarded to Departments of Surgery (1999–2019). Principal Investigators’ data and grant-related information was obtained. Results: The NIH awarded 298 K08/23 surgical grants ($41,893,170) over the last 2 decades. Median budget increased from $116,370 to $167,508 (P<0.001). Of grantees, 83.2% were MDs, 15.1% MD/PhD, and 1.7% PhDs, with 25.2% being women. Principal Investigators’ were mostly practicing surgeons (91.1%) with fellowship training (82.4%) and young in their careers {4 [interquartile ranges (IQR) 4] years of experience}. Vascular surgery (15.9%), Complex General Surgical Oncology (15.1%), and Trauma/Critical Care (14.6%) were the most frequent specialties. Awards were associated with 3,336 publications [median 8/project (IQR 13)]. The majority of K grantees (77.2%) currently hold an academic faculty position. Only 32.2% of awardees received independent R01 grant funding, at a median of 5.5 years (IQR 5) after their K awards. Sex (P = 0.71), previous fellowship training (P = 0.63), type of surgical specialty (P = 0.72), or MD/PhD degree (P = 0.75) were not associated with increased likelihood of achieving a subsequent R01 award. Conclusion: Although the majority of K awardees maintain an academic career, only a limited number of grantees progress to obtain NIH R01 funding. Increased mentorship, financial support, and infrastructure are needed to facilitate career development awardees opportunities to enhance their ability to achieve independent funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an unacceptably high burden of death and disability from conditions that are treatable by surgery, worldwide and especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The major actions to improve this situation need to be taken by the surgical communities, institutions, and governments of the LMICs. The US surgical community, including the US academic surgical community, has, however, important roles to play in addressing this problem. The American Surgical Association convened a Working Group to address how US academic surgery can most effectively decrease the burden from surgically treatable conditions in LMICs. The Working Group believes that the task will be most successful (1) if the epidemiologic pattern in a given country is taken into account by focusing on those surgically treatable conditions with the highest burdens; (2) if emphasis is placed on those surgical services that are most cost-effective and most feasible to scale up; and (3) if efforts are harmonized with local priorities and with existing global initiatives, such as the World Health Assembly with its 2015 resolution on essential surgery. This consensus statement gives recommendations on how to achieve those goals through the tools of academic surgery: clinical care, training and capacity building, research, and advocacy. Through all of these, the ethical principles of maximally and transparently engaging with and deferring to the interests and needs of local surgeons and their patients are of paramount importance. Notable benefits accrue to US surgeons, trainees, and institutions that engage in global surgical activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left-sided pancreatectomy (LLP) with traditional open left-sided pancreatectomy (OLP) in a multicenter experience., Summary and Background Data: LLP is being performed more commonly with limited data comparing results with outcomes from OLP., Methods: Data from 8 centers were combined for all cases performed between 2002-2006. OLP and LLP cohorts were matched by age, American Society of Anesthesiologists, resected pancreas length, tumor size, and diagnosis. Multivariate analysis was performed using binary logistic regression., Results: Six hundred sixty-seven LPs were performed, with 159 (24%) attempted laparoscopically. Indications were solid lesion in 307 (46%), cystic in 295 (44%), and pancreatitis in 65 (10%) cases. Positive margins occurred in 51 (8%) cases, 335 (50%) had complications, and significant leaks occurred in 108 (16%). Conversion to OLP occurred in 20 (13%) of the LLPs. In the matched comparison, 200 OLPs were compared with 142 LLPs. There were no differences in positive margin rates (8% vs. 7%, P = 0.8), operative times (216 vs. 230 minutes, P = 0.3), or leak rates (18% vs. 11%, P = 0.1). LLP patients had lower average blood loss (357 vs. 588 mL, P < 0.01), fewer complications (40% vs. 57%, P < 0.01), and shorter hospital stays (5.9 vs. 9.0 days, P < 0.01). By MVA, LLP was an independent factor for shorter hospital stay (P < 0.01, odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.56)., Conclusions: In selected patients, LLP is associated with less morbidity and shorter LOS than OLP. Pancreatic fistula rates are similar for OLP and LLP. LLP is appropriate for selected patients with left-sided pancreatic pathology.