Skip to main content

Global Curriculum in Surgical Oncology

Abstract

Background

The significant global variations in surgical oncology training paradigms can have a detrimental effect on tackling the rising global cancer burden. While some variations in training are essential to account for the differences in types of cancer and biology, the fundamental principles of providing care to a cancer patient remain the same. The development of a global curriculum in surgical oncology with incorporated essential standards could be very useful in building an adequately trained surgical oncology workforce, which in turn could help in tackling the rising global cancer burden.

Materials and Methods

The leaders of the Society of Surgical Oncology and European Society of Surgical Oncology convened a global curriculum committee to develop a global curriculum in surgical oncology.

Results

A global curriculum in surgical oncology was developed to incorporate the required domains considered to be essential in training a surgical oncologist. The curriculum was constructed in a modular fashion to permit flexibility to suit the needs of the different regions of the world. Similarly, recognizing the various sociocultural, financial and cultural influences across the world, the proposed curriculum is aspirational and not mandatory in intent.

Conclusions

A global curriculum was developed which may be considered as a foundational scaffolding for training surgical oncologists worldwide. It is envisioned that this initial global curriculum will provide a flexible and modular scaffolding that can be tailored by individual countries or regions to train surgical oncologists in a way that is appropriate for practice in their local environment.

© 2016 Society of Surgical Oncology and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. Published by SpringerNature. All rights reserved.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Cancer fact sheets. International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx. Accessed 19 Dec 2015

  2. 2.

    Sullivan R, Alatise OI, Anderson BO et al., Global cancer surgery: delivering safe, affordable, and timely cancer surgery. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(11):1193–224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Meara JG, Leather AJ, Hagander L et al., Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet. 2015;386(9993):569–624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wyld L, Naredi P, Poston G et al., Core curriculum for specialist training in surgical oncology in Europe. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(Suppl. 1):1–31

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Berman RS, Weigel RJ. Training and certification of the surgical oncologist. Chin Clin Oncol. 2014;3(4):45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Michelassi F. 2010 SSO presidential address: subspecialty certificate in advanced surgical oncology. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(12):3094–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Are C, Malik M, Patel A et al., The training and certification of surgical oncologists globally. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(3):710–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wilson JM, Jungner YG. Principles and practice of mass screening for disease. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam. 1968;65(4):281–393.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Croswell JM, Ransohoff DF, Kramer BS. Principles of cancer screening: lessons from history and study design issues. Semin Oncol. 2010;37(3):202–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al., New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45(2):228–47.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    World Health Organisation (1996) Cancer Pain Relief, 2nd edition. WHO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Feldstein ML. Quality-of-life-adjusted survival for comparing cancer treatments. A commentary on TWiST and Q-TWiST. Cancer 1991;67(3):851–4.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Sobin GAW. TNM classification of malignant tumours, 7th edition. UICC, Geneva, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100(1):57–70.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Knudson A. Alfred Knudson and his two-hit hypothesis. (Interview by Ezzie Hutchinson). Lancet Oncol. 2001;2(10):642–5.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Are C, Afuh C, Ravipati L et al., Preoperative nomogram to predict risk of perioperative mortality following pancreatic resections for malignancy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13(12):2152–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al., The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009;250(2):187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Events, C.T.f.t.C.o.A. http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf. 2009.

  20. 20.

    Brennan MD, Monson V. Professionalism: good for patients and health care organizations. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(5):644–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gockel I, Hakman P, Beardi J et al., New perspectives in laparoscopic simulation: from students’ skills lab to stress evaluation. Zentralbl Chir. 2008;133(3):244–9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 Suppl):S63–7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Norcini JJ. Work based assessment. BMJ. 2003;326(7392):753–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Beard JD. Assessment of surgical skills of trainees in the UK. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90(4):282–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Beard J, Rowley D, Bussey M et al., Workplace-based assessment: assessing technical skill throughout the continuum of surgical training. ANZ J Surg 2009;79(3):148–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    van Gijn W, van de Velde CJ, EC members. Improving quality of cancer care through surgical audit. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36(Suppl 1):S23–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandrakanth Are MD, MBA, FRCS, FACS.

Additional information

This article is published through a collaboration between the Society of Surgical Oncology, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology and is published in the Annals of Surgical Oncology, and the European Journal of Surgical Oncology.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Are, C., Berman, R.S., Wyld, L. et al. Global Curriculum in Surgical Oncology. Ann Surg Oncol 23, 1782–1795 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5239-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Global Curriculum
  • Surgical Oncology Training
  • Global Cancer Burden
  • Modular Scaffolding
  • Lymphadenectomy