Okay, welcome everyone. My name is Rhonda Farrell. I'm a gynecologist and I work at Life House Hospital in Sydney and I'm an associate professor at Sydney University here in Australia. It's great to have you on this workshop. It's evening here in Sydney, but probably morning in a lot of other areas in the world where you are. Just as an introduction, I'm a member of the IGCS Council and I'm fortunate to have one of my roles in IGCS to be a mentor in this early career program. So I'd like to thank you all for joining. This is our third early career workshop this year and it sounds like it's gonna be a great workshop. So I'm really excited about it and for the faculty and their presentations that you're about to hear. So as you probably noticed, this workshop's a bit different to the previous two that we've had this year. So we're having breakout sessions after feedback from a number of members that would like to break out in a number of smaller chat groups. So it's gonna be a great opportunity for you to ask lots of questions to your selected mentor in that group. And I'd like to thank our speakers and particularly the IGCS early career junior faculty members and staff for helping to put this all together because there's a lot of work involved. So we're thrilled to have a full house today. We have around 100 attendees from over 36 countries as we'll show you on our slide in a moment. There's a broad representation from countries all over the world, which is fantastic. So it'll be great to have all of your input at our breakout sessions. And thank you for joining. So just a few housekeeping notes to start with, relevant to this Zoom platform, which probably most of you have used before. We'll be recording today's discussion and the recording will be on the IGCS website. So those participants with their cameras turned on, you may appear in the video recording. We ask that everyone please keep your microphones muted so that everyone can hear the presentations. And if you're having any difficulties or questions, particularly with technical support or anything else, you can just send a message to the IGCS staff in the chat room over on the right and they'll assist you. So this recording will be available on the IGCS website to view in about a week's time. So certainly you can go back and have a look at the presentations again. So without any further ado, I'd like to introduce our junior faculty, which are involved in today's program. They've been working really hard behind the scenes to bring this program together, together with the staff at IGCS. We have Arthur Hsu, who's a gynecologist from Taiwan. Navia Nair is from Louisiana, I think in the US. Florencia Nol from Argentina and Gitu Banduria, who's from India. And the four junior faculty will be moderating this session. So it's great to have them. And a heartfelt thank you for them and their time commitment to this early career network. So I'd like to now hand over to Gitu, who will be the main moderator of the session. Thanks, Gitu. Thank you, Dr. Farrell. We have an exciting program lined up today. First, we'll have a presentation by Dr. Kristen Maloney, who's a gynecologist and a certified gynecologist. She's based in Melbourne at the Mercy Hospital for Women, Northern Hospital and Upward Freemasons Hospital. She will be discussing development of a surgical competency assessment tool for scintillin lymphoid dissection by minimal invasive surgery for endometrial cancer. This is an exciting talk and how she has achieved this tool and she will provide insights and maybe we all can do something similar. To Dr. Maloney. Thank you so much for having me. And I really wanna start by saying a very big thank you to IGCS and the Early Career Network for this opportunity to talk about our Sentinel Lymph Node Study. I have to say, I feel like a total imposter because this study was such a collaborative effort and I had wonderful mentorship and guidance from Professor Andreas Obermeyer. And as you can see from the list of authors, it was a truly collaborative and collegiate effort between us and Sentinel Lymph Node experts from all around the world. But even if I do feel like an imposter, what I would say is that this forum is a really good opportunity to talk about this research and the experience I had in conducting it because I am an early career researcher exactly like all of you who've registered today. Hopefully in sharing this presentation today, I can help you to understand that being the junior most member of a research team is not actually something that should make you feel like an imposter. But the reason I was going on with all of the thank yous is because I really do feel like an imposter when I was even invited to give this talk because I really had significant mentorship in this study from Professor Andreas Obermeyer. And you can see from the list of authors in the slide here that it was a really collaborative and collegiate effort between us and Sentinel Lymph Node experts from all over the world. So even if I do feel like a bit of an imposter, I think it's a really good opportunity to talk about this research and the experience I had in conducting it because I am an early career researcher exactly like all of you who've registered today. And hopefully in sharing this presentation, I can help you to understand that being the junior most member of a research team is not actually something that should make you feel like an imposter, but something that can be really enjoyable and might even set you on an exciting path towards a successful career in research. So I'm not sure if any of you had the opportunity to sign into the IJGC Journal Club in May, but this slide pictures the summary we used in promoting our study and the Journal Club. And I feel like it's a useful picture because it provides a summary of the article itself. And on the right there, you can see a diagram which outlines the 10 steps for Sentinel Lymph Node dissection that we established by consensus to represent mandatory steps. And we've actually found this diagram to be quite useful in clinical practice as it's a bit of an aid memoir when we're actually undertaking a Sentinel Lymph Node dissection. It's the sort of thing you can print and laminate and actually stick up on the laparoscopic stack or the robotic console so that you can reference it during the procedure and check that you've completed all of the steps. It's also quite a useful tool in terms of teaching Sentinel Lymph Node dissection. So I'd encourage you all to get laminating and printing. And if anyone's after an electronic copy of that diagram, you're more than welcome to send me an email and I'll pass it along. So I thought I'd start by outlining the context in which our study was conducted. Professor Obermeier and his research team in the beautiful sunshine state that is Queensland, Australia, are in the process of conducting the Endo3 trial. Essentially, this trial was developed for a couple of main reasons. The first is because no previous study has ever been able to demonstrate that full pelvic lymphadenectomy performed in staging of endometrial cancer improves patient outcomes. And I think we would all agree that full pelvic lymphadenectomy not only does not improve survival, but has the potential to confer significant morbidity in the form of lymphocyst and lymphedema. We've all seen the emergence of Sentinel Lymph Node biopsy in endometrial cancer, which aims to preserve the information we gain from surgical staging without the requirement for full pelvic lymphadenectomy. The FHIRS and CENTAUR trials have given us confidence in the diagnostic accuracy of Sentinel Lymph Node biopsy. But what we're lacking to date is a robust understanding of exactly how much better Sentinel Lymph Node biopsy is from the patient perspective. Things like quality of life, lymphocyst and lymphedema being really important patient outcomes. Hence the ENDO3 trial, which is a phase three international randomized controlled trial wherein patients with apparent uterine confined endometrial cancer are being randomized to total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral self and goaterectomy, either with or without Sentinel Lymph Node biopsy. The primary outcome is returned to usual activities as a quality of life measure and the secondary outcome is disease free survival. But as we know, surgical trials can be difficult to conduct. One of the reasons is because it's very difficult to control for variations in delivery of the actual surgical intervention, which in the case of ENDO3 is Sentinel Lymph Node biopsy. I think we'd all agree that heterogeneous delivery of surgical interventions does have significant potential to impact study results as well as health outcomes. We feel that at least part of the answer to