Academic Surgical Oncologists’ Productivity Correlates with Gender,Grant Funding,and Institutional NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center Affiliation

Background

A scholar’s h-index is defined as the number of h papers published, each of which has been cited at least h times. We hypothesized that the h-index strongly correlates with the academic rank of surgical oncologists.

Methods

We utilized the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website to identify NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) and Doximity to identify the 50 highest-ranked general surgery residency programs with surgical oncology divisions. Demographic data of respective academic surgical oncologists were collected from departmental websites and Grantome. Bibliometric data were obtained from Web of Science.

Results

We identified 544 surgical oncologists from 64 programs. Increased h-index was associated with academic rank (p?<?0.001), male gender (p?<?0.001), number of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants (p?<?0.001), and affiliation with an NCI CCC (p?=?0.018) but not number of additional degrees (p?=?0.661) or Doximity ranking (p?=?0.102). H-index was a stronger predictor of academic rank (r?=?0.648) than total publications (r?=?0.585) or citations (r?=?0.450).

Conclusions

This is the first report to assess the h-index within academic surgical oncology. H-index is a bibliometric predictor of academic rank that correlates with NIH grant funding and NCI CCC affiliation. We also highlight a previously unexpected and unappreciated gender disparity in the academic productivity of US surgical oncologists. When academic rank was accounted for, female surgical oncologists had lower h-indices compared with their male colleagues. Evaluation of the etiologies of this gender disparity is needed to address barriers to academic productivity faced by female surgical oncologists as they progress through their careers.

     

ASBRS Great Debate: Sentinel Node Biopsy in Patients Over 70 Years of Age

Introduction

Controversy over the need for sentinel node biopsy (SNB) continues to exist for the optimal treatment of breast cancer in patients ≥?70 years of age, especially in those with lower-risk disease. Clinicians must balance competing risks to give the best individualized care.

Methods

The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) conducted a debate discussing the pros and cons of routinely performing SNB in this age group. Small, randomized studies have been conducted that show no overall survival benefit to axillary intervention (either axillary dissection or SNB) in patients with clinically T1N0 estrogen receptor (ER)- and progesterone receptor (PR)-positive, HER2/neu-negative tumors. There may be a small local recurrence benefit to axillary staging in patients who do not undergo radiation. Alternatively, axillary ultrasound, which carries a low false-negative rate for heavy disease burden, can be used to select patients who can avoid SNB.

Conclusion

Surgeons must continue to individualize care of breast cancer patients over 70 years of age in whom competing comorbidities may dictate care. No randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have found a survival benefit to axillary staging in this low-risk population. However, in healthy patients, axillary staging may improve local control, provide prognostic information, and help guide decisions regarding adjuvant therapy such as chemotherapy and radiation. Ongoing RCTs are evaluating the benefit of SNB in patients with a negative axillary ultrasound. Until those results are available, clinicians and patients must balance the risk and benefits to determine if SNB adds significant value to their overall care.