This webinar is run by IGCS for the Early Career Network, and it's titled Success with Abstract Writing, a Feedback Session. So, welcome everyone. My name is Rhonda Farrell. I'm a gynae oncologist working in Sydney at Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, and I'm a member of an associate professor of the University of Sydney here in Australia. I'm a member of the IGCS board, and one of my roles is to be the lead mentor in the Early Career Program. Today, our workshop, as I said, is called Success with Abstract Writing, a Feedback Session. And during this session, we will be providing feedback on abstract submissions that were submitted for the IGCS 2022 Early Career Workshop in New York back in November last year. It's going to be a very valuable session for those who have submitted abstracts in the past, if they were unsuccessful or successful, and for those who plan on submitting abstracts in the future, particularly for our next annual scientific meeting later in the year in Seoul. So, the goal of today's workshop is to prepare you to submit abstracts for that meeting. Before we get started, I just want to mention a few housekeeping items. There'll be time for discussion today, probably at the end of the three abstracts, but if you have a burning question in the meantime, please post it on the Q&A feature. We encourage you to submit questions, and don't be shy. We'll do our best to address as many questions as possible, either directly with a verbal answer or even on the Q&A feature, which is located down the right side of your webinar screen. A recording of this webinar will be available on the new IGCS Education 360 Learning Portal by the end of the week. I think Mary's at the airport. It's a great education learning portal. If you haven't logged into the IGCS website and had a look, there's some fantastic things on there. There's surgical videos, there's great podcasts and talks, and some great education material, and this will join that after this webinar, if you look up in the Early Career Network area of the Education 360 Portal. Now, it's my honor to introduce the Early Career Network junior mentors who have done a great job this year. That's Dr. Gitu Banduria from India and Dr. Florencia Noll, who's from Argentina. Thank you both for joining me to share your feedback on these abstracts tonight. We're also joined by three very brave members of the Early Career Network who submitted very interesting abstracts for last year's IGCS meeting. Unfortunately, they were not accepted, but they have great potential, as do many of the abstracts that were submitted, and I think with some help from all of us here tonight, they will probably do much better next time they're submitted. Thank you, Dr. Fahana Kalam, who's with us, Dr. Mukutamui Kalima-Munolalu, and Dr. Apurva Thak for joining us and being willing and brave to participate with sharing your abstracts to our Early Career Network, and you're going to help us all learn from them, and we thank you very much. So, today's agenda includes reviewing comments from those abstract submissions, then after that we'll define items for consideration to assist with potential IGCS 2023 abstract resubmissions, and we'll provide a very supportive learning opportunity for future abstract development, not only with the three presenters, but for all of you out there, with some takeaway important tips as to how you can put together a very good abstract for our next meeting at the end of the year in Seoul. So, while our agenda doesn't include a didactic today, there's a fantastic didactic that's been developed by Dr. Rene Perea, which is on our 360 learning portal called Abstract to Manuscript, and that will be available for you to view on the IGCS portal. We'll send you a link in the chat, as well as send a follow-up email with the link. We highly recommend watching it, as it will be a great learning tool if you plan to submit an abstract this year. So, it gives me great pleasure to pass the webinar over to Dr. Banduria and Dr. Nol to provide their abstract comments. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Farrell, for the kind introduction. So, we have three abstracts. Dr. Kalam from Bangladesh will be presenting her first abstract. Dr. Kalam, can you briefly introduce yourself and then present your abstract briefly, please? Thank you, sir. I'm Dr. Farhana Kalam. I'm a gynecology fellow from our National Institute of Cancer Research and Hospital, Bangladesh, and I have the opportunity to do post-fellowship training in Mass General Hospital, Boston, USA. I have submitted this abstract last year, and in this abstract, I have done a work of a vulvar cancer patient. We had 76 number of patients, and we follow a prospective longitudinal observational study that was conducted for four years, from July 2015 to July 2019, with a follow-up period of an average three and a half years to one year. In this period, we have to follow the patient. First, we diagnose the patient, and we follow the patient, which treatment she receives. Some received EBRT radiotherapy. Some, we can do surgical procedure, like total valvectomy, radical valvectomy, wide local excision, followed by radiotherapy, and so on. And here, we see HPV relationship, and here is some mistakes with my data, and I control it. And in our countries, some patients do