overcoming challenges posed by a study of surgical interventions can be found in surgical quality assurance tools. We were able to confirm this by review of the literature where we found that a number of other surgical disciplines have been working towards minimizing variation in surgical technique within their clinical trials. A really good example is the colorectal cancer study called COLOR3. We actually collaborated with the senior author of COLOR3 in our study, Professor George Hanna, an academic and clinical gastroesophageal surgeon from Imperial College in the UK. Basically the idea is that robust surgical quality assurance will enable reliable comparison of surgical interventions and outcomes across multiple trial sites. And Professor Obermeyer wanted to make sure that ENDO3 featured exactly this sort of tool. As I mentioned earlier, Sentinel Lymph Node dissection by minimally invasive surgery to stage endometrial cancer has experienced rapid global uptake. And I think we're all now aware of the Sentinel Lymph Node concept. By this, I mean that we're relying on metastasis of tumor cells to one or two lymph nodes first before involving further lymph nodes. If we can demonstrate that the first lymph nodes are negative, we can be reassured that the other lymph nodes in the same nodal basin are also negative. The problem is that variability in Sentinel Lymph Node technique impacts outcomes. Problems we might see are things like mapping failure, which may then result in completion lymphadenectomy or failure to identify the true Sentinel node, i.e. the node most proximal to the organ, or even things like an empty nodal package where the final pathology specimen is very humbling and does not in fact have any nodes in it at all. So hopefully we don't get too much of that. Could be a problem though. We knew that guidelines had been developed to minimize variation in Sentinel Lymph Node dissection and thus surgical outcomes. A really good example is the NCCN Sentinel Lymph Node algorithm, but the precise surgical steps required to achieve bilateral Sentinel Lymph Node mapping and excision required definition and publication. That just says my internet connection is unstable. Can someone give me a little thumbs up that it's still fine? Great. Thank you. Collegiality. So equipped with that knowledge, Professor Obermeyer then felt that his Endo3 team would be able to assess surgeon proficiency before participation in the Endo3 trial. And even make prospective surgical quality assurance in Sentinel Lymph Node biopsy available to individual surgeons and institutions on a wider level. So I've actually taken a very long winded approach to explaining why we conducted our study, and I'm sorry about that. But in essence, what we wanted to do was address some of these contextual issues, specifically aiming to establish consensus on the mandatory and prohibited steps of Sentinel Lymph Node dissection by minimally invasive surgery, as well as develop a competency assessment tool for use in surgical quality assurance. We were fortunate to have had input from 35 expert gynae oncology surgeons from five continents, including 16 countries. The majority had practiced gynae oncology for greater than 10 years, and 60% performed more than 50 Sentinel Lymph Node dissections annually. We employed a DELFI methodology, which seeks to achieve best response through consensus. The process was conducted over four rounds. The first round comprised semi-structured interviews with expert surgeons who discussed their individual technique of Sentinel Lymph Node dissection. Essentially, we asked, if you were teaching your fellow, how would you describe your technique? Interviews were conducted until saturation in variation of technique was reached and were audio recorded, transcribed, and informatically analysed. A process of hierarchical task analysis revealed four phases of Sentinel Lymph Node dissection. These included preoperative, intraoperative, troubleshooting, and postoperative phases. 107 task variations were identified, and by task variations, we mean specific surgical steps that were done in different ways. Rounds two and three comprised the consensus process. An initial questionnaire was developed using all of the task variations or surgical steps found in round one. Our experts completed these questionnaires providing their opinion on whether the steps were mandatory, optional, or prohibited. Responses were de-identified, aggregated, and used to develop the next round of questionnaire. Variations where 70% consensus was reached were iteratively removed into an operation guide. Variations that failed to meet consensus were carried over to subsequent rounds of questionnaire. Over rounds two and three, 70% consensus was reached in 33 of the 107 task variations. 21 steps were considered mandatory, nine optional, and three prohibited. We then went on to develop the competency assessment tool using the mandatory and prohibited steps in the intraoperative phase of Sentinel Lymph Node dissection. Contrast validity and internal reliability were assessed by inviting study participants to use the competency assessment tool in rating three surgical videos representing three distinct performance levels. For each of the 10 surgical steps, there was clear separation in the rating of the skill level displayed between the three videos. So I have to say, even if I say so myself, we're really pleased with the outcome of our study and we feel confident in the utility of our tool for quality, surgical quality assurance. And we also feel like N03 is an exciting study. I'm personally looking forward to watching the use of our competency assessment tool unfold as the trial progresses. And I feel like there's at least another paper within N03 examining the implementation of this competency assessment tool from many perspectives. And I must talk to Professor Obermeier about that. Speaking of talking, I understand he and Professor Ramirez are putting together a podcast for N03. So make sure you all take the opportunity to have a listening to that one. Given that this is an early career networking event, I thought I'd now take the opportunity to talk a little bit about what this research has meant for me on a more personal and professional level. I became a certified gynecologic oncologist in February of this year. In Australia and New Zealand, we undertake training in obstetrics and gynecology for around five to six years before we then commence gyne-oncology training, which usually takes around three to four years to complete. We have a big clinical workload throughout these years and we're also required to pass formal exit examinations at the end of both general training and gyne-oncology training, both written and oral examinations. We're also required to complete a research project worthy of publication in a peer-reviewed journal during both our general training and gyne-oncology training years. But most of us end up feeling as though it's kind of just a hurdle requirement we need to jump over. And in a lot of cases, trainees actually really struggle to finish their research projects. One of the more common reasons preventing gyne-oncology trainees from achieving their certification is the fact that they haven't actually finished their research project yet. And in telling you all of that, I think I'm probably trying to make some excuses for why I didn't really participate in meaningful research until this study with Professor Obermeier. But I think the truth of it really is that research can be miserable without the right mentorship. I was essentially an anxious avoider of research because I was no good at it and usually had no idea of how to approach it. I was really fortunate to have found the mentorship I did find with Professor Obermeier, so much so that research went from a thing I was scared of to something I actually really enjoyed doing and that I'm inspired to continue. I also found it validating in a way, I think. In the operating room, we all know that we're only as good as our team and I think research is the same. So I went into this research project thinking I wouldn't really have a contribution to make, but I think the fact that I was a training fellow at the time and vastly more junior than the people I was interviewing actually really helped. So when I was interviewing these amazing people like Emma Rossi, I essentially just encouraged her to explain her approach to sentinel lymph node dissection to me as if I was her fellow. So then it also became like an interesting teaching exercise where I feel like my sentinel lymph node dissections I was actually doing got better with the more interviews I did. I was sort of getting like mini tutorials from these legendary sentinel lymph node surgeons from all around the world. And