Life After Being a Pathology Department Chair III: Reflections on the "Afterlife".

The Association of Pathology Chairs Senior Fellows Group provided reflections on activities that have kept them engaged and inspired after stepping down as chair. They offered advice to current chairs who were considering leaving their positions and also to individuals contemplating becoming pathology chairs. A majority (35/41) responded: 60% maintained teaching/mentoring activities; 43% engaged in hobbies; 40% took other administrative positions including deans, medical center chief executive officers, and residency program directors; 31% continued research; 28% wrote books; 20% performed community service; 14% led professional organizations; 14% developed specialized programs; 11% engaged in clinical service; and 11% performed entrepreneurial activities. Most individuals had several of these activities. One-third indicated that those considering becoming chair should be able to place faculty and department needs before their own. One-fourth emphasized the need to know why one wants to become chair, the need to develop clear goals, and the need to know what one wants to accomplish as chair before applying for and accepting the position. More than half (57%) indicated that before stepping down as chair, one should have a clear plan and/or professional goals that can be served by stepping down. Some even suggested that this be in place before applying for the chair. Almost two-thirds (63%) indicated they had no regrets stepping down as chair. These findings may be valuable to those contemplating stepping down from or stepping into any department chair position or other academic leadership role.

Life After Being a Pathology Department Chair II: Lessons Learned.

The 2016 Association of Pathology Chairs annual meeting featured a discussion group of Association of Pathology Chairs senior fellows (former chairs of academic departments of pathology who have remained active in Association of Pathology Chairs) that focused on how they decided to transition from the chair, how they prepared for such transition, and what they did after the transition. At the 2017 annual meeting, the senior fellows (encompassing 481 years of chair service) discussed lessons they learned from service as chair. These lessons included preparation for the chairship, what they would have done differently as chair, critical factors for success as chair, factors associated with failures, stress reduction techniques for themselves and for their faculty and staff, mechanisms for dealing with and avoiding problems, and the satisfaction they derived from their service as chair. It is reasonable to assume that these lessons may be representative of those learned by chairs of other specialties as well as by higher-level academic administrators such as deans, vice presidents, and chief executive officers. Although the environment for serving as a department chair has been changing dramatically, many of the lessons learned by former chairs are still valuable for current chairs of any length of tenure.

Life After Being a Pathology Department Chair: Issues and Opportunities.

Although there is a considerable literature on transition of faculty members to the position of department chair, there is a dearth of publications about transitioning from the chair to other activities including retirement. The Association of Pathology Chairs senior fellows (all of whom are former chairs of academic departments of pathology) made this topic a focus of discussion at the Association of Pathology Chairs 2016 Annual Meeting. Of the 33 senior fellows engaged in this discussion, following their time as chairs, a small majority (18) transitioned to other administrative posts within or outside the university, while the others either returned to the active faculty (7) or retired (8). The motivating factors and influences for transitioning from the chair were probed along with the processes used in executing the transition, such as the development of transition plans. The reasons for selecting the specific type of postchair activity were also investigated. There was extraordinary diversity in the type of post-chair activities pursued. To our knowledge, no other medical specialty has examined these issues, which may be potentially relevant for the career planning of active chairs.

Borderline ovarian tumors: key points and workshop summary.

This article documents major points of agreement and disagreement among experts invited to participate in a Borderline Ovarian Tumor Workshop held in Bethesda, MD, on August 27-28, 2003. It is suggested that controversies related to the diagnosis and management of these tumors are often related to lack of data in the literature (small numbers of cases, unreported or unclear criteria for diagnosis and follow-up, insufficient length of follow-up, etc), and specific recommendations are made for further investigation and for reporting of data in future studies.

Current challenges and opportunities for research on borderline ovarian tumors.

This article summarizes key issues for future research on borderline ovarian tumors that emerged at a National Cancer Institute-sponsored Borderline Ovarian Tumor Workshop held in August 2003 in Bethesda, MD. Limitations in existing research and opportunities for future advances have been highlighted. The application of new molecular techniques in combination with improved study designs holds promise for elucidating the pathogenesis of these tumors and revealing the source of the extra-ovarian lesions ("implants") with which they are frequently associated. Clarification of the etiology of borderline tumors and the pathogenesis of their associated implants is critical for improving pathological diagnosis, revising the classification system of ovarian neoplasms, and developing optimal, evidence-based clinical management algorithms.

Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A consensus approach.

As a result of major recent advances in understanding the biology of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), specifically recognition of the central role of activating KIT mutations and associated KIT protein expression in these lesions, and the development of novel and effective therapy for GISTs using the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor STI-571, these tumors have become the focus of considerable attention by pathologists, clinicians, and patients. Stromal/mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract have long been a source of confusion and controversy with regard to classification, line(s) of differentiation, and prognostication. Characterization of the KIT pathway and its phenotypic implications has helped to resolve some but not all of these issues. Given the now critical role of accurate and reproducible pathologic diagnosis in ensuring appropriate treatment for patients with GIST, the National Institutes of Health convened a GIST workshop in April 2001 with the goal of developing a consensus approach to diagnosis and morphologic prognostication. Key elements of the consensus, as described herein, are the defining role of KIT immunopositivity in diagnosis and a proposed scheme for estimating metastatic risk in these lesions, based on tumor size and mitotic count, recognizing that it is probably unwise to use the definitive term "benign" for any GIST, at least at the present time.

Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a consensus approach.

As a result of major recent advances in understanding the biology of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), specifically recognition of the central role of activating KIT mutations and associated KIT protein expression in these lesions, and the development of novel and effective therapy for GISTs using the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor STI-571, these tumors have become the focus of considerable attention among pathologists, clinicians, and patients. Stromal/mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract have long been a source of confusion and controversy with regard to classification, line(s) of differentiation, and prognostication. Characterization of the KIT pathway and its phenotypic implications has helped to resolve some but not all of these issues. Given the now critical role of accurate and reproducible pathologic diagnosis in ensuring appropriate treatment for patients with GIST, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a GIST workshop in April 2001 with the goal of developing a consensus approach to diagnosis and morphologic prognostication. Key elements of the consensus, as described herein, are the defining role of KIT immunopositivity in diagnosis and a proposed scheme for estimating metastatic risk in these lesions, based on tumor size and mitotic count, recognizing that it is probably unwise to use the definitive term benign for any GIST, at least at the present time.