98%
921
2 minutes
20
Purpose: Since 2004, the Clinical Faculty Scholars Program (CFSP) at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus has provided intensive interdisciplinary mentoring and structured training for early-career clinical faculty from multiple disciplines conducting patient-oriented clinical and outcomes research. This study evaluated the two-year program's effects by comparing grant outcomes for CFSP participants and a matched comparison cohort of other junior faculty.
Method: Using 2000-2011 institutional grant and employment data, a cohort of 25 scholars was matched to a cohort of 125 comparison faculty (using time in rank and pre-period grant dollars awarded). A quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design was used to identify the CFSP effect on grant outcomes. Grant outcomes were measured by counts and dollars of grant proposals and awards as principal investigator. Outcomes were compared within cohorts over time (pre- vs. post-period) and across cohorts.
Results: From pre- to post-period, mean annual counts and dollars of grant awards increased significantly for both cohorts, but mean annual dollars increased significantly more for the CFSP than for the comparison cohort (delta $83,427 vs. $27,343, P < .01). Mean annual counts of grant proposals also increased significantly more for the CFSP than for the comparison cohort: 0.42 to 2.34 (delta 1.91) versus 0.77 to 1.07 (delta 0.30), P < .01.
Conclusions: Institutional investment in mentored research training for junior faculty provided significant grant award gains that began after one year of CFSP participation and persisted over time. The CFSP is a financially sustainable program with effects that are predictable, significant, and enduring.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5177544 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001263 | DOI Listing |
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol
September 2025
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Asahikawa Medical University, Asahikawa, Japan.
Purpose: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized cancer treatment by enabling comprehensive cancer genomic profiling (CGP) to guide genotype-directed therapies. While several prospective trials have demonstrated varying outcomes with CGP in patients with advanced solid tumors, its clinical utility in colorectal cancer (CRC) remains to be evaluated.
Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of CGP in our hospital between September 2019 and March 2024.
Cancer Immunol Immunother
September 2025
Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Whole blood (WB) transcriptomics offers a minimal-invasive method to assess patients' immune system. This study aimed to identify transcriptional patterns in WB associated with clinical outcomes in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We performed RNA-sequencing on pre-treatment WB samples from 145 patients with advanced cancer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBr J Cancer
September 2025
Department of Genetics, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France.
Background: Identifying molecular alterations specific to advanced lung adenocarcinomas could provide insights into tumour progression and dissemination mechanisms.
Method: We analysed tumour samples, either from locoregional lesions or distant metastases, from patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma from the SAFIR02-Lung trial by targeted sequencing of 45 cancer genes and comparative genomic hybridisation array and compared them to early tumours samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas.
Results: Differences in copy-number alterations frequencies suggest the involvement in tumour progression of LAMB3, TNN/KIAA0040/TNR, KRAS, DAB2, MYC, EPHA3 and VIPR2, and in metastatic dissemination of AREG, ZNF503, PAX8, MMP13, JAM3, and MTURN.
Surg Endosc
September 2025
Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Background: The implementation of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) for perihilar (PHC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) remains limited and a systematic review including only comparative studies of MILS versus the open approach is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery in patients with hilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas.
Methods: Systematic review in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for original studies comparing at least five patients undergoing MILS with open liver surgery for PHC and IHC.