I think by all of these powers combined, I've ended up feeling a lot more confident about clinical research and I'm hoping I can take that confidence into whatever I end up doing in the future. And now for a very genuine and very positive advertisement for IJGC as well as the IGCS and no one has asked me to give this plug, that's for sure, but I'm fairly confident we wouldn't have experienced anywhere near as positive and interested reception to our study if we published somewhere else. We've been enabled amazing and hopefully ongoing networking opportunities, including Twitter hashtags, podcasts, a Zoom journal club, and now this. And I was even asked to review an article recently kind of around sentinel lymph node biopsy. And that was the first time I'd ever reviewed an article and I'm pretty sure it was because of this publication that I was invited to do that. So I think it's just been absolutely awesome. And I feel as though the contemporary and collegiate approach IJGC has to dissemination of research is nothing short of outstanding. And I really feel like I've benefited from it. So I really can't rave about that enough. I think the global network is brilliant and the fact that we're all here, like it's half past nine at night in Melbourne, Australia. And I think it's some ungodly hour in the US near 6 a.m. or something similar. So I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to listen to me rabbit on. And I'm really looking forward to chatting to some of you in the breakout rooms and I'm awfully sorry about the technical problems. So please forgive me for that. Thank you, Kristen. That was an excellent presentation and talk. And yes, we are fortunate to have you hosting one of the breakout rooms. So we have Dr. Robert Cozman who is the present IJGC's president. And he will be presenting some highlights from the recent concluded IJGC's annual meeting. It was an amazing meeting. We still can access the on-demand sessions. So I invite Dr. Cozman to go ahead and present his talk. Great, thank you so much. So great to be with you and I do him in transit. Oh my gosh, what a crazy day, a couple days, weeks. It's so great to be with you. And thank you for everybody who supported the meeting and joined the meeting. We are so excited of how that turned out. At least I am so proud of the team. And I just found it amazing to be able to pivot within a month of the meeting to a fully virtualized environment that we were able to conduct together. So congratulations to everybody, but what a great meeting. And I'm so happy to be with you today. I love the intro to the previous talk about being an imposter. I think that all of us who have been able to accomplish what we've been able to accomplish in this society has really been through the help of mentorship. So I'm very passionate about this. For those of you who know, I also serve as co-director for JOD Partners and it's been our mantra to try to bring in mentees into all of the work that we do in the clinical trial world. And we've now been able to spread outside of the U.S., Canada and South America and other places. And so that developing the next generation is really part of what it is to do your work today. So thank you much for having me to speak with you guys. Thank you. So the 2021 meeting, I think, as you can imagine, was a collaborative effort of a number of different people, but really from our delegates all over the globe. I am passionate about the International Gynecologic Cancer Society because of the I, the international component of it. And you can see here from the statistics from the global meeting, we had almost 500 abstract submissions. And this was very similar to what we've seen in the previous years. You can see we've had over 1,700 registered delegates, and as was previously mentioned, people are still registering, which is great because the content on the website is amazing. And that will be available for the next couple months. We got participants from 89 countries. You can see the 36 sessions were conducted over the four days, nearly 5,000 views of the live sessions, nearly over 9,000 views of on-demand for that. And you can see that there were 1,883 abstract poster views. So we're really proud of this because this is the kind of the reach that we had always hoped that we could accomplish, you know, even in person to have this much views. So we're really excited about the format and how it worked with us. The delegates came from all over the world, as you would expect. We had a large contingent from Asia, North America, and Europe. You can see Central and South America, Africa, and Atlantic, and the Middle East that round up the top six countries, but you can see how those are allocated. And if you look at the top countries, China was number one with 290, the United States with 278, and so forth. But I'm really proud to see that we had almost 90 different countries represented by delegates at the meeting. In terms of platform logins, you can see we had pretty robust attendance throughout the entire meeting from Monday through Thursday, even with over 550 attendees on the platform on Thursday, which was phenomenal. Again, I think this speaks volumes about how the timing was set up, knowing that we had to address multiple different time zones all over the globe. But I think this shows engagement of the community. You can see that even before we opened the first day, there were 204 people snooping around the website. I was one of those, trying to feel how this new virtualized environment would work. But this was really great. And we averaged about 77 logins daily after the meeting, so very, very exciting. When we look at the session attendance, as you could imagine, and has been what we've seen previously, the master sessions and the tumor board continue to be popular. I think these would be, go without saying, master sessions obviously led by KOLs in each of the disciplines, and the tumor board always bring in innovative, interesting cases for discussion. You can see that the featured posters have the lowest attendance, but the average attendance is over almost 250, and it excludes the three lowest attending sessions, almost 300. So we're very excited about how this all turned out. From the on-demand content, and we kind of feel like this is an area that we can bring some new offerings within IGCS, has been, was very well attended. You can see almost 10,000 demanded views by 768 registrants as of 9-13. This continues to go up, as you can imagine, with our highest being, again, master sessions, home festival, and the opening plenary. The posters, again, I'm really proud of this. You can see that the, that, you know, posters sometimes are very difficult to get people to attend, but many times this is where, you know, as a junior investigator, this is where kind of your first introduction into an international meeting. We saw almost 2,000 poster views with a pretty decent time, 19 minutes per average time of view at the poster. I think this was a great opportunity to be able, for people to kind of snoop around multiple different sessions. Surgical Film Festival, as you, as expected, was very popular. We had 23 films that had over 2,600 views, and the average per film was 114. So again, very well attended and very popular. So, just to give you a flavor of what kind of, you know, topics that were, that were presented during the opening session and some of the other sessions, I'll just highlight them here. And I think this is, this is just a testament of what great sessions we had. So you can see these three very important trials. So MPOWER was bringing cervix symethomab, a P1 inhibitor, into the, up against chemotherapy and recurrent metastatic cervix cancer. It was a positive trial for every endpoint it was looking at. We had the presentation of the lenvatin and pembrolizumab trial, Keynote 775, demonstrating again, a new standard of therapy that was recently FDA approved. We also saw an update of the data from the Garnet trial, looking at another immune checkpoint inhibitor, dostarlamab. And as many of you know, in the United States, about six weeks ago, this was approved as a new therapy. So practice changing trials with an opportunity to hear a beautiful distillation by our good friend, Antonio Gonzalez-Martin from some Spain. Oops, go back here. In the cervical cancer master session, I know this is really small to read, but I just wanted just to highlight, you know, what types of topics that were brought there. So we had some cases that talked about preventionists in staging. We talked about imaging. We talked about the role of surgery. We talked about the role of radiation therapy. We looked at the clinical trial environment for cervix cancer and looked at the role of our different modalities in the treatment