Common pathways to Dean of Medicine at U.S. medical schools

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate common leadership experiences and academic achievements obtained by current U.S. Medical School Deans of Medicine (DOMs) prior to their first appointment as Dean in order to elucidate a common pathway for promotion. METHODS: In April-June 2019 the authors requested a curriculum vitae from each of the 153 LCME-accredited U.S. Medical School DOMs. The authors abstracted data on prior appointments, demographics, and achievements from CVs and online databases. Differences by gender and institutional rank were then evaluated by the Fisher\u27s exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. RESULTS: CVs were obtained for 62% of DOMs (95 of 153), with women comprising 16% of the responding cohort (15/95). Prior to appointment as DOM, 34% of respondents had served as both permanent Department Chair and Associate Dean, 39% as permanent Department Chair but not Associate Dean, and 17% as Associate Deans but not permanent Department Chair. There was a non-significant trend for men to have been more likely to have been a permanent Department Chair (76% vs 53%, p = 0.11) and less likely to have been an Associate Dean (48% vs 67%, p = 0.26) compared to women. Responding DOMs at Top-25 research institutions were mostly male (15/16), more likely to have been appointed before 2010 (38% vs 14%, p = 0.025), and had higher H-indices (mean (SD): 73.1 (32.3) vs 33.5 (22.5), p \u3c 0.01) than non-Top-25 Deans. CONCLUSIONS: The most common pathway to DOM in this study cohort was prior service as Department Chair. This suggests that diversification among Department Chair positions or expansion of search criteria to seek leaders from pools other than Department Chairs may facilitate increased diversity, equity, and inclusion among DOM overall

Common pathways to Dean of Medicine at U.S. medical schools.

PurposeWe sought to evaluate common leadership experiences and academic achievements obtained by current U.S. Medical School Deans of Medicine (DOMs) prior to their first appointment as Dean in order to elucidate a common pathway for promotion.MethodsIn April-June 2019 the authors requested a curriculum vitae from each of the 153 LCME-accredited U.S. Medical School DOMs. The authors abstracted data on prior appointments, demographics, and achievements from CVs and online databases. Differences by gender and institutional rank were then evaluated by the Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.ResultsCVs were obtained for 62% of DOMs (95 of 153), with women comprising 16% of the responding cohort (15/95). Prior to appointment as DOM, 34% of respondents had served as both permanent Department Chair and Associate Dean, 39% as permanent Department Chair but not Associate Dean, and 17% as Associate Deans but not permanent Department Chair. There was a non-significant trend for men to have been more likely to have been a permanent Department Chair (76% vs 53%, p = 0.11) and less likely to have been an Associate Dean (48% vs 67%, p = 0.26) compared to women. Responding DOMs at Top-25 research institutions were mostly male (15/16), more likely to have been appointed before 2010 (38% vs 14%, p = 0.025), and had higher H-indices (mean (SD): 73.1 (32.3) vs 33.5 (22.5), pConclusionsThe most common pathway to DOM in this study cohort was prior service as Department Chair. This suggests that diversification among Department Chair positions or expansion of search criteria to seek leaders from pools other than Department Chairs may facilitate increased diversity, equity, and inclusion among DOM overall

Speaker Introductions at Grand Rounds: Differences in Formality of Address by Gender and Specialty

Despite increasing representation of women in medicine, gender bias remains pervasive. The authors sought to evaluate speaker introductions by gender in the grand rounds of multiple specialties at a large academic institution to understand the cultural context of this behavior and identify predictors of formality. The authors reviewed grand rounds recordings of speakers with doctorates presenting to the departments of family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics at one institution from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome was whether a speaker\u27s professional title was used as the first form of address. The authors assessed factors correlated with professional introduction using multivariable logistic regression. Speakers were introduced professionally in 346/615 recordings (56.3%). Female introducers were more likely to introduce speakers professionally (odds ratio [OR]: 2.52). A significant interaction existed between speaker gender and home institution: female speakers visiting from an external institution were less likely than male external speakers to be introduced professionally (OR: 0.49), whereas female speakers internal to the institution were more likely to be introduced professionally than male internal speakers (OR: 1.75). Use of professional titles varied by specialty and was higher than average for family medicine (83.2%), surgery (75.8%), and pediatrics (64.0%) and lower for internal medicine (37.5%) and obstetrics and gynecology (50.7%). These findings suggest a complex relationship between gender and formality of introduction that merits further investigation. Understanding differences in culture across specialties is important to inform efforts to promote equity

Computed tomography myelosimulation versus magnetic resonance imaging registration to delineate the spinal cord during spine stereotactic radiosurgery

