Virtual Library
Start Your Search
A. Tufman
Moderator of
-
+
YI01b - Scientific Mentoring (ID 415)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Young Investigator Session
- Track:
- Presentations: 4
-
+
YI01b.01 - Important Factors for a Professional Career (ID 6739)
09:45 - 10:05 | Author(s): M. Edelman
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
YI01b.02 - Expectations from a Young Investigator (ID 6740)
10:05 - 10:20 | Author(s): S. Koleczko, M. Scheffler, D. Abdulla, R. Büttner, J. Wolf
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
Expectations from a Young Investigator Over the last two decades, research has pushed lung cancer investigations from the shallows of cancer treatment to one of the most innovative positions in oncology. The improvements in molecular diagnostics, in targeted therapy and immunotherapy with the linked creeping decline of traditional chemotherapy act as a model for many other tumor entities. Joined by this paradigm shift is a demographic change to young investigators who start their career in the innovative fields of lung cancer research instead of thinking in the traditional chemotherapy-based fashion. Nevertheless, in order to detect the needs and expectations from young investigators, even the definition of "young" is hard to handle, and subjective expectations might be biased by the socioeconomic background of the investigator. We therefore set out to find a way to present more robust and reliable data on the topic. We created an online questionnaire covering age, experiences, interests, and of course needs and expectations of young investigators. The expectations focus on research topics, treatment options, mentorships and social networking. The questionnaire will be forwarded to 20 investigators in the EU, Asia, South America and the US with link to the emerging fields of lung cancer research, in order to forward it to participants who they consider young in both clinical and preclinical investigations. For subgroup analyses, we will include students with interest in this field, too. Results will be analyzed by the presenters. The poll will be open until one week of the WCLCs Young Investigator's Scientific Mentoring Session, and results of this interim analysis will be presented by this talk. Nevertheless, all participants of the WCLC 2016 are invited to answer the questionnaire during the Conference, and a final data cut will be made at December 10th, 2016. We are aware of the potential biases in online polls. A valid e-mail address and the source of the online link (i. e., who was the "supervisor") are necessary. As an incentive to participate properly, we offer all participants to be part of the "WCLC young Investigator Expectations Network (WIEN)" which will coauthor the final manuscript. As we question the expectations of how lung cancer research will work in five years, it is intended to repeat the poll in a regular manner, maybe yearly. We expect a view on the expectations from young investigators worldwide and a feeling of their needs for the future.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
YI01b.03 - Scientitific Mentoring: The Reality (ID 6741)
10:20 - 10:35 | Author(s): M. Rajer
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
All oncologists are part of the mentor-mentee relationship at some point of their career. Mentoring can be considered one of the critical factors in achieving a successful career. The importance of a good mentor is best described by the sentence of Robert S.Kerbel: “I have been extremely fortunate if not blessed, with having series of outstanding mentors [1].” In spite of the importance of mentoring, what makes good mentors and mentoring is often not well defined [2]. According to Nature’s guide for mentors, one of the most important characteristics of a good mentor is his/her orientation towards mentee’s long-term career development as a main focus of mentoring. In this way, the mentor becomes a “mentor for life” and not only temporary supervisor [2]. According to mentees, a good mentor has some distinct personal characteristics like enthusiasm, passion, positivity, compassion and understanding. Beside these, some others like appreciating individual differences, being respectful and unselfish are also very important. To properly advise and guide mentees in their work, mentors should be able to see their individual characteristics and support their personal strengths. Showing respect means that the protégée is not only seen as an workforce, but also as a genuine collaborator. Regarding unselfishness: letting the mentee be the first author of a common article, even if the mentor provided the initial idea is a good example [2]. Personal characteristics aside, abilities to become a good mentor can be gained by following some useful rules. Mentors should be generally available and have an “open door” policy instead of restricted and limited dedicated time. Availability should also be shown by quickly answering e-mails and phones calls. They should be inspirational and show optimism on every-day issues but – even more importantly - when facing failure. Mentors should find a balance between doing and letting do, should support mentees in analytical thinking and adapt to their needs according to the progress of the protégée (e.g. different mentoring at the beginning and the end of the PhD course). They