of this disease. So fantastic session, tons of data that were presented and really bracketed by expert commentary. In the uterine cancer master session, Dr. Brian Slomovitz and Dr. Mateus Giu from Spain and Keta LaRusso from Italy presented important updates on the information on how endometrial cancer is migrating into increasingly more divisive components driven by molecular biology. It's a very exciting session that was run by this team. And we had a nice session led by Anuja Jigren and Sven Manner and Atif Andersey looking at vulva cancer. This is a rare tumor, but this particular session focused on a lot of therapeutic innovations and some of the recent data from the Grohns V2 trial, which as many of you know, was recently published and has led into the Grohns V3 trial. So this really was another fantastic session. And of course, the ovarian cancer session, obviously very popular, exploring a number of different topics. I'm not going to go through all these here, but I just wanted you to see the breadth of the science and expertise that was presented at the meeting. We're very excited about how that turned out. And of course, the Surgical Film Festival that was led by Boris Winterhoff and Alex Olawale from the US, looking at demonstrating multiple different surgical techniques involving minimally invasive surgery and extensive surgery with evaluation. And I encourage you all, if you haven't had a chance to visit these, to watch these videos, to go on to the website and take a look at them. It's really great. So again, more from the session, just a ton of videos, and as I mentioned, many that were very highly... But just go ahead and check it out at the website. There's so many of these innovative techniques, and I love this one that was focused on complications. These are always... We call them misadventures. This is always a great opportunity to learn from issues that show up unexpectedly. I also had a robust assessment from the cervical and in vitro cancer footprint. Again, just wanted to just highlight these sessions, and then also one on fertility sparing run by Mario Leteo. So as you are aware, these debate topics tend to be very popular. I believe these ones actually were quite fun to watch. We try to make them in a way that you can be, that the discussants, even though they may actually agree, we try to get them to provide polar views, to provide the breadth of spectrum, for instance, of consideration for the topics. And you can see here that we had an in vitro cancer and ovarian cancer discussions where these topics were debated. And then we had a number of postgraduate educational sessions looking at high-tech, rare tumors, and palliative care. So the feedback we got from the program was amazing. I was really happy to watch the Twitter feeds. We've highlighted just some of those comments that were listed. But I love the virtual feast of sessions. Very, very exciting for us to discuss, and I think it's a great reflection of the meeting. So as I mentioned, and it's been highlighted before, you can access content on the platform until December 4th. Many of your peers have already taken advantage of that. And as mentioned, there are people still registering because there is so much great content on the website. So how can you get, oops, let me go back there. So let me just leave you with one parting word about how you can get, as an early career person, to get involved. There are so many ways. We really encourage you to, first of all, submit any of your concepts to the meeting in the way of posters or for presentations. Find a mentor. This particular organization itself, this group, is a great way to provide collaborators to get engaged with the meeting. We also encourage you to run for positions on the leadership. It's great to understand what the roles are. There are a number of roles within the group. And we're really trying to also provide representation from around the world. So we've spent a lot of time focused on making sure that we get good representation on council from each of the areas of the world that we touch, and we touch many of them. So I encourage you to continue to keep this collaboration going. Reach out to me or anybody from the staff if you need help in getting connections made, or if you have ideas that you'd like us to pursue. So with that, I'll go ahead and close, and hopefully we've got our other speakers back. But thanks for having me this morning. Thank you, Dr. Goldman, for your valuable insight. The meeting was excellent, exciting, and again, as a reminder, we all can watch the program on demand until December 4th. So we are going to have three exciting breakout rooms now. The first breakout room will be, What is the IG? International Journal and Accountability Council Fellowship, and Tips to Completing the IGGC Application. This will be hosted by Dr. Pedro Ramirez, who is the chief editor of the journal, and Navya Nair will be co-hosting this with the junior faculty. Then second will be, My Experience as an IGCS Fellow in the Mentoring and Training Program. This will be hosted by Eric Estrada from Guatemala, and Arthur Hsu, who will be co-hosting this breakout room. Third will be, How to Develop Local and International Research Collaborations as a Young Researcher by Kristen Maloney, who briefly mentioned her experience, and those of you who have signed up for this breakout room, you'll be able to chat more with her. In the process of developing new ideas and how to contribute to the journal, how to make the journal a better journal, and certainly we have had great input and feedback from our fellows. There are several tasks that we ideally like to have the fellows complete during the fellowship, and as you can see here, one of them is obviously very important, is the peer review process. For many in early career, they consider that they haven't had the experience in reviewing manuscripts and they receive a manuscript and they don't feel comfortable providing feedback to the authors as it pertains to the details of that manuscript. One of the purposes of having this fellowship is that for those who are involved in the fellowship, there's a process of manuscript review. We actually go through manuscripts with myself and the fellows. We independently provide feedback and then collectively come together to provide a final decision for a number of manuscripts during the fellowship. There's a discussion where we actually have all of the fellows join in for the discussion, the final discussion and decision on that manuscript. Internally, this is an opportunity for us, particularly myself, to give feedback to the fellows as it pertains to how they interpreted a particular manuscript and how they went about making that decision. We have also been incredibly successful with regards to the podcast. We have a weekly podcast, there's a new podcast every week, and certainly the fellows have contributed tremendously to those podcasts. If you haven't had a chance, I'd certainly encourage all of you to go to the journal website and listen to the podcast. They're all archived, so you can go back all the way to the first one that we published back in 2019. So certainly this is a great opportunity also for the fellows to get involved with that. They come up with suggestions with regards to what papers we should aim when looking at developing the podcast. They will also talk to myself and the editorial team about specific individuals that they would like to actually interview and related topics to their field of expertise. They will certainly also provide the questions or many of the questions that I ask the authors of those manuscripts, and those are really a great contribution because certainly this is an opportunity for the fellows to really become engaged in actually asking directly to the authors of those manuscripts questions specifically to those manuscripts. The fellows also developed something that I think has worked incredibly well, which is a table of contents podcast, and basically this is often a 15-minute overview, sometimes even shorter, 10-minutes overview of what is being published in the journal that month. So they have an opportunity to look at highlighted articles and then bring that to the podcast where they can certainly share with the audience what are some of the highlights of those papers. Interestingly, obviously as this is an international society, we have many fellows who had taken the initiative to actually do the table of contents podcast in their native language. So now we have a table of contents podcast in Russian, in French, we have it now also in Arabic, of course in Spanish as well. So we really see that there has been great feedback, and often those language podcasts are listened to anywhere on average of 500 to 600 times in one