Nwachukwu, Chika

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Vaginal Cancer outline the recommended diagnostic workup, staging considerations, and treatment options for this rare malignancy. Because vaginal cancer is uncommon and shares many biologic and clinical characteristics with cervical cancer, several management recommendations, particularly systemic therapy, are extrapolated from evidence and practices established for cervical cancer. This guideline excerpt summarizes key components of management, including diagnostic evaluation and workup, principles of staging, pathology considerations, radiation therapy principles, and primary treatment recommendations for both early-stage and advanced disease. It also details approaches to manage relapses, including locoregional recurrence and distant metastases, and provides an in-depth overview of systemic therapy recommendations for vaginal cancer.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cervical Cancer provide diagnostic workup, staging, and various treatment recommendations for cervical cancer based on clinical and surgical staging. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for cervical cancer specifically focuses on diagnosis and workup, principles of staging and surgery, and primary treatment recommendations for early-stage and advanced disease and provides a detailed overview of systemic therapy recommendations for cervical cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Uterine Neoplasms provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, clinical staging, and treatment options for patients with endometrial cancer and uterine sarcoma. The NCCN Cervical Uterine Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions; examine relevant new data from publications, abstracts, and recent FDA approvals; and reevaluate and update recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s deliberations on the new FIGO 2023 staging system and updates on the new systemic therapy recommendations for the management of endometrial cancer.

Anatomy learned by active exploration in the dissection laboratory has been shown to be beneficial in improving anatomic knowledge, promoting self‐reflection, teamwork, and professionalism. Decreased dissection time may affect the quality of dissection and ultimately retention of gross anatomy knowledge. This could translate to lower student performance in the anatomy course. The purpose of this study was to determine whether evaluating the quality of students’ dissection has an effect on practical examinations performance, mid and end‐course evaluations. Quality of dissections for each team enrolled in a gross anatomy course at Mayo Medical School was evaluated bi‐weekly. Each member of the dissection team received the same score which was calculated towards 5% of their final grade. Dissections were evaluated using a five‐point rubric that incorporates measures for determining whether students had met laboratory learning objectives. Assessment of anatomic knowledge was based on laboratory practical exam scores recorded at intervals throughout the course and achievements on daily audience response system quizzes. Increase in quality of dissection was associated with improvement in practical exams. Teams that received lower dissection scores had lower scores on practical exams. Our results imply that students who achieve daily dissection goals, perform better on the practical examinations. Grant Funding Source : Department of Anatomy

Anatomy learned by active exploration through dissection has many proven benefits including improvement of anatomic knowledge. Decreased laboratory time may affect the quality of dissection and ultimately lower student performance in anatomy translating to lower knowledge acquisition. The aim of this study was to determine whether the quality of students' dissection in teams correlates with their performance in the gross anatomy course. Quality of dissections for each team enrolled in a gross anatomy course at Mayo Medical School was evaluated biweekly using a five‐point rubric based on course learning objectives. Assessment of anatomic knowledge was based on sequential laboratory practice practical examination scores, achievements on daily audience response system (ARS) quizzes, and final practical, written, and National Board of Medical Examiners ® (NBME ® ) Gross Anatomy and Embryology Subject Examinations. Twelve teams comprising 48 students were included in the study. There was a positive correlation between dissection quality and practice practical examination score ( R = 0.83) and a negative correlation between dissection quality and ARS quizzes ( R = −0.985). Dissection teams with a passing score on their dissection evaluations (>70%) performed better on their final examinations. Based on an end of course survey, students agreed that dissection evaluations should continue to be a part of the course. This study showed that better quality of dissection was associated with higher scores on practice practical examinations, final practical, written, and NBME examinations. The study demonstrated a positive correlation between dissection evaluations, accompanied by formative feedback during the course, and higher scores on final course assessments. Anat Sci Educ 8: 45–52. © 2014 American Association of Anatomists.