Mahsin
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Mahsin has a total of 20 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Eddy Taguedong
School of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada
2 shared publications - Richard Lee-Ying
Arthur J.E. Child Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N5G2, Canada
2 shared publications - Amanda Khan
Department of Oncology, Arthur J. E. Child Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 5G2, Canada
1 shared publication - Chelsea Wong
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
1 shared publication - Doreen A. Ezeife
Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada
1 shared publication - Doreen A. Ezeife
Department of Oncology, Arthur J. E. Child Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 5G2, Canada
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 29 May 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Current Oncology
- Vol. 33 (6) , 321
Effect of Race and Ethnicity on Academic Achievements in Cancer Physicians and Scientists
Background: Diversity in academia promotes research that can reduces health disparities and addresses equity issues for marginalized populations. This study aims to examine the effect of visible minority status on academic achievements in cancer physicians and scientists. Methods: Faculty at the tertiary cancer center in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, completed a survey in 2023 to evaluate demographics, academic rank, leadership positions, number of trainees mentored, number of publications, and amount of grant funding. Chi-square tests and regression analyses examined the impact of race and ethnicity on these academic achievements. Results: The survey was completed by 74 faculty members (47% male, 43% female, 9% gender fluid or providing no answer) with a response rate of 26%. Seven percent were Black or Latin American, 18% East Asian or Southeast Asian, 19% West or South Asian, 39% Caucasian, 6% mixed race, and 11% not providing an answer. Visible minorities were underrepresented in the full professor rank (19%) compared to non-visible minorities (38%) and were overrepresented in assistant/associate professors (28% and 53%, respectively), with 41% of non-visible minorities having the title of assistant professor and 21% as associate professor (p = 0.02). Visible minorities were less likely to have both parents college-educated (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–0.92, p = 0.042) and also less likely to have been raised in a home with household income above $100,000 (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07–0.90, p = 0.040). Discussion: Visible minorities are underrepresented in the full professor academic rank. Larger studies are needed to evaluate whether race and ethnicity significantly impact achievements in oncology academics.
- 29 May 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Current Oncology
- Vol. 33 (6) , 321
Open AccessEffect of Race and Ethnicity on Academic Achievements in Cancer Physicians and Scientists
Background: Diversity in academia promotes research that can reduces health disparities and addresses equity issues for marginalized populations. This study aims to examine the effect of visible minority status on academic achievements in cancer physicians and scientists. Methods: Faculty at the tertiary cancer center in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, completed a survey in 2023 to evaluate demographics, academic rank, leadership positions, number of trainees mentored, number of publications, and amount of grant funding. Chi-square tests and regression analyses examined the impact of race and ethnicity on these academic achievements. Results: The survey was completed by 74 faculty members (47% male, 43% female, 9% gender fluid or providing no answer) with a response rate of 26%. Seven percent were Black or Latin American, 18% East Asian or Southeast Asian, 19% West or South Asian, 39% Caucasian, 6% mixed race, and 11% not providing an answer. Visible minorities were underrepresented in the full professor rank (19%) compared to non-visible minorities (38%) and were overrepresented in assistant/associate professors (28% and 53%, respectively), with 41% of non-visible minorities having the title of assistant professor and 21% as associate professor (p = 0.02). Visible minorities were less likely to have both parents college-educated (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–0.92, p = 0.042) and also less likely to have been raised in a home with household income above $100,000 (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07–0.90, p = 0.040). Discussion: Visible minorities are underrepresented in the full professor academic rank. Larger studies are needed to evaluate whether race and ethnicity significantly impact achievements in oncology academics.