month. So that's been a really great addition. They are also in charge of uploading the podcast to the website. Arthur Hsu, who is the leader of the administrative fellow, he does a fantastic job. And he is someone who is quite a uniquely talented individual and certainly someone that I think anyone who comes into the fellowship will enjoy and learn from him as well. And then lastly, the fellows also develop what is called a mentor's podcast. So they basically select an individual that they feel has had a major contribution to the field of gynecologic oncology, and they actually go into the details of what was it that led that person to go into gynecologic oncology, often to go into medicine. What was it like developing some of these trials? You know, recently there was a podcast with Ignaz Vergoat talking about the EORTC neoadjuvant trial, and it was really interesting hearing sort of like the backstory behind the development of that trial. So that's actually a really great feature. As many of you know, the journal clubs are also very, very important. The fellows are very integral in the organization of the monthly journal club. They get an opportunity also to network with leading individuals because they will speak to the authors of the lead article. They will engage with those individuals and certainly it provides an opportunity for even potential future collaborations with those individuals. There's a lot of promotional social media of those journal clubs. They also prepare questions specifically for the lead author of those articles as well. So that's also very exciting to see the fellows participating in the journal club with the lead author. Yesterday we had an amazing journal club with Cristina Fotopolo. There were 92 participants in that journal club. Cristina did a fantastic job for one whole hour. She was just answering questions after question after question. So we had a really very interactive journal club. Really encourage anyone to participate in that as well. And then of course, obviously, we have those journal clubs uploaded to the website. Again, as a testament to the contribution of the fellows, this group of fellows now has requested that we actually have an archive of journal clubs. So we're going to be able to provide journal clubs as well. As you know, there's a great involvement in social media and we have our fellows getting involved in the promotion of the journal in the social media, highlight selected articles. Often this creates a lot of discussion in social media. They prepare poll questions and this kind of gives us a sense of what is the practice related to that topic in social media. And then we have the associate editor for social media, Angurta Erickson, that she also provides tremendous amount of guidance for them as well. And then the idea again is to increase our followers. Certainly when we started, we had 77 followers on Twitter and now we have I think over 3,000 followers. So we're really very excited about that. So who's the ideal candidate? Ideally, obviously someone who has had a documented interest in gynecologic oncology. ideally somebody who is in residency or in fellowship and looking to engage in a career of gynecologic oncology or medical oncology that focuses on gynecologic cancers or certainly radiotherapy as well that focuses on gynecologic cancers. Ideally, certainly working in a center that they see a large population of cancer patients and somebody who's interested in scientific publications and evaluation of scientific manuscripts because I think certainly that's very important. And then ideally that they have shown an interest and involvement in either the IGCS, the IGCS Early Career Network, ESGO or ENIGO, any of those organizations I think shows also an added level of commitment from the applicants. How to apply. The fellowship application is at this website. There has to be a letter of interest as to why you wanna do this, a letter of recommendation from a leader in the department because there has to be some level of protected time for performing all of the tasks of the fellowship. And we really wouldn't, we really want to see someone who's really engaged, not somebody who just wants to put this on their CV and not contribute because obviously then that's taking a place as somebody who has really wanted to be part of this. Certainly you don't have to have an extensive list of publications or even publications in the past. We really want somebody who's interested in actually publishing or performing reviews. And definitely, obviously the person has to be proficient in the English language. So here's the timeline. The applications will open on September 1st already to September 30th. The interviews will be held the month of October and then five total fellows will be selected by October 31st. So with that, I'll just conclude. This is just some of the metrics from our journal. Over a thousand manuscripts received in 2020. Time to first decision. Certainly our aim was to have that or under 30 days when we started. So now it's 18 days. The acceptance rate on original articles has significantly decreased. So we're proud of that. It's now about 16%. As I mentioned, we have over 3,000 Twitter followers, over 2,600 Facebook followers. The podcast so far this year, there's been over 31,000 listens and we have had so far seven journal clubs. And then of course, obviously we're extremely proud of having increased the impact factor from 1.7 when we started to 3.4. So very, very proud of that. This is our editorial team. Myself, of course, Dr. Ana Fagotti, Michael Frumovitz, Anuja Jingren, and Rene Pareja, and Antonio Gonzalez, and Luis Chiva, and Anne Gerda Erickson. So with that, I wanna thank you. And certainly, obviously if Navia wants to add some additional words, comments, or answer questions, we'll be happy to do so. Thank you. Thank you, Pedro. I think we are actually out of time. If anyone wants to type a question in the chat, we'll be happy to answer it. We're very happy to have him, Erika Strada, who is a joint oncologist in Guatemala. And he has completed the IGCS fellowship program. And he is now an editorial fellow in the IJGC. So now let's welcome him to talk about his experience as an IGCS fellow in the mentorship and training program. Okay, so yours, Erik. Okay, so let me just share my screen. And does it look good? Great. Thank you for having me in this opportunity. It's very early in the morning here in Guatemala, but it's my pleasure always to be here. Let me share you my experience as an IGCS fellow in the mentorship and training program. Well, I've been part of IGCS since 2013. How did it started? Because also it's very important to let you know how it started. It was in 2013 that I met two amazing persons, Kathleen Schmader and Pedro Ramirez, through a program, the Central America Gynecologic Oncology Education Program. It was part of IGCS. Later it became the global curriculum, but they traveled to Guatemala often to teach us about gynecologic oncology. And these two amazing persons actually let us know and actually planted the seed that led me, wanted to be a gynecologist later in life. So when I ended up my residency program, I just found other amazing persons that were called mentors for me. This is Rene Pareja and Pedro Ramirez that actually I met him a long time ago. And then later on, I met Julio Lau, which he has returned from Mexico. He was training in this Institute of, National Institute of Cancer in Mexico. And I found the right word to be called, the right word for mentors. And usually a mentor is a person who has a professional life experience, who voluntarily agrees to help other mentees to develop skill, competency and goal. But this is more than just a definition. For me, it's actually, I think that some folks might think that a mentor is just like a role model, but I think that mentors are actually more than role models because they have a variety of areas in which they are experts related to peer working, life balance and ethics. And that's the reason that I, when I had the opportunity to apply for the global curriculum, I did without any hesitation because it's actually what these amazing persons have given me yet. So this wouldn't be possible if it wasn't by a great, amazing person led by Mary Aiken, Kathleen Schmeler that led me into the possibility of becoming a gynecologist in my country. Gynecologist in my country is not a very often, we are a 17 million population, total population, and there's only 10 gynecologists. And that is very, very low for a lot of possible persons that could benefit of this profession. So I just not, it was very important for me, but also it was very important for me that I wouldn't let, I wouldn't be able to know what research meant if it wasn't led by Rene Pareja. Rene