Background: Underestimation of the spinal cord\u27s volume or position during spine stereotactic radiosurgery can lead to severe myelopathy, whereas overestimation can lead to tumor underdosage. Spinal cord delineation is commonly achieved by registering a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study with a computed tomography (CT) simulation scan or by performing myelography during CT simulation (myelosim). We compared treatment planning outcomes for these 2 techniques. Methods: Twenty-three cases of spine stereotactic radiosurgery were analyzed that had both a myelosim and corresponding MRI study for registration. The spinal cord was contoured on both imaging data sets by 2 independent blinded physicians, and Dice similarity coefficients were calculated to compare their spatial overlap. Two treatment plans (16 Gy and 18 Gy) were created using the MRI and CT contours (92 plans total). Dosimetric parameters were extracted and compared by modality to assess tumor coverage and spinal cord dose. Results: No differences were found in the partial spinal cord volumes contoured on MRI versus myelosim (4.71 ± 1.09 vs. 4.55 ± 1.03 cm 3 ; P = 0.34) despite imperfect spatial agreement (mean Dice similarity coefficient, 0.68 ± 0.05). When the registered MRI contours were used for treatment planning, significantly worse tumor coverage and greater spinal cord doses were found compared with myelosim planning. For the 18-Gy plans, 10 of 23 MRI cases (43%) exceeded the spinal cord or cauda dose constraints when using myelosim as the reference standard. Conclusions: Significant spatial, rather than volumetric, differences were found between the MRI- and myelosim-defined spinal cord structures. Tumor coverage was compromised with MRI-based planning, and the high spinal cord doses were a concern. Future work is necessary to compare thin-cut, volumetric MRI registration or MRI simulation with myelosim

An integrated multidisciplinary algorithm for the management of spinal metastases: an International Spine Oncology Consortium report

Spinal metastases are becoming increasingly common because patients with metastatic disease are living longer. The close proximity of the spinal cord to the vertebral column limits many conventional therapeutic options that can otherwise be used to treat cancer. In response to this problem, an innovative multidisciplinary approach has been developed for the management of spinal metastases, leveraging the capabilities of image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery, separation surgery, vertebroplasty, and minimally invasive local ablative approaches. In this Review, we discuss the variables that should be considered during the management of these patients and review the role of each discipline and their respective management options to provide optimal care. This work is synthesised into a practical algorithm to aid clinicians in the management of patients with spinal metastasis

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 6,000 Patients Treated On Prospective Studies

PurposeUtilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer is increasing. Guidelines and payers variably support the use of prostate SBRT. We therefore sought to systematically analyze biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes after prostate SBRT.Methods and materialsA systematic search leveraging Medline via PubMed and EMBASE for original articles published between January 1990 and January 2018 was performed. This was supplemented by abstracts with sufficient extractable data from January 2013 to March 2018. All prospective series assessing curative-intent prostate SBRT for localized prostate cancer reporting bRFS, physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined by the I2 and Cochran's Q tests. Meta-regression was performed using Hartung-Knapp methods.ResultsThirty-eight unique prospective series were identified comprising 6116 patients. Median follow-up was 39 months across all patients (range, 12-115 months). Ninety-two percent, 78%, and 38% of studies included low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. Overall, 5- and 7-year bRFS rates were 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3%-97.5%) and 93.7% (95% CI, 91.4%-95.5%), respectively. Estimated late grade ≥3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.8%) and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.0%), respectively. By 2 years post-SBRT, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary and bowel domain scores returned to baseline. Increasing dose of SBRT was associated with improved biochemical control (P = .018) but worse late grade ≥3 GU toxicity (P = .014).ConclusionsProstate SBRT has substantial prospective evidence supporting its use, with favorable tumor control, patient-reported quality of life, and levels of toxicity demonstrated. SBRT has sufficient evidence to be supported as a standard treatment option for localized prostate cancer while ongoing trials assess its potential superiority

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 6,000 Patients Treated On Prospective Studies

Utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer is increasing. Guidelines and payers variably support the use of prostate SBRT. We therefore sought to systematically analyze biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes after prostate SBRT. A systematic search leveraging Medline via PubMed and EMBASE for original articles published between January 1990 and January 2018 was performed. This was supplemented by abstracts with sufficient extractable data from January 2013 to March 2018. All prospective series assessing curative-intent prostate SBRT for localized prostate cancer reporting bRFS, physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined by the I and Cochran's Q tests. Meta-regression was performed using Hartung-Knapp methods. Thirty-eight unique prospective series were identified comprising 6116 patients. Median follow-up was 39 months across all patients (range, 12-115 months). Ninety-two percent, 78%, and 38% of studies included low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. Overall, 5- and 7-year bRFS rates were 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3%-97.5%) and 93.7% (95% CI, 91.4%-95.5%), respectively. Estimated late grade ≥3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.8%) and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.0%), respectively. By 2 years post-SBRT, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary and bowel domain scores returned to baseline. Increasing dose of SBRT was associated with improved biochemical control (P = .018) but worse late grade ≥3 GU toxicity (P = .014). Prostate SBRT has substantial prospective evidence supporting its use, with favorable tumor control, patient-reported quality of life, and levels of toxicity demonstrated. SBRT has sufficient evidence to be supported as a standard treatment option for localized prostate cancer while ongoing trials assess its potential superiority