Background Few studies have addressed the clinicopathological features of colorectal cancer (CRC) that express programed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Various assays and scoring methodologies were used and thus inconsistent results were obtained. In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship of PD-L1 expression in CRC with various clinicopathological variables using a standardized assay and scoring algorithm. Design Tissue microarrays were constructed from 91 random cases of CRC diagnosed at King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC). Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining using the monoclonal antibody 22C3 was performed. Scoring using the standard “Combined Positive Score” (CPS) method was done. CPS of ≥1 was considered positive. Various clinicopathological features were collected from the medical records of the patients. Results Of the 91 cases, 49 (53.8%) were PD-L1 positive (CPS ≥1). PD-L1 expression was more frequent among moderately differentiated carcinomas (43 of 72 (59.7%) were positive compared to 6 of 19 (31.5%) poorly differentiated cases ( P = 0.029)); among node negative cases (21 of 24 (87.5%) N0 cases were PD-L1 positive in contrast to 28 of 67 (41.8%) N1/N2 cases ( P = <0.001)); among mucinous subtype (12 of 15 (80%) of cases ( P = 0.02)); and among mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) (16 of 16 (100%) versus 11 of 30 (36.6%) MMR proficient ( P = <0.001)). Age, gender, localization, and T or M stages were not significantly associated with PD-L1 expression. Conclusion PD-L1 expression in CRC is associated with favorable prognostic features; namely, lower grade, N0, mucinous variant, and dMMR tumors.

PURPOSE Estrogen receptors (ERs), progesterone receptors (PRs), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) are the mainstay of breast cancer management, and their prevalence rates vary among different populations possibly related to ethnic/genetic and/or socioeconomic status. In a previous study conducted at the King Hussein Cancer Center (published 2006), Jordan ER/PR/HER2 rates for patients diagnosed in 2003-2004 were 50.8%/57.5%/17.5%, respectively. The aim of this study is to revisit the prevalence rates to see if they have changed over the years with changing socioeconomic status. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrieved clinicopathologic data of all patients (1,185) diagnosed with breast cancer during 2018. The data included age, histologic type, grade, and ER/PR/HER2 status as determined by immunohistochemistry and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization for HER2. RESULTS The mean age of patients was 52 (median = 51, range = 25-92) years, and the majority (73.2%) had invasive carcinoma of no special type. ER/PR/HER2 were 77.0%/72.4%./23.8%, respectively. Triple-negative breast cancers were 10.1%. In comparison with previous results of 2006, the changes are statistically significant. Similar changes were seen in other Middle Eastern populations. The current rates are close to those of Western populations. CONCLUSION Rates of ER/PR/HER2 expression have significantly changed and are close to those of Western populations for ER/PR. We propose that such changes are secondary to the adoption of a westernized lifestyle and socioeconomic changes.

Introduction/Objective The coronavirus pandemic led to an unprecedented rise in using virtual meeting technology in the healthcare sector for conferences, business meetings, and continuous medical education. This study aims to understand the practices and individual preferences and to highlight the benefits and challenges of virtual meetings compared to in-person ones. Methods/Case Report This cross-sectional study was disseminated via email as an online survey, using SurveyMonkey (Momentive Inc. San Mateo, California, USA) and targeted healthcare providers at the King Hussein Cancer Center-Amman, Jordan. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) A total of 342 healthcare providers took part in this questionnaire. 82.5% of respondents reported participating in virtual meetings; of those, only 33.5% preferred virtual over in-person meetings (PrV). Whether virtual meetings were equivalent to in-person ones, 33.2% of all participants (71.4% of the PrV) said virtual meetings were equivalent to in-person meetings in terms of participants’ attention (p&lt;0.001). Additionally 54.8% of all participants believed their gain level was less in virtual meetings compared to the conventional in-person ones; this percentage differs significantly between the participant's group who preferred in-person (PrP) over virtual meetings and the PV group who believed otherwise (75.0% vs 13.2%, p&lt;0.001). Nonetheless, when respondents were asked about their meeting preferences in the event of a pandemic, 49.5% of all healthcare providers preferred virtual over in-person meetings (91.3% of the PrV group p&lt;0.001). Almost half the participants (54.3%) reported that they tend to temporarily leave virtual meetings before it is over, yet, this percentage rockets to 70.0% if the meeting is over 2 hours long. On the other hand 43.3% of respondents admitted to leaving the meeting physically while keeping themselves logged in on their mobile/computer. An interesting result of the survey was that 58.3% of all respondents preferred to attend virtual meetings during working hours (85.7% of the PrV group, p&lt;0.001). Finally, when asked about performing other tasks while in a virtual meeting, the vast majority (82.6%) of respondents confirmed either answering the phone, reading/sending emails, or checking a social media outlet at least once, which contributes to a lack of adequate concentration. Conclusion Healthcare providers still prefer and attach more value and benifit to in-person interactions

No abstract