GU cancer

News in brief: Delta disappointment for TOGA scientific meeting; Australian outcomes for mCRPC therapies; Gender disparity in citations a career barrier for women in medicine;

Delta disappointment for TOGA face to face meeting

The resurgence of COVID-19 outbreaks in Australia have forced the Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia (TOGA) to cancel its inaugural face-to-face annual scientific meeting (ASM) planned for Sydney and switch to a virtual meeting format

The two-day virtual event will now take place online during Thursday 22 and Friday 23 July and TOGA is also offering an OnDemand platform

The program will remain the same and includes lung cancer screening, neoadjuvant treatment, the future influence of biomarker-driven treatments for lung cancer, the challenges of overcoming inequities in quality care, thought-provoking multi-disciplinary discussion, innovative clinical research and clinical trial concept development workshops.

Real world outcomes for enzalutamide and abiraterone in mCRPC

Australian patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with enzalutamide and abiraterone exoerience benefits in PSA response rates, as well as progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) comparable to results seen in randomised controlled trials, a study conducted at a regional cancer centre in Victoria has found.

In a retrospective review of outcomes for 75 patients, Dr Rachel Raju and colleagues from the Department of Oncology, Goulburn Valley Health, Shepparton, showed PSA response rates were higher with enzalutamide than abiraterone (70.3% vs 37.8%). Similarly PSA (7 vs 5 months) and OS (30 vs 13 months) was also longer in patients receiving enzalutamide; compared to abiraterone.

The difference in responses and survival benefit were probably influenced by the high burden of disease in patients receiving abiraterone (53%) compared to enzalutamide (32%), the study investigators reported in Frontiers in Oncology.


Gender disparity in citations a career barrier for female academics in medicine

Women face an additional barrier to advancement in academic medicine because their articles published in medical journals have fewer citations than those written by men, a US study shows

An analysis of 5,554 articles published in 5 high-impact journals showed that, 36% had a female primary author, and 26% had a female senior author.

However, articles with women as primary author were cited a median of 36 times in other journals, compared to 54 citations of articles with male primary authors.

As senior authors, women were cited a median of 37 times, while male counterparts received a median of 51 citations.

The disparity is likely putting female academics at a disadvantage compared to their male peers because the number of citations of peer-reviewed articles is commonly used as a metric for academic recognition, influence, and in professional evaluations and promotion, the study authors said.

“This imbalance will not be solved through hiring and mentoring more women alone,” said senior author, Dr Rachel Werner of the University of Pennsylvania.

“We must also work to ensure that women already in academic medicine are equally valued and promoted for their contributions and their successes. From the journals publishing this work, to academic institutions promoting articles once published, everyone should be invested in bridging this gender divide.”

Already a member?

Login to keep reading.

Email me a login link

© 2023 the limbic