Survey of trends in authorship assignment in gynecologic oncology: Keeping score and playing fair.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chambers LM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8027688 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceGender disparity exists among authors of the oncology literature.ObjectiveTo quantify trends in authorship by gender within a comprehensive data set of Medline-indexed oncology articles in medical journals with high impact factors.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used Medline citations to examine archives of research journals from 3 disciplines in the oncology literature. Authors from all oncology-related articles with Medical Subject Headings terms assigned from 2002 to 2018 from 13 general oncology/medicine, radiation oncology, and surgical journals were included for analysis, encompassing clinical trials, observational studies (excluding case reports), reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and all other published articles. Data were analyzed between April and May 2020.ExposuresAuthors were assigned genders based on societal naming norms via third-party gender identification service Gender-API.com. This assignment was internally validated based on manually obtained publicly available data on the internet.Main outcomes and measuresTrend in female authorship over time while considering journal type, authorship position, and article type.ResultsA total of 420 526 authors from 58 368 articles were found, of which 400 945 were assigned a gender based on their name. In total, 29.5% (95% CI, 29.4%-29.6%) of authors were identified as female, rising from 25.5% (95% CI, 24.7%-26.3%) in 2002 to 31.7% (95% CI, 31.2%-32.3%) in 2018. Each subgroup of primary article type by journal type saw a rise in female authorship over the studied period. For primary articles, last authors were less likely to be women than first authors, regardless of journal type, year, and primary article type (eg, general oncology: odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52-0.69). For general oncology articles, women were less likely to be authors of clinical trials at each authorship position than authors at that respective position for observational studies (first, second, and last authors: OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.67; other authors: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.89). This difference was not seen for radiation oncology or surgical oncology journals.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that female authorship in oncology research literature has increased. However, there remains a dearth of female senior authors, and the overall rise in female authorship has not kept up with the rise in female oncology faculty.
| S-EPMC8025110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the ability of an office-administered phenotypic frailty assessment to predict chemotherapy tolerance in older adult gynecologic oncology patients, and describe practice patterns for chemotherapy administration in this population. METHODS:Prospective, single-institution cohort study of gynecologic oncology patients 65 or older initiating chemotherapy. Phenotypic frailty testing at an office visit encompassed components of two validated frailty assessments: Fried Score (physical testing and patient response) and FRAIL Scale (patient response only). Patients were followed through three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or six cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Standard statistics examined the relationship of frailty to chemotherapy regimen, ability to complete chemotherapy, and complications. RESULTS:Eighty patients were included, 65% with ovarian and 34% with endometrial cancer. On average 57% of patients were fit, 32% intermediately frail, and 11% frail. 68% received adjuvant chemotherapy versus 32% neoadjuvant. The majority (81%) received IV chemotherapy on a 21-day?cycle and 81% initially received a regimen consistent with standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOCC). Age was not associated with receiving SOCC, or tolerance or completion of chemotherapy. Frailty was associated with non-initiation of SOCC in all patients and inability to complete SOCC in adjuvant patients. Complications and regimen alterations were common but were not associated with frailty. CONCLUSIONS:There is a need to develop tools to help physicians predict chemotherapy tolerance among older adult gynecologic oncology patients in order to prevent both under- and over-treatment while minimizing morbidity. However, in this study phenotypic frailty assessment had limited predictive utility. Among adjuvant chemotherapy patients, frailty was associated with inability to complete SOCC and thus may be helpful in selecting patients appropriate for less aggressive chemotherapy regimens.
| S-EPMC6358476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePalliative care is recognized as an important component of oncologic care. We sought to assess the quality/quantity of palliative care education in gynecologic oncology fellowship.MethodsA self-administered on-line questionnaire was distributed to current gynecologic oncology fellow and candidate members during the 2013 academic year. Descriptive statistics, bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed.ResultsOf 201 fellow and candidate members, 74.1% (n=149) responded. Respondents were primarily women (75%) and white (76%). Only 11% of respondents participated in a palliative care rotation. Respondents rated the overall quality of teaching received on management of ovarian cancer significantly higher than management of patients at end of life (EOL), independent of level of training (8.25 vs. 6.23; p<0.0005). Forty-six percent reported never being observed discussing transition of care from curative to palliative with a patient, and 56% never received feedback about technique regarding discussions on EOL care. When asked to recall their most recent patient who had died, 83% reported enrollment in hospice within 4 weeks of death. Fellows reporting higher quality EOL education were significantly more likely to feel prepared to care for patients at EOL (p<0.0005). Mean ranking of preparedness increased with the number of times a fellow reported discussing changing goals from curative to palliative and the number of times he/she received feedback from an attending (p<0.0005).ConclusionsGynecologic oncology fellow/candidate members reported insufficient palliative care education. Those respondents reporting higher quality EOL training felt more prepared to care for dying patients and to address complications commonly encountered in this setting.