- Open Access
Definitive Chemoradiotherapy versus Trimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study
The optimal management of patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is unclear. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy (trimodality therapy) is supported as a standard of care, but definitive chemoradiotherapy is frequently given in practice to patients who may have been surgical candidates. This multi-institutional retrospective cohort study compared the outcomes of consecutive patients diagnosed with stage II to IVA esophageal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2018 who planned to undergo trimodality therapy or definitive chemoradiotherapy. A total of 493 patients were included, of whom 435 intended to undergo trimodality therapy and 56 intended to undergo definitive chemoradiotherapy. After a median follow-up of 7.3 years, trimodality therapy was associated with a lower risk of locoregional failure (5-year risk, 30.5% vs. 61.3%; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24–0.62; ) but not distant metastases (5-year risk, 58.2% vs. 53.9%; HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.77–1.91; ). There were no differences in overall survival (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56–1.09; ) or cancer-specific survival (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.57–1.21; ). Findings were consistent on propensity score-matched sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, trimodality therapy was associated with a lower risk of locoregional failure, but this did not translate into a significantly lower risk of distant failure or improved survival. Further studies are required to accurately estimate the trade-offs between the two treatment strategies.Open AccessDefinitive Chemoradiotherapy versus Trimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study
The optimal management of patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is unclear. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy (trimodality therapy) is supported as a standard of care, but definitive chemoradiotherapy is frequently given in practice to patients who may have been surgical candidates. This multi-institutional retrospective cohort study compared the outcomes of consecutive patients diagnosed with stage II to IVA esophageal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2018 who planned to undergo trimodality therapy or definitive chemoradiotherapy. A total of 493 patients were included, of whom 435 intended to undergo trimodality therapy and 56 intended to undergo definitive chemoradiotherapy. After a median follow-up of 7.3 years, trimodality therapy was associated with a lower risk of locoregional failure (5-year risk, 30.5% vs. 61.3%; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24–0.62; ) but not distant metastases (5-year risk, 58.2% vs. 53.9%; HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.77–1.91; ). There were no differences in overall survival (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56–1.09; ) or cancer-specific survival (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.57–1.21; ). Findings were consistent on propensity score-matched sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, trimodality therapy was associated with a lower risk of locoregional failure, but this did not translate into a significantly lower risk of distant failure or improved survival. Further studies are required to accurately estimate the trade-offs between the two treatment strategies. - Open Access
- 18 August 2023
- Published by MDPI AG in Current Oncology
- Vol. 30 (8) , 7706-7712
Impact of Oncology Drug Review Times on Public Funding Recommendations
New oncology drugs undergo detailed review prior to public funding in a single-payer healthcare system. The aim of this study was to assess how cancer drug review times impact funding recommendations. Drugs reviewed by the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) between the years 2012 and 2020 were included. Data were collected including Health Canada approval dates, initial and final funding recommendations, treatment intent, drug class, clinical indications, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine the association between funding recommendations and review times. Of the 164 applications submitted, 130 received a positive final recommendation. Median time from Health Canada (HC) approval to final recommendation was longer for drugs indicated for the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) and lung cancer compared to breast, genitourinary (GU), and other tumours (205 vs. 198 vs. 111 vs. 129 vs. 181 days, respectively; Kruskal–Wallis p = 0.0312). Drugs with longer review times were more likely to receive a negative pCODR recommendation, even when adjusting for tumour type, drug class, and intent of therapy (157 vs. 298 days; Wilcoxon p = 0.0003, OR 1.002 95% CI [1.000–1.004].). There was no association between funding recommendation and tumour type or class of drug. The exploration of factors associated with variance in review times will be important in ensuring timely patient access to cancer drugs.
- 18 August 2023
- Published by MDPI AG in Current Oncology
- Vol. 30 (8) , 7706-7712
Open AccessImpact of Oncology Drug Review Times on Public Funding Recommendations
New oncology drugs undergo detailed review prior to public funding in a single-payer healthcare system. The aim of this study was to assess how cancer drug review times impact funding recommendations. Drugs reviewed by the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) between the years 2012 and 2020 were included. Data were collected including Health Canada approval dates, initial and final funding recommendations, treatment intent, drug class, clinical indications, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine the association between funding recommendations and review times. Of the 164 applications submitted, 130 received a positive final recommendation. Median time from Health Canada (HC) approval to final recommendation was longer for drugs indicated for the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) and lung cancer compared to breast, genitourinary (GU), and other tumours (205 vs. 198 vs. 111 vs. 129 vs. 181 days, respectively; Kruskal–Wallis p = 0.0312). Drugs with longer review times were more likely to receive a negative pCODR recommendation, even when adjusting for tumour type, drug class, and intent of therapy (157 vs. 298 days; Wilcoxon p = 0.0003, OR 1.002 95% CI [1.000–1.004].). There was no association between funding recommendation and tumour type or class of drug. The exploration of factors associated with variance in review times will be important in ensuring timely patient access to cancer drugs.