HPV, but some have not done HPV, and those who have done HPVs, in there, some are positive, and some are HPV negatives. And later on, we found, after histopathology, we found these are squamous cell carcinoma, and other variants are also found, and maximum patients are at stage three vulvar cancer. Some patients have found lymph node positive, and we are very much unfortunate that during the survey, we lost some of our patients, that is 34 number, 34 percentage of patients, that is 26 number of patients we lost to follow-up, due to poverty, or there may be the transport problem, communication gap, they are illiterate, and so on. That is, we cannot follow the 26 number of cases, and later on, when we do the recurrence rate on rest, 76 minus 26, that is 50 number of cases, and we found maximum metastasis were found, recurrence are found at the previous site, somewhere lymph node, some come with distant metastasis, distant metastasis, and so on. And this is the sum up of my study. All right, thank you. Ashley, can you move to the next slide, please? Yeah. So, a set of reviews had reviewed all the abstracts that were submitted. You all must be aware that not all the abstracts were selected, but there were some abstracts which deemed more discussion, and we felt that if there were some improvements made, then possibly these abstracts could have got selected, or may get selected in future. You all must be aware that there is always a word limit to the abstracts that we need to submit, whether it is IGCS conference or any other scientific conference. So, we must be careful about the words that we choose, because there is a limit. Like, if you can see on the left side of the slide, you can see almost 10 times the word the has been used. Maybe the word, Dr. Kalam will allow you to give your feedback at the end of our discussion. So, first, let me and Dr. Noel provide our comments, and then we'll ask you for some inputs in case you have. If you look at the abstract that was just presented by Dr. Kalam, so you all can notice how many times the word the has been used. Probably, at some places, it may be avoided, even if it leads to not the perfect English, but as long as it conveys the scientific meaning, maybe we can skip some of them and use some more words which probably can add value to the abstract. I have underlined the first line, the aim of this study was to evaluate. One can rephrase the same thing as we aimed to evaluate. So, we aimed, actually, is just two words, and you can say the aim of this study was to. So, instead of six words, you are using two words which are conveying the same meaning. That is just another example of how you can say words. Coming to the method section, I have underlined the observation study was conducted for four years with follow-up periods. Actually, one doesn't need to write these specific words because you are already mentioning that the study was conducted from so-and-so period to so-and-so period, which is actually four years. So, July 2015 to July 2019 is self-explanatory to be four years. They were followed up, that is correct. 76 vulva cancer patients were included in the study. This is a good way, as in 76 number has been used and not the 76 word description has been used. So, she has saved some words here. When we come to the results section, now the first line says among 76 patients. So, since there are only 76 patients that have been studied, one probably can avoid repeating that among 76 patients, unless it's a subgroup analysis where part of those 76 patients have got a different result, then you may specify among so many patients we found this. Otherwise, if one is describing the results from the entire cohort, one doesn't need to repeat among so many patients. Another important thing is like 34.21% of patients. Now, we do not know what is this number. One can obviously do this little maths, but it is better to add the actual number of patients in bracket maybe, whenever you are giving a percentage of the population. Patients were below under 50 and were below 50 years, that is actually the same meaning. So, again, if you rephrase smartly, you can save some more words. Then the result, vulva cancer was significantly more in multiparous and postmenopausal women. This will be described a little more detail by my fellow discussant, but we felt that this is a little vague. Among the cases who were tested for HPV. Now, there is no number given here who how many were tested for HPV. So, again, this is like an incomplete statement. I will hand over to Dr. Florencia for further discussion on this abstract. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Vandoria and Dr. Farrell. Also, congratulations, Dr. Callum for sharing your results. So, well, vulva cancer is uncommon, only 4% of gynecological malignancies. So, our first recommendation is to add a detailed and clear message in the objectives or also in the introduction, a message regarding the gap in knowledge to clarify what is the aim, where was your aim to fill with the results from your study. That is really important in the first section. Then in methods, the first question is, was the study registered in a clinical trials registry? That's important because, you know, registering clinical trials where they begin provides updates. Then you need to provide updates and results and this information is publicly available. So, it helps our colleagues, our academic community and also improves the quality of your manuscript. In methods also, you should include the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This should be stated clearly as well as the follow-up information described. I totally agree with Dr. Vandoria's comments on the format, on the structure of methods, but this is also the content of it. Then in the results section, table and abstract should be consistent, should be the same information in both. So, that's really important. The recurrence table only shows data of 50% of the patients. Also, we have lack of data on HPV status, as Dr. Vandoria mentioned. Then in the results, we should answer the aim of the study. So, you may describe risk factors as you mentioned in the objectives. Also, you can add data on figure stage, pathology results, surgical findings. Did you perform surgical staging, lymphadenectomy versus central node? If you have available also data on oncologic outcomes, it's interesting to add in your results. Finally, in the conclusion section, we suggest to highlight only the findings that are supported by the data presented in the results. You should answer the conclusion with the results of your study. So, well, as Geetu mentioned, we encourage you to resubmit your abstract for the IHSS 2023 Annual Global Meeting with updates based on the feedback provided. So, Dr. Kalam, do you have any additional comments you would like to make regarding your abstract? Yes. Actually, we don't have any population-based cancer registry. We only have our hospital-based cancer registry number and my study has some number in my institution. Can I provide this number? Yes, you can because the registry could be a global registry like clinicaltrials.gov or the WHO webpage, the World Health Organization page, and also in your local clinic or your local hospital. Where do I need to put that number? First, at the bottom, at the upper? In the methods. In the first part, in the method section, you can add that your study was registered. Also, you don't need to add the number always if you don't have enough words, but you can say that you have the registry of your study and then in the manuscript, you detailed the number of the registry and in the manuscript, but in the abstract, you can add only the phrase that you had the registry done. Yes, okay. Dr. Kalam, I'd like to congratulate you on your abstract. Overall, I think it was very good. There's some ways that it can be improved and I think one of the important things is to make your abstract stand out because that's what reviewers are looking for rather than have just a cohort that you describe. Pick out what's different in your study compared to the studies that are available. I like how you write it's a women's health issue in Bangladesh. Why is that? It's because there's a high recurrence rate compared to other areas where it's not or is it a different type of cancer? Are there more squamous cell cancers? Something that's different about your cohort that you have found. I found it really interesting that the most common side of recurrence was inguinal lymph nodes and 25% had lymph nodes positive, but only 15% had radiotherapy. Why is that? That would be great if you could explore that, but perhaps due to lack of radiotherapy, there's a recurrence, a higher recurrence rate, but there's lots of areas that you can explore to make your abstract stand out and then write it as a manuscript. So, congratulations and I think with a little bit of work it could become a very good abstract. Okay, if there are any questions, does anyone in the audience have any questions about Dr Kalam's abstract or that they'd like to ask, please feel free to post your questions on the Q&A app and we'll move on to the next abstract and we can answer your questions later at the end of the three abstracts. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Katimwi Kalimamnarula. I'm a graduated fellow from the IGCS program. I'm based in Sarka, Zambia, at the Women and Newborn Hospital. So the IGCS program was introduced in Zambia in 2018, and I was the first fellow to sign up on the program. So the main objective of my abstract really was to give some information of the work that we're able to do from the time that the IGCS program started here in Zambia. And I was just trying to give an idea of the type of surgeries, the number of surgeries that we've been able to perform since the fellowship and training program started here in Zambia. We have two international mentors, and one of them is actually a resident here in Sarka, and then we have two local mentors. So the work that was done was with the supervision of the mentors that were available. And we tried to show from our abstract that following the introduction of the program, we're able to do more complex surgery for different kind malignancies for the women that we're seeing. So that was really the main objective of this abstract that I wrote. Thank you, Dr. Muktimoy. So I will continue with my previous discussion. And a similar observation in this abstract, surprisingly. So again, about 10 times the word the has been used, so I would reemphasize to maybe skip it a few places. The introduction would be discussed more by Dr. Nall. But in the method section, this was an audit we gathered from the data that was accumulated over this program. So probably the word examined can be a better word can be chosen. Since the theater registers or theater documents were studied, maybe probably a better examination word is specifically for patients. So this was a document audit. Maybe we can pick a better word. So 202 cases were done. So I presume this was 202 surgeries. So, surgery is would be a better word, a more scientific word. Then the highest proportion of surgeries were for patients with vulva diseases. Now, we're not sure this is a benign disease. This is only malignancies. So, we probably can do better with specifying exactly what we are doing or what we have done. Even in the previous abstract. One of the points was vulva cancers were operating. So, what they're one can write all stages, maybe, or early stages. So, if we add some, some, some words to the text, then it provides more information without actually going through the tables. So since the abstract is the first thing that reviewers read, we should try and put it maximum information in the text that we are using. In the conclusions. One of the terms that have been used is that this program will improve the care. Now whenever we use terms like this will do this or this will improve or this will not help. It's, it's speculative. The only, the only kind of study which can probably give such a conclusion is a randomized trial. This is not a randomized study observational studies can, at best, say that this may do this. So we should refrain from using speculative conclusions and stick to the data that we have studied, and probably use words like this may have an impact or this may improve the care or this may improve the whatever condition that we are studying. I'll pass on to Dr. Florencia for further detailed comments. Thank you, Dr. Vandoria, and about the content of the abstract first congratulations. I think it's a great topic. So the title and the abstract do not match. That's really important if you want to demonstrate the impact of the IGCS program on management of cancer patients in your center. I think this should be better defined in the section. Also in the in the objectives in the first section in the introduction, as the main objective. It would be useful to include data about the structure of the department, maybe some statistics on survival prior to the IGCS mentorship program to see how the surgeries and the patient management were upscale in both the stage. Before and after the implementation of the program. Mentioning information about the cultural context of your setting, it's useful too. Maybe it helps us to understand the change that was implemented in your centers. In the results section, I think you should focus on the main findings of the study with a particular focus on the primary objective of the study. So you want to describe the upscaling in the management of cancer patients before and after implementing the IGCS mentoring programs. And it would be useful to describe the type and the complexity of the surgeries that you perform before and after this mentoring program. And also the comparison in terms of number of surgeries, very imperative results in both groups. And also in your setting, what were the barriers, focus on the barriers you face to establish or create this change in the gynecology unit. To end the conclusion, I think we consider that the speech should be brief and congruent with the results of the study. As I mentioned before, the conclusions always need to be aligned with the results. So we suggest to avoid speculative statements and state clear your results and your conclusions. So that's all. Definitely, we encourage you to resubmit your abstract to the IGCS 2023 Annual Global Meeting with the updates we provided this morning here in Argentina. Dr. Kalima Manulala, do you have any additional comments you would like to make regarding your abstract? Thank you for those comments and the feedback. I think, like was previously said, changing just a few words like that there. I mean, when they were highlighted, I could see really from just them being highlighted how many of them were there. And if I just changed certain words and removed some, then I would have enough words to include more of the scientific part. And I appreciate the feedback. And then I suppose for the results as well with vulva disease, I have to again separate that because we do for benign and for malignant. But then I'll indicate that in the revised abstract. So thank you for that feedback. Dr. Kalima Manulala, I congratulate you on your abstract. It's a very important topic. And as a member, senior member of IGCS, I'm particularly interested in how you've changed management of your cancer diseases over time with some support from IGCS. It would be particularly interesting to hear, as Floor pointed out, some of the challenges you faced and some of the wins so that another group who are planning on instigating change through the mentorship program can learn from what you have learned. And it's carried forward. So look forward to seeing the abstract resubmitted and also a manuscript down the track. Well done. Thank you. Great. So we now will now move on to our final abstract, which was submitted by Dr. Tuck. Dr. Tuck, will you please introduce yourself and summarize in a brief comment your abstract? Yes, ma'am. A very good evening to one and all. I'm Apurva. I'm a resident of pursuing my super speciality in gynae oncology from BBCI Guwahati, India. And so coming to my abstract, why I chose it, and I would like to summarize it. So basically, we know that with the coming in of ERAS, establishing its role everywhere, we are looking on to more and more pathways of being able to discharge patients earlier. And there have been several studies in our cities which have proven the role of bladder retrograde backfilling trials in prostate surgeries and in urogynecological procedures to be able to discharge patients earlier. So basically, bladder backfilling trial provides a physiological advantage of rapid bladder distention. And this helps in promoting and strengthening the contractility of bladder detrusor muscle and hence improves bladder sensation. None of the studies so far have ever looked into this approach for nerve sparing radical hysterectomy. And there has been a lot of variation in the duration of catheterization and discharge, even after performing a nerve sparing radical hysterectomy. So that's why we conducted this prospective comparative analysis of the conventional passive voiding trial and the new active retrograde bladder filling approach for nerve sparing radical hysterectomy. And so this results of our study showed that there is no significant difference between bladder function and recovery using both these methods. And so what I would like to conclude is that my study paves the way for further RCTs in this direction, which can prove to be quite practice changing if we were able to implement it as a guideline for early catheter removal and early discharge in patients undergoing nerve sparing radical hysterectomy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Dr. Apoorva for summarizing your study. It's a promising study. However, again, because the abstract probably was not written as clearly as she described. We were all a bit unsure exactly how was done and there were a lot of questions that were sort of unanswered. So, again, highlighted the word the used probably more than required. The first sentence of the introduction is actually a very long sentence. The basic rule to go for scientific writing is keep it short and simple. So, whenever you are struggling with a long sentence it's it's best to break it into smaller, shorter sentences which are easier to read and understand. Before we go into specific of the first line in the introduction, recent studies that have shown that patients who undergo. Now, who are these patients. These patients are undergoing a specific surgery. So if we are, if you're referring to a known information, or, like she mentioned in her presentation that patients who are undergoing prostatectomy. Maybe patients undergoing urological surgeries, keep keeping things a little more specific in your text helps us to understand what has been done, rather than presuming that this information is there. Then, patients who undergo avoiding trial by bladder retrofilling approach are discharged faster from the hospital. So, now, this, there is a presumption that this is a known fact, though it's a new new concept. So, maybe abstract is not the best place to really go into too much of details, but still we need to probably be a little more smart with the words that we choose, and still convey the meaning as best as possible. So, if we come down to methodology, normal preoperative bladder filling. Now, what, what does normal preoperative bladder filling mean. So maybe some description, there would help exclusion criteria was distant metastasis. This is an obvious exclusion criteria as no patient distant metastasis will ever, ever undergo any kind of restrict to me unless it's a palliative procedure or something. So, probably not the best exclusion criteria chosen. If you look at the result. In this text, the result is a single line. This is actually the shortest section of the entire abstract, whereas it is, it should be the longest section because that's what you have finally found, but probably because of the shortage of words. sentence, but otherwise, if you just read this abstract that is there on the slide. It conveys a sort of a negative impact that there was no significant difference, a better way or a smarter way to put it forward is to find something positive in the study, which, which was there. Like patients could go faster or they could have been earlier discharge, whatever was found but again, what I'm trying to say again and again is we need to be smart about the words that we choose and how we, how we put the sentences in the abstract. Because we do go through the entire tables and figures and then interpret and understand the entire study. However, the first impression that gives out when we are reading these abstracts is the author is not very clear how to present. So that's the idea that be as clear as possible. Keep things short and simple. In the conclusions. There is a mention about it may help to save resources. Again, we felt that this is speculative. which needs to be, which needs to go on to a proper randomized trial, and then that needs to be prospectively studied and then maybe one can say that okay now, implementing this particular methodology, we are able to save, we are able to send patients home earlier and some resources are saved. So, it's a speculative statement, we should avoid making speculations in our conclusions. Dr. Florencia will discuss more in detail. Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations, Dr. Tak for sharing your results. It's, I think it's an interesting topic too. I will highlight some, some points. And I think I will repeat some of the things that Dr. Vandoria already mentioned that it's important. First, I would like to start with the title. The title is essential, so you must be solid and clear when you create your title of your study sometimes it's better to shorten it in order to simplify it or to visually simplify it. Also, I think it could be shorter. You can summarize what is already known on the topic, and make a particular focus on the primary objective of the study. Also, if you need to change or shorten it you can relocate some, some points and add it to the discussion segment section. In the methodology section. Also, I agree with Dr. Vandoria, the design of the study and the comparison between groups is not clear. So we suggest to better define inclusion and exclusion criteria, and how was the intervention performed, that's not clear either. As we mentioned earlier, also, it would be nice to see that the study is registered in a clinical trial, registered, sorry, in a clinical trial registry, because, well, as I mentioned, registry, it's important, and it improves the quality of your manuscript, too. In the results section, maybe you can provide the main findings of your study and clarify the difference between groups. If you have a p-value, that's always the most important point to highlight in the abstract, and if known, or you have any data on quality of life, that's important, too, and you have any difference between groups in terms of variative results, also added as a comment in the abstract. And in the conclusion section, I think this, again, should be congruent with the last one, with the results, so you should be, this should be a direct reflection of the findings of the results of your study, so, and it should be clear and short, too. So, I have no additional comments. I don't know, Dr. Farrell, if you would like to add some comments on it. Yes, Dr. Tack, congratulations on your study. I think your study design is good. I think, as Geetha and Floor pointed out, it fell down in the results section. You aim to investigate bladder function recovery, which I presume was the difference between your pre-void volume and then your residual volume, so that's a number, that's a number you can, when you talk about results, you need to quote why it wasn't significant. Did you use a t-test? Did you compare the differences in volume? It's really important to put that in the results. And you also mentioned that you studied quality of life, but I can't see that in your paper. If you haven't used a quality of life measure, then take that out, but if you have, it would be really interesting to see that result. But those results are both quantitative in regards to the bladder volume and qualitative in regards to quality of life, and that's where you need to work on your results section. But great design and a good paper, and I think with some work, you could, and it's an excellent idea to do a pilot study before any larger study to look for signal seeking, which you've done, and you could carry that forward in a larger study with good quality of life measures and probably a little bit more advanced measures of bladder function rather than just volumes if you have those resources, but well done. Thank you, Mum, thank you. Also, I would like to add that we encourage you to resubmit your abstract for the IGCS 2023 annual global meeting with our comments and also the feedback provided by Dr. Farrell. And I don't know, Dr. Tuck, do you have any additional comments you would like to make regarding your abstract? Mum, definitely whatever has been said, I could very well agree with the fact that I was not able to put the words properly and through this webinar and whatever feedback that has been provided, I could learn that how with a few little words, what were the points that I needed to stress upon and I look into it and I'll take care of it next time. Thank you so much, Mum. Thank you, sir. Well done. Thank you, Dr. Tuck. Okay. So, well, reviewing our abstract focus points are the following, the rationale of the study, as we mentioned, it's a must. Also, the question being explored should be clear and state in your abstract and emphasize and be precise on methods and results section. So, just to sum up, as I mentioned earlier, try and keep your abstracts clear and as simple as possible. Remember, less is more. You are already starting with very less, just 250 words. So be smart and enjoy the experience. Thank you. I hand over back to Dr. Farrell for the rest of the presentation. Thank you, Gator and Flora. And just to remember, it's really important to have a mentor in research as well as in your clinical life. So, get some advice from your mentor, come up with a great idea, do your study and get some advice from a mentor about how to do your study design. And then once you write your abstract, get further advice from some mentors that you trust as research mentors and then submit that hopefully for the IGCS ASM. And I'll go through some dates later