Cardiopulmonary fitness before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with oesophagogastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may have a detrimental impact on cardiorespiratory reserve. Determination of oxygen uptake at the anaerobic threshold by cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) provides an objective measure of cardiorespiratory reserve. Anaerobic threshold can be used to predict perioperative risk. A low anaerobic threshold is associated with increased morbidity after oesophagogastrectomy. The aim of this study was to establish whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy has an adverse effect on fitness, and whether there is recovery of fitness before surgery for oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: CPET was completed before, immediately after (week 0), and at 2 and 4 weeks after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The ventilatory anaerobic threshold and peak oxygen uptake (Vo2 peak) were used as objective, reproducible measures of cardiorespiratory reserve. Anaerobic threshold and Vo2 peak were compared before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and at the three time intervals. RESULTS: Some 31 patients were recruited. The mean anaerobic threshold was lower following neoadjuvant treatment: 15·3 ml per kg per min before chemotherapy versus 11·8, 12·1 and 12·6 ml per kg per min at week 0, 2 and 4 respectively (P < 0·010). Measurements were also significantly different at each time point (P < 0·010). The same pattern was noted for Vo2 peak between values before chemotherapy (21·7 ml per kg per min) and at weeks 0, 2 and 4 (17·5, 18·6 and 19·3 ml per kg per min respectively) (P < 0·010). The reduction in anaerobic threshold and Vo2 peak did not improve during the time between completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in cardiorespiratory reserve immediately after neoadjuvant chemotherapy that was sustained up to the point of surgery at 4 weeks after chemotherapy.

A survey of medical students' views about the purposes and fairness of assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To survey medical students' views about the purposes and fairness of assessment procedures. METHOD: The survey used a 19-item questionnaire designed for self-completion. Respondents were invited to "strongly agree", "agree", "disagree" or "strongly disagree" with a series of statements about the purposes and fairness of assessment. There was space for free text comments relating to each statement. RESULTS: A total of 312 students out of a sample of 381 completed questionnaires (82% response rate). Whilst the majority of students (> 95%) agreed that ensuring competence, providing feedback and guiding student learning were important purposes of assessment, only half (51%) felt that assessment should be used to predict performance as a doctor. A clear majority of students (81%) agreed that, on the whole, assessment at Newcastle Medical School was fair. Data interpretation papers (comprising a combination of multiple true/false, "one best answer" and short answers) were perceived to be the fairest assessment tool; the assessment of clinical rotations by supervisors was perceived as the least fair. Differences in perception about the fairness of several assessment methods emerged between junior and senior students. A large number of respondents expressed desire for the provision of more feedback on performance in order to guide future learning. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst students' views about the fairness of specific assessment tools may sometimes be at variance with published research on assessment, their perceptions will influence the acceptability of assessment. Students would welcome the introduction of methods that provide meaningful assessment feedback.