Background Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is an independent biomarker of recurrence and survival with particular treatment response, yet no study has tested its response to radiotherapy. The aim of our project was to test the impact of adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) in patients with localized to locally advanced prostate cancer (PC) and IDC-P. Materials and methods We performed a retrospective study of men with pT2-T3 PC treated by radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without ART, from two centres (1993–2015). Exclusion criteria were the use of another type of treatment prior to biochemical recurrence (BCR), and detectable prostate- specific antigen (PSA) following RP or ART. Primary outcome was BCR (2 consecutive PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/ml). Patients were grouped by treatment (RP only /RP + ART), IDC-P status, and presence of high-risk features (HRF: Grade Groups 4–5, positive margins, pT3 stage). Results We reviewed 293 RP specimens (median follow-up 99 months, 69 BCR). Forty-eight patients (16.4%) were treated by RP + ART. Multivariate Cox regression for BCR indicated that IDC-P had the strongest impact (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.44–3.97), while ART reduced the risk of BCR (HR = 0.38, 95%CI: 0.17–0.85). Other HRF were all significant except for pT3b stage. IDC-P[+] patients who did not receive ART had the worst BCR-free survival (log-rank P = 0.023). Furthermore, IDC-P had the same impact on BCR-free survival as ≥1 HRF (log-rank P = 0.955). Conclusion Men with IDC-P who did not receive ART had the highest BCR rates, and IDC-P had the same impact as ≥1 HRF, which are often used as ART indications. Once validated, ART should be considered in patients with IDC-P. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-019-1267-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives The primary goal is the indexation of validated methods used to assess surgical competency in otorhinolaryngology-head and neck surgery (ORL-HNS) residents. Secondary goals include assessment of the reliability and validity of these tools, as well as the documentation of specific procedures in ORL-HNS involved. Data Sources MEDBASE, OVID, Medline, CINAHL, and EBM, as well as the printed references, available through the Université de Montréal library. Review Methods The PRISMA method was used to review digital and printed databases. Publications were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers, and selected articles were fully analyzed to classify evaluation methods and categorize them by procedure and subspecialty of ORL-HNS involved. Reliability and validity were assessed and scored for each assessment tool. Results Through the review of 30 studies, 5 evaluation methods were described and validated to assess the surgical competency of ORL-HNS residents. The evaluation method most often described was the combined Global Rating Scale and Task-Specific Checklist tool. Reliability and validity for this tool were overall high; however, considerable data were unavailable. Eleven distinctive surgical procedures were studied, encompassing many subspecialties of ORL-HNS: facial plastics, general ear-nose-throat, laryngology, otology, pediatrics, and rhinology. Conclusions Although assessment tools have been developed for an array of surgical procedures, involving most ORL-HNS subspecialties, the use of combined checklists has been repeatedly validated in the literature and shown to be easily applicable in practice. It has been applied to many ORL-HNS procedures but not in oncologic surgery to date.

Background: Use of videos of surgical and medical techniques for educational purposes has grown over the last years. To our knowledge, there is no validated tool to specifically assess the quality of these types of videos. Our goal was to create an evaluation tool and study its intrarater and interrater reliability and its acceptability. We named our tool UM-OSCAARS (Université de Montréal Objective and Structured Checklist for Assessment of Audiovisual Recordings of Surgeries/techniques). Methods: UM-OSCAARS is a grid containing 10 criteria, each of which is graded on an ordinal Likert-type scale of 1 to 5 points. We tested the grid with the help of 4 voluntary otolaryngology – head and neck surgery specialists who individually viewed 10 preselected videos. The evaluators graded each criterion for each video. To evaluate intrarater reliability, the evaluation took place in 2 different phases separated by 4 weeks. Interrater reliability was assessed by comparing the 4 topranked videos of each evaluator. Results: There was almost-perfect agreement among the evaluators regarding the 4 videos that received the highest scores from the evaluators, demonstrating that the tool has excellent interrater reliability. There was excellent test–retest correlation, demonstrating the tool’s intrarater reliability. Conclusion: The UM-OSCAARS has proven to be reliable and acceptable to use, but its validity needs to be more thoroughly assessed. We hope this tool will lead to an improvement in the quality of technical videos used for educational purposes.