| S-EPMC4191825 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To identify current practice patterns for unresolved issues in the surgical and adjuvant management of endometrial cancer in Korea.We designed and conducted a survey of all 218 active members of the Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group to try to identify how they would manage various case scenarios for endometrial cancer. Data were collected using an Internet survey database.A total of 108 members (49.5%) responded to the survey. Laparoscopy (81.6%) was the most commonly used mode of surgery in early-stage endometrial cancer. Of all the respondents, 19.8% stated that lymphadenectomy could be omitted and 21.7% recommended selective lymphadenectomy based on sentinel biopsy or frozen results for patients with presumed stage IA/grade 1 disease. On the other hand, 71.9% of respondents recommended para-aortic lymphadenectomy for patients with presumed stage IB/grade 1 disease and 86.4% recommended this treatment for presumed stage IB/grade 3 disease. The majority of respondents performed adjuvant therapy for stage IB/grade 2 (91.7%), IB/grade 3 (99.0%), and stage II (89.6%). Whole pelvic radiotherapy and vaginal brachytherapy were the most frequently used options among these patients. All respondents administered adjuvant therapy when node metastasis was found, and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (53.2%) was the most preferred option for stage IIIC1 disease.There is broad variation in both the surgical and adjuvant treatment of endometrial cancer among Korean gynecologic oncologists.
| S-EPMC4620364 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesFinancial toxicity is increasingly recognized as an adverse outcome of cancer treatment. Our objective was to measure financial toxicity among gynecologic oncology patients and its association with demographic and disease-related characteristics; self-reported overall health; and cost-coping strategies.MethodsFollow-up patients at a gynecologic oncology practice completed a survey including the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and a self-reported overall health assessment, the EQ-VAS. We abstracted disease and treatment characteristics from medical records. We dichotomized COST scores into low and high financial toxicity and assessed the correlation (r) between COST scores and self-reported health. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations of demographic and disease-related characteristics with high financial toxicity, as well as the associations between high financial toxicity and cost-coping strategies.ResultsAmong 240 respondents, median COST score was 29. Greater financial toxicity was correlated with worse self-reported health (r = 0.47; p < 0.001). In the crude analysis, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, unemployment, cervical cancer and treatment with chemotherapy were associated with high financial toxicity. In the multivariable analysis, only government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, and treatment with chemotherapy were significantly associated with high financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with all cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care (RR: 7.3; 95% CI: 2.8-19.1).ConclusionsAmong highly-insured gynecologic oncology patients, many respondents reported high levels of financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with worse self-reported overall health and cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care.
| S-EPMC7001853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAs coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rages on, it is a challenging task to balance resources for treatment of COVID-19 and malignancy-based treatment. For the development of optimal strategies, assessing the conditions and constrains in treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic is pertinent. This study reported about a nationwide survey conducted by the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.MethodsWe interviewed 265 designated training facilities about the state of their clinical practice from the time period between March and December 2020. We asked the facility doctors in charge to fill a web-based questionnaire.ResultsA total of 232 facilities (87.5%) responded. A decrease in the number of outpatient visits was reported, and the major reason attributed was reluctance of patients to visit hospitals rather than facility restrictions. The actual number of surgeries decreased by 3.9%, compared to 2019. There was a significant difference when the variable of "Prefectures operating under special safety precautions" or not was introduced. There was no increase in the rate of advanced stages in the three cancer types studied. However, 34.1% participants perceived COVID-19 affected management and prognosis.ConclusionRefraining from visiting hospitals based on the patient's judgment may be expected to be an issue in the future. No significant decrease in surgeries was observed, and it would seem that there were few forced changes in treatment plans, but "the State of Emergency" had an impact. There was no increase in the rate of advanced cancers, but this will need to be monitored.
| S-EPMC8728672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess telemedicine readiness of gynecologic oncology patients, particularly those at risk for care access disparities (increased distance to care, rural populations.).MethodsPatients at all disease/treatment stages completed an anonymous survey during in-person outpatient appointments at an academic comprehensive cancer center from 1/6/2020 to 2/28/2020, conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, before the introduction of telemedicine in this practice.ResultsOf 180 patients approached, 170 completed the survey (94.4%). Mean age was 59.6 years; 73.4% identified as White, 23.7% Black, and 2.9% other race. Ovarian cancer was most common (41.2%), followed by endometrial (27.1%), cervical (20.6%), and vaginal/vulvar (7.1%). Most patients traveled > 50 miles for appointments (63.8%); they were more likely from rural counties with significantly higher travel costs/visit ($60.77 vs $37.98, p = 0.026.) The majority expressed interest in using telemedicine (75.7%) or a smartphone app (87.5%) in their care. The majority of patients with difficulty attending appointments (88.9 vs 70.2%, p = 0.02) or from rural counties (88.7% vs 69.6%, p = 0.03) were interested in telemedicine; those with both characteristics reported 100% interest. The majority in both urban and rural counties had home internet access, and reported similarly high rates of daily use (79% vs 75%). Race and age were not associated with differences in internet access or use or telemedicine interest.ConclusionsTelemedicine is attractive to the majority of patients and may offer financial/logistical advantages. Patients have high internet use rates and comfort with using technology for healthcare. Telemedicine should be incorporated into standard practice beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce healthcare access disparities.
