A 5-year review of feedback on the Philadelphia-area mock ABS certifying examination

OBJECTIVES

The American Board of Surgery Certifying Examination (ABSCE) is an oral examination designed to evaluate a resident׳s ability to apply their cognitive knowledge to manage a broad range of clinical problems. In this study, we analyze our 5-year experience with a Philadelphia-wide mock oral examination (PMOE).

SETTING

The PMOE is organized by the Metropolitan Philadelphia Chapter of the American College of Surgeons and offered annually to all postgraduate year 4/5 residents from the 8 participating Philadelphia general surgery programs. Each examinee is scheduled for 3 consecutive 30-minute examinations given by 2 examiners per room. Overall performance is graded for each interaction using the ABSCE scoring method. Participants are given their "pass/fail" status, and they receive written examiner feedback.

DESIGN

From 2008 to 2013, deidentified examinee scores from both the PMOE and the ABSCE were reviewed; overall pass/fail status was compared using the chi-square statistic for significance. Examinee feedback from 2009 to 2013 was reviewed by 3 independent raters and characterized as commenting upon cognitive knowledge, clinical management, or communication skills. This categorical data were then correlated with pass/fail status and examined using unpaired t tests for significance.

RESULTS

From 2009 to 2013, 189 residents participated in the PMOE with an overall pass rate of 53%, compared with the ABSCE pass rate of 76% for 113 examinees from the Philadelphia area from 2008 to 2013 (χ(2) = 18.8, p < 0.01). A total of 2273 comments were reviewed and categorized from 2009 to 2013. Examinees who failed the PMOE received significantly more feedback pertaining to cognitive knowledge than examinees who passed the examination (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

The PMOE provides residents an opportunity to receive feedback on their performance on a representation of the ABSCE that may be more rigorous than the actual certifying examination. Deficits in cognitive knowledge are a significant determinant of performance on a city-wide mock oral examination.

Pilomatrix carcinoma of the right postauricular region: A case report and literature review

•

Pilomatrix carcinoma is a very rare locally aggressive tumor.

•

A well-defined gold standard for surgical management has not been established.

•

Currently wide local excision with safe margins is recommended.

•

Regional lymph node dissection is performed when metastasis is suspected.

Introduction

Pilomatrix carcinoma is a rare aggressive tumor with a high rate of local recurrence after surgical excision. Diagnosis is made by histopathology and when discovered, wide local excision has been shown to have the best results.

Presentation of case

We report a case of a 74-year-old male incidentally found to have a large right postauricular mass and regional lymphadenopathy. The mass was biopsied and proven to be a malignant pilomatrixoma. Wide local excision and level II and III neck dissection with reconstruction using a right supraclavicular flap was performed.

Discussion

Pilomatrix carcinoma is a lesion first described in 1880 by Malherbe and Chenantais. It is unknown if these tumors arise de novo or arise through malignant transformation of a benign pilomatrixoma. There are similarities between the benign lesion and its malignant counterpart in terms of activating mutations in signaling pathways. A well-defined gold standard for surgical management has not been established, but currently wide local excision with safe margins is recommended along with regional lymph node dissection when metastasis is suspected. Currently, no chemotherapy regimen has been shown to be effective in local control or in preventing metastatic spread.

Conclusion

Pilomatrix carcinoma, given its aggressive nature, has a high propensity for recurrence after excision. It is important to perform wide local excision to avoid an incomplete resection and higher recurrence rates. Further studies will be needed to create a more defined standard of treatment and to evaluate the role of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy.