2015 James Ewing Lecture: The 75-Year History of the Society of Surgical Oncology—Part II: The Transitional Years (1966–1990)

Perceptions of Readiness for Practice After Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship: A Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Surgical subspecialty training aims to meet the needs of practicing surgeons and their communities. This study investigates career preparedness of Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowship graduates, identifies factors associated with practice readiness, and explores potential opportunities to improve the current training model.

METHODS

The Society of Surgical Oncology partnered with the National Cancer Institute to conduct a 36-question survey of CGSO fellowship graduates from 2012 to 2022.

RESULTS

The overall survey response rate was 38% (221/582) with a slight male predominance (63%). Forty-six percent of respondents completed their fellowship after 2019. Factors influencing fellowship program selection include breadth of cancer case exposure (82%), mentor influence (66%), and research opportunities (38%). Overall, graduates reported preparedness for practice; however, some reported unpreparedness in research (18%) and in specific clinical areas: thoracic (43%), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) (15%), and hepato-pancreato-biliary (15%) surgery. Regarding technical preparedness, 70% reported being "very prepared". Respondents indicated lack of preparedness in robotic (63%) and laparoscopic (33%) surgery approaches. Suggestions for training improvement included increased autonomy and case volumes, program development, and research infrastructure. Current practice patterns by graduates demonstrated discrepancies between ideal contracts and actual practice breakdowns, particularly related to the practice of general surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of CGSO fellowship graduates demonstrates potential gaps between trainee expectations and the realities of surgical oncology practice. Although CGSO fellowship appears to prepare surgeons for careers in surgical oncology, there may be opportunities to refine the training model to better align with the needs of practicing surgical oncologists.

Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME): an Overview and Relevance to the Education of Future Surgical Oncologists

In the next two decades, the global cancer burden is expected to rise by 47%, and the demand for global cancer surgery will increase by 52%. At present, only 25% of the estimated 80% of patients needing surgical intervention have access to timely surgical care. The shortage of a trained workforce of surgical oncologists is one of the main barriers to providing the optimal surgical intervention needed for cancer patients. Some of the contributing factors to the shortage of trained surgical oncologists are variations in the current global educational platforms, long training programs, and physician burnout. Therefore, the availability of a credible training framework and a sustainable certification pipeline for future surgical oncologists is critical to meet the global demand for an adequate healthcare workforce. The current surgical oncology educational program is a time-based construct that trains surgeons to function seamlessly in the multidisciplinary care of cancer patients. However, there is a lack of flexibility in the training framework and timeline despite differences in trainees' abilities. Developing a globally acceptable standard curriculum for surgical oncology training based on the competency-based medical education (CBME) framework and tailoring it to local needs can increase the surgical oncology workforce ready to tackle the rising cancer burden. However, successful implementation of the global CBME-based surgical oncology training curriculum requires an innovative approach to ensure that this framework produces a competent surgical oncologist that meets the local needs.

Training Paradigms in Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery: an Overview of the Different Fellowship Pathways

Hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) surgery, and the training of HPB surgeons, has evolved significantly over the last several decades. The current state of training in HPB surgery in North America is defined through three main pathways: the Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) ACGME fellowship, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) fellowship, and the Americas Hepatopancreaticobiliary Association (AHPBA) fellowship. These fellowships offer variable experiences in pancreas, liver, and biliary cases, and each pathway offers a unique perspective on HPB surgery. The CGSO ACGME, ASTS, and AHPBA fellowships represent decades of work by the three major surgical leadership stakeholders to improve and ensure quality training of future HPB surgeons. The best care is provided by the HPB surgeon who has been trained to understand the importance of all available treatment options within the context of a multidisciplinary setting. The three fellowship pathways are outlined in this paper with the nuances and variations characteristic of the different training programs highlighted.

The influence of fellowship training on the practice of pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

There has been a proliferation of gastrointestinal surgical fellowships; however, little is known regarding their association with surgical volume and management approaches.

METHODS

Surveys were distributed to members of GI surgical societies. Responses were evaluated to define relationships between fellowship training and surgical practice with pancreatoduodenectomy (PD).

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 889 surgeons, 84.1% of whom had completed fellowship training. Fellowship completion was associated with a primarily HPB or surgical oncology-focused practice (p < 0.001), and greater median annual PD volume (p = 0.030). Transplant and HPB fellowship-trained respondents were more likely to have high-volume (≥20) annual practice (p = 0.005 and 0.029, respectively). Regarding putative fistula mitigation strategies, HPB-trained surgeons were more likely to use stents, biologic sealants, and autologous tissue patches (p = 0.007, <0.001 and 0.001, respectively). Surgical oncology trainees reported greater autologous patch use (p = 0.003). HPB fellowship-trained surgeons were less likely to routinely use intraperitoneal drainage (p = 0.036) but more likely to utilize early (POD ≤ 3) drain amylase values to guide removal (p < 0.001). Finally, HPB fellowship-trained surgeons were more likely to use the Fistula Risk Score in their practice (29 vs. 21%, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Fellowship training correlated with significant differences in surgeon experience, operative approach, and use of available fistula mitigation strategies for PD.