| S-EPMC8501666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe primary objective was to establish noninferiority of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for recurrence after surgical staging of uterine cancer.Patients and methodsPatients with clinical stages I to IIA disease were randomly allocated (two to one) to laparoscopy (n = 1,696) versus laparotomy (n = 920) for hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic cytology, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. The primary study end point was noninferiority of recurrence-free interval defined as no more than a 40% increase in the risk of recurrence with laparoscopy compared with laparotomy.ResultsWith a median follow-up time of 59 months for 2,181 patients still alive, there were 309 recurrences (210 laparoscopy; 99 laparotomy) and 350 deaths (229 laparoscopy; 121 laparotomy). The estimated hazard ratio for laparoscopy relative to laparotomy was 1.14 (90% lower bound, 0.92; 95% upper bound, 1.46), falling short of the protocol-specified definition of noninferiority. However, the actual recurrence rates were substantially lower than anticipated, resulting in an estimated 3-year recurrence rate of 11.4% with laparoscopy and 10.2% with laparotomy, or a difference of 1.14% (90% lower bound, -1.28; 95% upper bound, 4.0). The estimated 5-year overall survival was almost identical in both arms at 89.8%.ConclusionThis study previously reported that laparoscopic surgical management of uterine cancer is superior for short-term safety and length-of-stay end points. The potential for increased risk of cancer recurrence with laparoscopy versus laparotomy was quantified and found to be small, providing accurate information for decision making for women with uterine cancer.
| S-EPMC3295548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused rapid and drastic changes in cancer management. The Italian Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (SIGO), and the Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) promoted a national survey aiming to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on clinical activity of gynecologist oncologists and to assess the implementation of containment measures against COVID-19 diffusion.MethodsThe survey consisted of a self-administered, anonymous, online questionnaire. The survey was sent via email to all the members of the SIGO, and MITO groups on April 7, 2020, and was closed on April 20, 2020.ResultsOverall, 604 participants completed the questionnaire with a response-rate of 70%. The results of this survey suggest that gynecologic oncology units had set a proactive approach to COVID-19 outbreak. Triage methods were adopted in order to minimize in-hospital diffusion of COVID-19. Only 38% of gynecologic surgeons were concerned about COVID-19 outbreak. Although 73% of the participants stated that COVID-19 has not significantly modified their everyday practice, 21% declared a decrease of the use of laparoscopy in favor of open surgery (19%). However, less than 50% of surgeons adopted specific protection against COVID-19. Additionally, responders suggested to delay cancer treatment (10%-15%), and to perform less radical surgical procedures (20%-25%) during COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsNational guidelines should be implemented to further promote the safety of patients and health care providers. International cooperation is of paramount importance, as heavily affected nations can serve as an example to find out ways to safely preserve clinical activity during the COVID-19 outbreak.
| S-EPMC7593217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIndividuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists is not yet defined.ObjectiveTo determine female representation as editorial authors in 3 high-impact general ophthalmology journals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study investigates the proportion of female authorship in editorials published between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 in 3 journals: Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology. Data were collected from April to June 2020.Main outcomes and measuresProportions of female first and senior (last or solo) authors between 2005 to 2009 compared with 2015 to 2019. Secondary outcome measures include representation by sex across degree types and subspecialties. Comparisons were made for all editorialists and ophthalmologist editorialists.ResultsOf 814 editorial articles, there were 1179 (first and senior) authors identified. Women held 301 (25.5%) of these authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (23.9%). Overall, female first and senior authorships grew by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 (85 of 469 [18.1%] vs 216 of 710 [30.4%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-317.2; P < .001). Between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, first and senior authorships by women increased (first: 33 of 133 [24.8%] vs 83 of 232 [35.8%]; difference, 11.0%; 95% CI, 1.4-320.6; P = .03; senior: 52 of 336 [15.5%] vs 133 of 478 [27.8%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 6.8-317.9; P < .001). JAMA Ophthalmology most substantially contributed to the increase in female first and senior authorships (13.8% and 16%), although the test for homogeneity among the 3 journals was not significant. The proportion of female ophthalmologist first authors was greater than the proportion of American Board of Ophthalmology-certified female ophthalmologists (81 of 281 [28.9%] vs 123 of 672 [18.3%]; difference, 10.6%; 95% CI, 5.3-315.9; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThe proportion of female senior authors increased by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, but female authors represented only 25.5% of editorialists. Compared with male ophthalmologists, female ophthalmologists were more commonly first than senior authors. Additionally, female authors were more likely to be nonophthalmologists or to hold nonmedical, non-PhD degrees. While the swelling rank of female editorialists has paralleled the rising proportion of female ophthalmologists over time, parity by sex has yet to be attained. Greater awareness of disparities and strategies to mitigate them may help equalize representation.
| S-EPMC8529415 | biostudies-literature