Online laboratory practices and assessment using training and learning activities as teaching methodologies adapted to remote learning. Student satisfaction and improved academic performance

This article presents new teaching methodologies implemented in subjects in the Ground Engineering Area. Specifically, it focuses on a series of activities carried out due to the appearance of the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in restrictions on class attendance. The new teaching methodologies brought about substantial changes in the way students learn and are assessed. For the practice sessions, a series of videos were prepared so students could attend and take part in the laboratory practices remotely. As regards the final theory exam, a comprehensive multiple-choice question bank was made available to students prior to the exam to consolidate the concepts seen in the master classes, which we call training and learning. We evaluated the impact of these new methodologies, implemented during two academic years, through the analysis of voluntary and anonymous student surveys and a series of indicators related to the results of the final exams. After analyzing the impact of the new teaching methodologies, we conclude that students are positive about the video experience for laboratory practices, but only as a complementary activity to in-person laboratory sessions. The students also stated that they would like the multiple-choice question bank to continue to be available in successive academic years. Improvements in the final grades of the theory exams demonstrate the success of this new teaching methodology.

RAS testing practices and RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a Europe-wide survey of pathology centres

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include anti-epithelial growth factor therapies, which, in Europe, are indicated in patients with RAS wild-type tumours only and require prior mutation testing of "hot-spot" codons in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of RAS testing methods and estimate the RAS mutation prevalence in mCRC patients.

METHODS

Overall, 194 pathology laboratories were invited to complete an online survey. Participating laboratories were asked to provide information on their testing practices and aggregated RAS mutation data from 20 to 30 recently tested patients with mCRC.

RESULTS

A total of 96 (49.5 %) laboratories across 24 European countries completed the survey. All participants tested KRAS exon 2, codons 12 and 13. Seventy (72.9 %) laboratories reported complete testing of all RAS hot-spot codons, and three (3.1 %) reported only testing KRAS exon 2. Sixty-nine (71.9 %) laboratories reported testing >80 patients yearly for RAS mutation status. Testing was typically performed within the reporting institution (93.8 %, n = 90), at the request of a treating oncologist (89.5 %, n = 85); testing methodology varied by laboratory and by individual codon tested. For laboratory RAS testing, turnaround times were ≤10 working days for the majority of institutions (90.6 %, n = 87). The overall crude RAS mutation prevalence was 48.5 % (95 % confidence interval: 46.4-50.6) for laboratories testing all RAS hot-spot codons. Prevalence estimates varied significantly by primary tumour location, approximate number of patients tested yearly and indication given for RAS testing.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate a rapid uptake of RAS testing in the majority of European pathology laboratories.