Search

Due to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, virtual interviews are planned for the 2021-2022 residency application cycle. The virtual interview will remain novel to applicants for each match cycle until the graduating medical student class has experience from virtual interviews during their medical school admissions. The virtual interview poses unique challenges that are unique from in-person formats. Given the lack of experience of applicants in the 2022 match, practicing interviewing skills prior to the actual date is vital to success. We describe a postgraduate year 1 (PGY1)–run mock interview session for applicants preparing for the 2021-2022 otolaryngology interview cycle and discuss the methodology. Deliberate practice with PGY1 residents who have just recently undergone the virtual interview process can better prepare applicants for their virtual interviews, improve on-camera behaviors, and ameliorate mental health challenges unique to the virtual format.

Virtual interviews are planned for the upcoming 2020-2021 residency cycle. This presents a unique challenge for medical students. Due to the importance of the interaction of applicants and interviewers during the interview, medical students should thoroughly prepare for the upcoming virtual interview season. We offer practical and realistic concepts and techniques to optimize their interview experience. Technology and audiovisual equipment should be adjusted and enhanced to minimize video conferencing application errors and interview downtime. The applicant’s interview environment should focus on proper lighting, background, camera angles, and minimizing unwanted distractions. Mock interview sessions are invaluable to applicants and provide the opportunity to simulate the interview, refine their technology, adjust their environment, and become more comfortable in a virtual interview setting. These actions will prevent unnecessary disruptions and increase the focus of the interview toward the communication between the applicant and the interviewer.

Objective Treatment delays and suboptimal adherence to posttreatment surveillance may adversely affect head and neck cancer (HNC) outcomes. Such challenges can be exacerbated in safety-net settings that struggle with limited resources and serve a disproportionate number of patients vulnerable to gaps in care. This study aims to characterize treatment delays and adherence with posttreatment surveillance in HNC care at an urban tertiary care public hospital in San Francisco. Study Design Retrospective chart review. Setting Urban tertiary care public hospital in San Francisco. Subjects and Methods We identified all cases of HNC diagnosed from 2008 to 2010 through the electronic medical record. We abstracted data, including patient characteristics, disease characteristics, pathology and radiology findings, treatment details, posttreatment follow-up, and clinical outcomes. Results We included 64 patients. Median time from diagnosis to treatment initiation (DTI) was 57 days for all patients, 54 days for patients undergoing surgery only, 49 days for patients undergoing surgery followed by adjuvant radiation ± chemotherapy, 65 days for patients undergoing definitive radiation ± chemotherapy, and 29 days for patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiation or chemoradiation. Overall, 69% of patients completed recommended treatment. Forty-two of 61 (69%) patients demonstrated adherence to posttreatment visits in year 1; this fell to 14 out of 30 patients (47%) by year 5. Conclusion DTI was persistently prolonged in this study compared with prior studies in other public hospital settings. Adherence to posttreatment surveillance was suboptimal and continued to decline as the surveillance period progressed.

Objective Survival differences in oral cancer between black and white patients have been reported, but the contributing factors, especially the role of stage, are incompletely understood. Furthermore, the outcomes for Hispanic and Asian patients have been scarcely examined. Study Design Retrospective, population-based national study. Setting Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 Custom database (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014). Subjects and Methods In total, 7630 patients with primary squamous cell carcinoma in the oral cavity were classified as non-Hispanic white (white), non-Hispanic black (black), Hispanic, or Asian. Cox regression was used to obtain unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of 5-year mortality for race/ethnicity with sequential adjustments for stage and other covariates. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between race/ethnicity and stage with adjusted odds ratios (aORs). Results The cohort consisted of 75.0% whites, 7.6% blacks, 9.1% Hispanics, and 8.3% Asians. Compared to whites, the unadjusted HR for all-cause mortality for blacks was 1.68 ( P < .001), which attenuated to 1.15 ( P = .039) after adjusting for stage and became insignificant after including insurance. The unadjusted HRs for all-cause mortality were not significant for Hispanics and Asians vs whites. Compared to whites, blacks and Hispanics were more likely to present at later stages (aORs of 2.63 and 1.42, P < .001, respectively). Conclusion The greater mortality for blacks vs whites was largely attributable to the higher prevalence of later stages at presentation and being uninsured among blacks. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality for Hispanics vs whites or Asians vs whites.

Objective To investigate whether lymph node ratio (LNR) and log odds ratio (LODDS) have prognostic significance for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with laryngeal squamous cell cancer (LSCC) treated with curative intent. Study Design Case-control study. Setting University hospital. Subjects and Methods Records of 229 patients with LSCC who underwent surgery with a curative intent with or without adjuvant treatment from 2000 to 2014 were reviewed. The clinicopathological parameters LNR and LODDS were analyzed; univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the prognosis of each for OS and DFS. Results The 5-year OS was 81.7% for LNR ≤0.233 and 47.1% for LNR >0.233, and the 5-year OS was 79.6% for LODDS ≤–0.1 and 51.8% for LODDS >–0.1, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the independent variables were subsites, pT stage (pT1 and pT2 vs pT3 and pT4), pN, pTNM, alcohol consumption, and LNR and LODDS ( P < .05). By multivariate analysis, we determined that subsites, pT stage, alcohol consumption, LNR, and LODDS were independent prognostic predictors of survival ( P < .05). Univariate and multivariate models identified that both LNR and LODDS were significant prognostic factors for survival. However, the hazard ratio (HR) for LNR >0.233 vs ≤0.233 was 8.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.18-25.16; P < .001) in OS, and the HR was 11.37 (95% CI, 4.02-32.15; P < .001) in DFS. The risk of LNR was noticeably greater than other factors. Conclusions LNR and LODDS were both prognostic factors for OS and DFS. However, LNR was confirmed as a more reliable indicator for evaluating the prognosis, and it can be used to increase the prognostic value of the traditional TNM classification of LSCC.