should celebrate successes with the mentee [2, 3]. Scientific mentors have the obligation to teach, encourage and support students in some specific activities in which skills are essential in the world of science. Examples are writing and oral presentations. Supporting writing with fast and accurate reviews, while resisting the temptation of rewriting instead of the student is one of the main goals. Extensive mentoring regarding oral presentations is also needed due to the fact, that not many students have a natural gift for presenting. Mentors should also try to provide as many opportunities for oral presentations as possible. Involving students in mentors’ networking should also be a continuous process [2]. How to choose a good mentor is a question that should be carefully addressed. In selecting mentors, trainees should follow some recommendations. They should look for possible mentors online, see which mentors possibly have the same interests, e-mail previous mentees inquiring about their experience with the mentor and afterwards meet the potential mentor in person at work. Trainees should carefully look for signs of poor mentorship, like no available time for one-to-one conversation, repressed and stressed co-workers that show no respect for their head, the potential mentor [2, 4]. Even if some trials report objective data, evaluating mentorships can be challenging since it is a complex interpersonal interaction. In a trial reported by Badawi the majority (74%) of mentors and mentees report the experience as rewarding, worth their time and effort, many (58%) achieve their goals in a timely manner and plan to continue (89%) their collaboration after the mentorship period is finished [5]. High satisfaction with the mentorship experience is commonly reported in other surveys. DeCastro conducted a trial on 1708 clinicians-researchers and only 10% of them were not satisfied with the experience, without differences between male and female mentees [6]. Some surveys, like the one reported by Dhami, show the importance of formal mentorship. Satisfaction with the mentorship experience was greater in mentees included in formal mentorship compared to those who had an informal one (72% vs. 36%, p<0.01) [7]. Formal mentoring influences also on research productivity. In the survey of Riechelman, responders with mentors were more involved (more available time dedicated) in academic research compared to those without mentors [8]. A model mentor is involved in the fruitful career development of the mentee and broadly shares the knowledge, skills and expertise that the mentee needs. As the mentee advances and gains independence, a good mentor is able to guide him/her toward new opportunities and facilitates the mentee’s growth [9]. 1. Kerbel, R.S., Some guidelines for building a successful career in cancer research. Cancer Biol Ther, 2003. 2(1): p. 111-4. 2. Lee, A., C. Dennis, and P. Campbell, Nature's guide for mentors. Nature, 2007. 447(7146): p. 791-7. 3. Powers, P.J., Engaged mentors offer inspiration and open doors. Am J Med, 2006. 119(1): p. 3. 4. Purcell, E.P., et al., Research to reality (R2R) mentorship program: building partnership, capacity, and evidence. Health Promot Pract, 2013. 14(3): p. 321-7. 5. Badawy, S.M., et al., Early career mentoring through the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology: Lessons learned from a pilot program. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2016. 6. DeCastro, R., et al., Mentoring and the career satisfaction of male and female academic medical faculty. Acad Med, 2014. 89(2): p. 301-11. 7. Dhami, G., et al., Mentorship Programs in Radiation Oncology Residency Training Programs: A Critical Unmet Need. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2016. 94(1): p. 27-30. 8. Riechelmann, R.P., et al., The influence of mentorship on research productivity in oncology. Am J Clin Oncol, 2007. 30(5): p. 549-55. 9. Gitlin, S.D. and M.L. Lypson, For Residents and Fellows: What to Look for in a Laboratory Research Mentor. J Cancer Educ, 2015.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
YI01b.04 - Scientific Mentoring in Austria: My Personal Experience (ID 6742)
10:35 - 10:50 | Author(s): A. Buder
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
Author of
-
+
P1.03 - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 455)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Poster Presenters Present
- Track: Radiology/Staging/Screening
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 12/05/2016, 14:30 - 15:45, Hall B (Poster Area)
-
+
P1.03-027 - Clinical and Histological Features Associated with SUV in FDG-PET-CT in Patients with Adenocarcinoma of the Lung (ID 4783)
14:30 - 14:30 | Author(s): A. Tufman
- Abstract
Background:
FDG-PET-CT is increasingly used for staging and treatment monitoring in NSCLC. The prognostic and possibly predictive value of the standardized-uptake-value (SUV), and the clinical, molecular and pathological features contributing to SUV levels have not been well described.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients staged with FDG-PET-CT and correlated SUV values before and during treatment with clinical and pathological features of the tumour including CRP as a marker of systemic inflammation, adenocarcinoma subtype (solid, lepidic etc.), and Ki67, as a marker of tumour proliferation.
