MatricS—A novel tool for monitoring professional role development in surgical disciplines

Introduction: Mentoring is an effective method for human resource development. Monitoring the process is important for individual mentee/mentor pairs as well as for program directors. Due to individual personality differences of both mentees and mentors and their respective interactions, it is challenging to monitor the individual development process of mentees in a structured manner. This study investigates to what extent a novel instrument, the mentee-based assessment tool for role development of interpersonal competencies in surgical professions (MatricS) can adequately monitor the professional role development process of residents during an established mentoring program. Material and methods: In a prospective longitudinal study, the competence development of 31 mentees in two subsequent cohorts was assessed by a modified role matrix based on Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists. The evaluation focused on three defined roles (D, developer; N, networker; M, multiplicator) at three levels (private, employer-related, national/international) with four stages of development. For validation of mentee self-assessments, the assessments of the respective mentors were recorded alongside. For correlation analyses, Pearson coefficients were calculated, pre-post-comparisons were done by paired t-tests; significance was assumed at p < 0.05, respectively. Results: Mentee self-assessments overall correlated well with the objective mentor assessments (Pearson's r 0.8, p 75% of all roles and levels. Conclusion: The role development process during mentoring can be reliably monitored by using MatricS. MatricS scores highly correlate between mentees and mentors, indicating that mentee self-assessments are suitable and sufficient for monitoring. These findings help to lessen the work burden on senior surgeons and thus can help to increase the acceptance of mentoring programs in surgical disciplines

EHA evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for haematological malignancies

Objective Value frameworks in oncology have not been validated for the assessment of treatments in haematological malignancies, but to avoid overlaps and duplications it appears reasonable to build up experience on existing value frameworks, such as the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Methods Here we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on the grading of 80 contemporary studies for acute leukaemia, chronic leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The aims were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of haematological malignancies. Results In general, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts. A small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded. The reasons, related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies, are identified and described. Conclusions Based on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for haematological malignancies. This development process will incorporate all of the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS including field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future public policy decision-making regarding the value of new treatments for haematological malignancies and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials

EHA evaluation of the ESMO—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for haematological malignancies

Objective: Value frameworks in oncology have not been validated for the assessment of treatments in haematological malignancies, but to avoid overlaps and duplications it appears reasonable to build up experience on existing value frameworks, such as the European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Methods: Here we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on the grading of 80 contemporary studies for acute leukaemia, chronic leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The aims were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of haematological malignancies. Results: In general, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts. A small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded. The reasons, related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies, are identified and described. Conclusions: Based on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for haematological malignancies. This development process will incorporate all of the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS including field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future public policy decision-making regarding the value of new treatments for haematological malignancies and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials

Cellular expression of human centromere protein C demonstrates a cyclic behavior with highest abundance in the G1 phase.

Centromere proteins are localized within the centromere-kinetochore complex, which can be proven by means of immunofluorescence microscopy and immunoelectron microscopy. In consequence, their putative functions seem to be related exclusively to mitosis, namely to the interaction of the chromosomal kinetochores with spindle microtubules. However, electron microscopy using immune sera enriched with specific antibodies against human centromere protein C (CENP-C) showed that it occurs not only in mitosis but during the whole cell cycle. Therefore, we investigated the cell cycle-specific expression of CENP-C systematically on protein and mRNA levels applying HeLa cells synchronized in all cell cycle phases. Immunoblotting confirmed protein expression during the whole cell cycle and revealed an increase of CENP-C from the S phase through the G2 phase and mitosis to highest abundance in the G1 phase. Since this was rather surprising, we verified it by quantifying phase-specific mRNA levels of CENP-C, paralleled by the amplification of suitable internal standards, using the polymerase chain reaction. The results were in excellent agreement with abundant protein amounts and confirmed the cyclic behavior of CENP-C during the cell cycle. In consequence, we postulate that in addition to its role in mitosis, CENP-C has a further role in the G1 phase that may be related to cell cycle control