Fahima Dossa

Summary: Desmoid tumors are a locally invasive neoplasm that can exhibit unpredictable clinical behavior. Although treatment options are numerous, few are supported by level 1 evidence. A recent phase III trial evaluated the efficacy of long-used pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with progressive desmoid tumors. See related article by Xu et al., p. 2198

Purpose: To effectively reduce cancer burden, genetic testing programs should identify high-risk individuals prior to cancer development, when risk-reduction strategies can be implemented. We evaluated trends in BRCA1/BRCA2 testing use after implementation of a publicly funded testing program. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, near population-based study of women who underwent BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in Ontario, Canada, (2007–2016) (n = 15,986). Temporal trends were evaluated using linear and Poisson regression. Results: Although annual utilization of testing increased over time (p < 0.001), mean age at testing increased from 49.9 years (SD 13.8) in 2007 to 53.8 years (SD 13.7) in 2016 (p < 0.001). The proportion of women with a cancer history at testing also increased from 53.5% in 2007 to 66.3% in 2015 (p < 0.001); the proportion of women free from breast cancer did not change significantly (49.2% in 2007 versus 45.1% in 2015, p = 0.90). As a proportion of all tested, those with breast cancer tested within 3 months of diagnosis increased over time (0.39% of tests in 2007 versus 13.6% of tests in 2015; p < 0.001). Conclusions: While the institution of a publicly funded genetic testing program was associated with rising utilization, increasing age at testing and decreasing testing of unaffected women suggest limitations in identifying high-risk individuals eligible for risk-reduction.

Background: Cancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model. Results: We screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types. Conclusions: Screening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions.

Background: Cancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model. Results: We screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types. Conclusions: Screening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions.

Objective Many studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020. Study selection All original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included. Data extraction and synthesis Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. Results Our search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, pConclusions Gender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020197414.

Dear Editor,