Results:
190 patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung were identified. 110 had FDG-PET-CT staging and were included in this analysis. Tumour subtypes were as follows: 50.0% solid, 16.4% acinar, 9.1% papillary, 7.3% lepidic, 1.8% micropapillary, 15.4% other. 70 patients received systemic treatment and 40 were treated surgically. The mean primary-tumour-SUV for all patients was 11.1 (for patients treated medically, 13.5, and for those treated surgically, 8.6). Ki67 expression in the tumour was lowest in the group with SUV < 10 (38.6%) and highest in the group with SUV > 20 (56.0). The group with SUV 11-19 had a moderate Ki67 expression (47.9%). In patients with surgical tumour samples there was a trend towards higher SUV in patients with tumours showing 30% or more solid growth pattern (mean SUV 11.4) and lower SUV in patients with any lepidic growth (mean SUV 4.0) (p=0.002). Systemic markers of inflammation were significantly higher in patients whose tumours had SUV>10 (mean CRP, 2.3 mg/dl; mean leukocytes, 9.7 G/L) than in patients with low-SUV tumours (<5) (mean CRP, 0.4 mg/dl, p=0.0186; mean leukocytes, 7.2 G/L, p=0.014).
Conclusion:
Multiple factors appear to be associated with higher or lower SUV values, including adenocarcinoma subtype, proliferation index of the tumour and systemic inflammation. These factors should be taken into account when interpreting FDG-PET-CT SUV values in clinical practice. The correlation of FDG-PET-CT SUV values with inflamed tumour phenotypes, and the possible predictive value of SUV for response to immune therapies, should be further investigated.
-
+
P1.06 - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 458)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Poster Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 12/05/2016, 14:30 - 15:45, Hall B (Poster Area)
-
+
P1.06-035 - Frequency and Clinical Relevance of EGFR-Mutations and EML4-ALK-Translocations in Octagenarians with NSCLC (ID 5923)
14:30 - 14:30 | Author(s): A. Tufman
- Abstract
Background:
Novel therapies targeting genetic alterations have improved response rates and overall survival for some patients with NSCLC; however, only a minority of caucasian patients with lung cancer benefit from these treatments. Testing for EGFR mutation and ALK translocation is recommended for all patients with advanced adenocarcinoma, but the highest occurance of these driver mutations has been described in younger patients, females, and those with little or no smoking history. The frequency of driver mutations in elderly and very elderly patients has not been described.
Methods:
We reviewed the charts of all patients over age 70 treated at our centre in 2015 and assessed the frequency of EGFR and ALK testing. We report the frequency of EGFR and ALK alterations in patients aged 70-74 , 75-79 and >80 years.
Results:
Out of 179 patients diagnosed at our centre in 2015, 15 were 80 years or older at the time of first diagnosis and 7 of 15 had non-squamous histology. Among these very elderly patients, 3 patients were found to have EML4-ALK translocations and 2 patients were found to have EGFR mutation (1 Del19, 1 L858R). This represents a 71% frequency of treatable driver mutations in octagenarians with non-squamous NSCLC. Rates of genetic drivers were somewhat lower, but still clinically relevant, in non-squamous NSCLC patients aged 70-74 (27.0%) and 75-79 (26.7%).
Conclusion:
Very elderly patients (>80 years of age) with non-squamous NSCLC were found to have high rates of the driver alterations EGFR mutation and ALK translocation. This is clinically relevant, as this often frail and comorbid population may not be suitable for treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy and may benefit from first line treatment with a targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Testing for these genetic alterations should not be restricted to younger patients. The biology of lung cancer in the very elderly may differ from that of moderately elderly patients, as the longevity of these patients may select for individuals more resistant to, or with little exposure to, environmental carcinogens.