Pareja, when I began, he actually told me, there are a few things that I want from you. And that's when I really appreciated the word called mentee, because he said, it's not possible for me to train someone it wasn't possible for him to actually publish. Because publishing is not just writing a script and writing a word or writing a scenario. And from that moment, I really understand the possibility of looking forward and expanding with other fellows, for example, because I had the pleasure to working with other fellows while writing or while actually publishing. And that's the reason that if you, as up to yesterday, I have seven publications registered to myself. And I'm in the process of making more because actually they planted that seed that lets you want more and more and more because research is very important while you are actually training yourself because actually it lets you know what others are doing, what actually you are doing in order to improve the quality of life of those patients you are actually working with. So it's, for me, it's very outstanding. The process is actually frustrating at the beginning because actually when you get your feedback from the persons that actually review in your work and you see a tremendous amount of corrections or major or minor revisions, but you don't keep, you don't actually get, you actually feel uncomfortable at the beginning, but actually you understand now the process of actually why this review and process is actually that way, because some, you have to assure that the quality of what you're actually writing or what actually you're putting into words is actually the best for every journal. So I think it's very important for you. And for me, it has been a tremendous change in my life. I don't believe just my life, it has, I have a family also, and my family has changed a lot. Now I have become a more influential physician in my country. So I think that I, most of my colleagues are expect something good from me, and I also give them back educational. I'm now part of, I'm a junior faculty at my hospital, and I am also part of actually giving lectures to these residents, which actually is something that I never thought that I could actually do, but now I'm actually working with a lot of amazing individuals that have taught me a lot and still are teaching me a lot. I keep up also with the work that, for example, Rene Pareja has command me to do so. And it's very important for me, and this global curriculum is something that really changes life, really changes life for good, honestly, for good. Actually, at the beginning, you might feel like you're overwhelmed with all the work, all the new things that you have are done, are expected to be done, but later on, you actually think that this pays off, really. It's amazing, and the way that it's actually structured, it's actually something that it lets you pull out the best things from you, and actually to become a person that actually are to be followed. And now that you are ended where you, and at the moment you end up this fellowship, you actually see the smile that I have here. When I received my completion of certificate, you can see the smile here, here's Julio. Even though we were in a pandemic, he came to my house. He came to my house to actually deliver me the certificate of completion for the IGCCS Global Curriculum and Mentorship Program. And we continue working now. We're just not, he was not only my mentor, he became my friend. So actually, your networking begin to grow more and more every day. And now actually it's not just him. I have amazing individuals working out throughout Latin America. And for me, it's very important also, because I have to, I had the pleasure of continue working, for example, in the IGCCS Editorial Fellowships, which is something that actually I would encourage anyone to actually apply, because it's something that really gives you the back, in the back of the scenario, what actually happens behind the journal editorial peer review writing. And you get to know what actually it's about, what actually produces a journal, what actually what becomes an article. And actually it's a large process at the back that actually very important for all of us to understand, and mostly to understand, but actually to use them as a valuable tool in order to produce more and more yourself, more research yourself. And actually don't be afraid to write, because this is something that you have to let go away. At the beginning, it's very overwhelming, like I told you before, but it's very important in your career to actually do that, write, publish. It's very important for all of us. So with this, if you can dream it, you can do it. And believe me, I have done it that way. And I have no regrets. I think that this has changed my life forever, and I will continue doing so. So thank you very much for having me. And I hope that if anyone could have a question I will be more than happy to answer. Yes, does anyone have a question? So Eric, what is the IGCS fellowship different from your local training? In brief, in 30 seconds. Okay, it's very different, for example, in the case, because I have a mentor, which is actually a mentor dedicated studies for you. So that's very different from actually the local training here for gynecologists here, for obstetrics and gynecologists, because you have a lot of teachers, but in this case, you have only one person directly to you. Would anyone like to maybe introduce themselves so we know who you are, where you're from, what you're doing? Someone be brave. I just embarrassed myself with the world's worst technical glitch. So someone, come on. I can go. My name is Zanissa, lovely to talk, Kristen. I'm a joint and quality fellow from Kenya. I'm in my second year, and I'm actually missing my exams next month. Hopefully also, so lovely to be here and learn. So have you been involved in any research undertaking so far or like similar to our training program, do you have a research component you need to complete or how does it work? Yes, for us, it's a two-year program. And in that time, you must have a research project that you do, but I've always been interested in research. So I've also had a few projects in between that I've been doing, mostly on cervical cancer, that's my main interest. But in, and maybe we'll talk about this in the session, I don't know. We do have a lot of challenges being a low income country with very little resources. So there's a lot that we cannot do or are not able to do. So we tend to do a lot of retrospective studies or very few prospective that don't include a lot of intervention. I would imagine it's hard to have those things funded. Oh, it's hard. It's really difficult because of quality. Yeah. And I wonder whether this event and this society is one way to start to maybe overcome those hurdles, because I wonder if it's more of an international collaborative approach, maybe funding can be accessed from different areas rather than from your local service. I'm not exactly sure how that would work. Florencia, what's your role with IGCS? Well, now I'm part of the junior editorial board of the IGCS. I am from Argentina. We have a fellowship in gynecologists, so we can do it in different hospitals here in our country. It lasts three years. And we also have the task of researching, but well, I know it's a must, but it always depends on you whether research is a priority. So in my case, I joined IGCS first by joining the meetings, the international meetings and the regional meetings, also the eco meetings that are like two more boards for Latin America. And then I joined the IGCS fellowship, the editorial fellowship. So that's how I learned how to reviewing. Well, I started reviewing and I start joining senior and junior colleagues in order to share experience and learning how to create research, collaboration research projects. So now here I'm learning too. I'm a young researcher. And I also have a question for you, Dr. Molony. So if you have to say, what's the first step? So what would you suggest a young gynecologist do as the first step to get involved in research? Because in some settings, it is difficult to do academic research for yourself mostly because of the lack of protected time, the lack of local resources. Also, when you finish your training, it depends on you. So what's your suggestion? Well, and what I sort of mentioned in towards the end of my talk, it was absolutely truthful in the sense that I would have been nowhere without the mentorship from Andreas Obermeyer. And it would actually be really fascinating. I should have probably had a chat to him before I talked today, because he's now at the very kind of opposite end of the spectrum where he's been working on these kind of research networks and collaborative efforts for many, many years. And so it would have been interesting to ask him how he approached it when he was very early on, because I can only say kind of what I've done now. But one thing I forgot to share at the end of my talk was this, I've got a slide, which probably doesn't matter now, but I got some really good advice from a different surgical mentor once. And I think this is a really sound approach. He said that the only way to be successful in anything is to be affable, available and able in that order. So the ability is like the least of your concerns. So whether you're early, young, you don't really know what you're doing, it's completely fine. If you can be affable and available to someone that can be your mentor, then I think that's the only way forward because I think research can be really challenging on your time, on your resources, on your psychology, if you're not doing it right. And I think what you mentioned about getting access to funding and all of that sort of thing, like I had done these silly little research nothings that drove me bananas. And I was using Excel spreadsheets that I couldn't even work out how to use. And then once I became involved with Professor Obermeyer and his team, all of a sudden there was like a data support staff, there was people that helped to write the paper, there were people that helped me to manage the referencing, there were all of these resources and that's it's a very skewed perspective because it's a very first world approach to research and I had so many resources that that might not be available to everybody. But I think the approach is still the same, which is that it was because I had that mentorship that I was able to access those things and now I know that they exist, I know how to access them myself, I've developed my own relationships with those people and so I think again with the very long-winded answers I like to talk a lot as I'm sure is very obvious, but I think it's literally about finding someone to mentor you and that might be you know if you don't have great resources because of socio-economic constraints it might actually be through this society. And I think that's a great point Kristen because now we're not traveling right so we're not gathering together and making the connections that we might normally make at our meetings, at our regional meetings, so I think Flora when we kind of debrief on this topic after this meeting we should think about there are so many IGCS members who are eager to be mentors right and they're the ones that we find at meetings and other gatherings so I think we should think about finding mentors even if it's in a virtual environment for now because even you and Andreas aren't in the same location. Obviously you've made it work and I think this is an important factor is we got to find the people who want to be mentors and then how do we connect people together and kind of keep that relationship going even at its earliest level. We have so many IGCS mentors and members who want to be members it's a big reason why they join IGCS. And I have a question do you think for both of us do you think that mentee find a mentor or the mentor find their mentees? So it's like from both sides you know maybe you can look for a mentor but also well in my experience I found a mentor but also the mentor found me because it's yeah yeah yeah besides who is his or her mentee. Yeah and it's funny I think it was absolutely mutual with Andreas Obermar and I because I'm based in Melbourne now but my final year of fellowship was actually in Queensland where he was working and back in the days of non-COVID when we could actually have like face-to-face conferences I met him at this conference and I knew I was coming to work for him for the next year and I was totally starstruck like I was terrified of him and I kind of just went up to him and said hello you know my name's Chris and I'm coming to work for you and I said I don't know anything about research but I'm a blank canvas and so he kind of just looked at me and I think what he was looking for in this study is someone who like talks too much and is happy to talk to anyone so I think he found me in that way and I was looking for mentorship from him so it kind of really worked and I think you know senior researchers will have an idea of what they need for their study and and if you can be affable and available then you'll present yourself to them and they'll find you and then they will help you to become able because you found them. I think we should make this a focus maybe for in the new year right is really finding the IGCS members who are excited about being mentors and we can even facilitate in the beginning the interaction and conversation right and then see where these go and it could be that it's one mentor for three or four people. It's hard to know what you should be asking and doing right and so it's these initial first steps that I think especially in a virtual environment so it's great. We have about two minutes left and we automatically get transported back to the main room so is there any other questions for Kristen for Floor or anyone here any any other comments we'd love to hear from a couple other people if possible. Yes excuse me yeah okay I'm Dr. Anju Shrestha, GY oncologist. I'm working at Nepal Cancer Hospital. It's in Nepal you as of you know that our country is very low resource country and the problem we face for the research though we're using a routine clinical oncological as a is a diagnostic and treatment we're working but for the resource even we have collected all the data as we have a file but even even retrospective analysis we're facing problem. We couldn't even we have collected a lot of data we have a MRD file is also there but it's very finding difficult even developing the proposal and we have a problem with the status even even for the biostatics also even for analysis we're facing because this those because those person were doing this statics is in non-oncological and for the oncological outcome I we are lacking the even the biostats also so thus you have said that if we get a mentor and help us to guide us so that will be much better for us. Yeah and it's not it's not just the clinician is it that's neat that you need it's things like biostatisticians and maybe you know you can engage in networks of those sorts of people that help with data management and interpretation and analysis yeah I'm sure that would be available through IGCS in some ways wouldn't it? Yeah so welcome everyone back from the breakout rooms so I will now ask each of the junior faculty who are present in the rooms to give a two minute distillation of the conversations in the room actually we have not had any conversation in Pedro's room but anyways so Navya why don't you start and comment on about the fellowship tips to complete the application presented by Pedro. Yeah so Dr. Ramirez went over what the fellowship entails and how to apply and actually in this two minutes I think we were starting to get to a discussion maybe people can ask their questions here and we'll use this two minutes to do a Q&A. I think someone had just asked a question we didn't get to answer about the recommendation letter. Sarika Gupta asked after finishing fellowship going into private practice I don't have a head of department. Pedro maybe you could answer this more but my understanding is someone that manages your time has to show commitment to you taking on this this fellowship is that right? Yes absolutely I think you know certainly as I mentioned it is important that the applicant have certainly time to dedicate to all of the tasks that we reviewed in the presentation and that often can be a considerable amount of time so we definitely do want someone who will be able to be as engaged as their peers because we have incredibly energetic fellows and there's constant flow of new ideas and often many tasks so we we want to make sure that somebody has adequate time to doing it. Pedro I'll ask you a question actually I got to ask this question a lot from a lot of people who aspire to be the fellow from India is that about the proof of proficiency in English language what exactly qualifies the ILTS course because they may not have it or it is something like a self-declaration something like that? Yeah I mean I think that they you know that they're fluent in written and spoken English. There is no real proof English is a basic medium of the language of education in India so you can only certify and maybe the recommendation maker can probably mention the same. Yeah and I think that that'll come through also in the interview if we feel that someone is not able to speak English fluently then of course obviously that's not the ideal candidate for the fellowship because we want that person to be able to represent the journal as well there's multiple activities and meetings when we have back in person meetings you know certainly we're planning on being live at the ESCO meeting but also future IGCS meetings that they there's a fair amount of interaction with the participants in the meeting as well and then of course obviously written so that they will be able to provide very detailed and extensive criticism of the manuscripts. Yeah thank you. Hello? Yes. Yeah I'm Dr. Ramesh from Nepal and for the applicants to be working in the comprehensive cancer center but in Nepal we do not have many comprehensive cancer centers that's why if we're working in the center or institutes where we are practicing oncology can we also apply for this IGCS fellowship? Yes ideally again that the primary practice of that individual is focused on on gynecologic cancer that that that's the the primary goal. Okay thank you. Do we have any more questions or can we move on to the next? We have a question in the chat. Yeah go ahead. I'm Dr. Anshu Shrestha from Nepal. Actually two, Dr. Pedro, two years back I was shortlisted for this editor fellowship and I had the interview also but unfortunately I didn't get so can I apply now again but that was two years back. Yes of course they're definitely I mean there's the application process is open to everyone. At that time yeah actually I got interview from you also and I but somehow I didn't get that time. Yes I mean we have we have been very fortunate we had so many applicants initially we had when we first did it we had I think only eight applicants for for two positions and now the number of applicants I expected to go over 100 applicants this time because we were close to that the last time. Thank you. You're welcome. And what a accomplishment and thank you for all that you do Pedro because that's what has helped make this so such a good experience for us as fellows and former fellows and obviously everyone is excited about this. Well thank you. There are no more questions to Pedro. Arthur would you like to tell us about the room that you talked about the experience as a IGCS fellow in the mentoring and training program by Eric? Yes so I was in the breakout room with Eric Estrada and Eric Estrada was a former IGCS fellow and he shared with us how he applied for the program and what it was different for him to be training in the program from his local practice and how it profoundly changed his life and he's very happy about it and I was thinking that something he didn't say was how how to do the applications so Eric do you want to add something on that? Yes in the IGCS website there's a there's a actually a site a site apart when you actually can apply there and you there's a there's a lot of instructions there and you actually send an email and they actually reply you back with all the paperwork you need to be to have in order. If you don't have for example a mentor actually IGCS is very complemental in case of finding a mentor. If you have a local mentor that's practically 50 percent of all the paperwork and finding an international mentor it's there's a lot of exciting persons around there looking for mentees and believe me there's a lot of persons around the world looking for mentees but actually you have to do your part as a mentee which other also you're expected to have some actually skills competencies and goals that actually are suit for this program. Okay yes and do we have any questions for Eric? If no I'm going to hand to Florencia. Okay thank you Arthur. Finally Florencia Nol from Argentina. Flora can you tell us about what all you've discussed with the Kristen developing a local international research collaboration as a young researcher? Yes thank you for joining us for joining Yes thank you for joining us for joining our breakout room and well we agreed summarizing we agreed that research is a long-term project and the cornerstone is to find someone who mentor you we highlight the importance of developing a mentor-mentee relationship and also we encourage IGCS members who want to become a mentor and mentees who share their interest their interest through our society. Also we agree that get involved in research collaborations it's important since the very beginning of your career and also to participate in local regional and international meetings activities and projects so finally I think that the mentoring was also our theme as Eric and Arthur breakout room we discuss how to create a mentor-mentee relationship. I don't know if Kristen do you want to add some comments or maybe we have some questions? Again with my technical glitches I just talked with it being on mute I really need to get better at this I really do I was just going to agree with you I think huge team and we we really just talked about how IGCS might be able to help facilitate that which I thought was great. Lauren it's Rhonda here our first research workshop if you remember back at the beginning of the year was all about how to find a mentor and how to be a good mentee and that's still available on the IGCS website so just pointing it out to the to the young members out there to go back and have a look at that because I think there's some really good points on that that they can learn from and how to find a good mentor and be a good mentee. Yes it was a great workshop too. Thank you Flora and Kristen. So now I would invite Arthur who will provide us some quick updates as to what are the current and upcoming activities. Arthur? Hi thank you Gitu. So I'm Arthur Hsu and I'm going to give everyone an update of our current status and we're going to talk a little about the recent junior faculty member publication the data of our membership status, Facebook group, and a calendar of events on igcs.org. Next. So I think the purpose of the early career group was to give the young research career members a platform to do and to collaborate to brainstorm together some of the interesting ideas that we come up with and our colleague Gitu Panduria from India he is very passionate on ERAS and in social media survey and what he did was with us with the early career group and was through social media was through WhatsApp groups Twitter and the IGCS social link he conducted an international survey on ERAS of a perioperative practice and this was published in IJGC and what I remember was that was the lead article of that month. We also had even a journal club on it and it was a hit and he Gitu is currently conducting on more international collaboration and I just want to say joining this early career group is a very good opportunity for people like us. Next. And now for the early career network members total countries are 54 and total we have a total member of 200 and it's across all continents and Africa, Asia, Caribbean, North America, Latin America, Oceania so we have colleagues all around the world joining us so we really can come up with something to work on together. Next. So for the early career update we have a Facebook group and Facebook group is to strengthen and expand our professional connections create a space to share educational content from all regions of the world and we as junior faculty we are moderators and will help to initiate some contents and the goal is to provide everyone some a platform to interact to brainstorm and to come up with material to work on together and hopefully and hopefully to publish together. Next. And this is a new feature the IGCS global event calendar and we can see that on our on igcs.org we have a calendar that has the recent IGCS and collaborated events all in this calendar. And that's, I think that's all for my update and I'm handing it back to you. Thanks Arthur it's Rhonda here. Thanks everyone for joining us I'm sure you'll all agree it's been a great workshop. I'd particularly like to thank our speakers, particularly Paul Kristin who gave her talk and I'm sure you'll all agree it's been a great workshop. I'd particularly like to thank our speakers, particularly Paul Kristin who gave her talk twice but it was fantastic. All the junior faculty members and the IGCS staff for helping put this workshop together. We hope you can join us for our next workshop we'll let you know when that is. As I mentioned before this workshop's been recorded so if you want to go back and have a look at it it'll be available in the education portal sometime in about a week. So wishing you all continued health and safety and stay well and we're signing off for now but we'll see you soon. Take care.

workshop

mentoring

early career professionals

gynecology

surgical competency assessment tool

endometrial cancer

standardization

IGCS annual meeting

IGCS fellowship program

mentorship

research collaborations

professional development opportunities