in this webinar as to when that you should try and aim to have them submitted by. So, thank you everyone for your wonderful feedback. Please out there, we have some questions. Please admit them through the Q&A site. If you have questions, it'd be great to submit them now because we'll go through those before we move on. We have a question from Dr. Kalam. In my study, there was a question for oncologic outcome. Actually, I have just seen up to recurrence, progression-free survival and overall survival, not seen whether I need to do progression-free survival and overall survival. So, Dr. Kalam, if you are able to collect that data, fantastic. It's a small cohort and it depends how long ago the cases go back to as to how reliable that data will be. But if you collected it prospectively, I certainly would put that into your paper. Does anyone else have any comments about progression-free and overall survival? Anyone in the audience? I mean, you can collect that prospectively or retrospectively, of course. It's always better to do it prospectively, but that takes a lot of planning. But certainly, does anyone have any questions or responses for Dr. Kalam on her study of vulva cancer? So she's asking, should she, I take it, Dr. Kalam, you're asking, should you put in the information for progression-free and overall survival in your paper? Is that correct? Yes, actually, I don't do that. Whether I need to do? It would improve, it would definitely improve the ability to get your paper published because it's a very important part of publishing outcomes. At the moment, you have a descriptive study, but if you can publish some survival data, it will always increase the likelihood that your paper will get published. But as I said before, you have some interesting features about your cohort of women that you could translate to your area where you work that would be of particular interest, maybe of particular interest to a worldwide audience, such as a high rate of recurrence in nodal disease, perhaps due to lack of radiotherapy, or for some reason, patients don't come back for treatment. Those issues are just as important. Geetha or Floor, do you have any comments? Yeah, just one, that adding oncological outcomes strengthens any oncological study. I mean, whenever we are reviewing papers, other papers, manuscripts submitted to any of the journals, if there are oncological outcomes missing, that is one of the commonest issues that is one of the commonest observation that I have that finally, what happened to these patients? Because whether it is the impact of an intervention or just observing what is happening in a given cohort, ultimately, that's the final thing that we all are interested in. Are our patients going to live longer? Are they living longer? Are they living longer disease-free? So that is a very, very important outcome. So I would strongly recommend you to collect the data if it can be. Okay, very good. Yes. I totally agree with both. And one, highlighting that it improves always the quality of your study. Yeah. And looking at reasons why the outcomes may be not the same as compared to other areas in the world is very important. Does anyone have any other questions? There's one more which has just been posted. What tips can you give us for a case report abstracts? You want to go ahead, Dr. Faranda? Otherwise, I can answer this. You can answer that, Gita. So frankly, case report abstracts, whenever submitted to conferences, it doesn't truly excite the reviewers because however rare the situation may have been or however uncommon the presentation may have been, it'll never stand stronger against a formal prospective or even a retrospective study conducted. So case reports are best reserved as case reports to be published if you can get them published, which is again a tall task. So I would frankly discourage you to submit case report as an abstract and then hoping that it will get accepted for any sort of presentation. Agreed. So that means you all need to start planning very soon your abstracts. And I'll go through the dates they're due by shortly. Any other questions? Okay, look, thank you everyone for your wonderful feedback and discussion. And I really do thank the three presenters for being brave enough to show us their abstracts. And I hope we've been of help to you. And we look forward to seeing them resubmitted for the meeting later in the year. Before moving on to that, I'd like to take a couple of minutes just to discuss the annual global meeting. So that will be in Seoul between November 5th and 7th. And it would be great to see you in person there if possible. We'll be having a workshop, an early career workshop. The workshop will be in person at COEX. It will then be recorded to play on demand. Unfortunately, I do not think that this meeting will be a hybrid meeting with a live link up. Ashley, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding. That's correct. We'll have the on-demand recordings available within a few days following the meeting. Yeah, you can find additional details on the IGCSmeeting.com website. We'll be confirming the exact date and time for the workshop shortly, and they'll be emailed to you once we've confirmed those details. So you're all welcome to submit your abstract. Please know if that you are selected, you will have the opportunity to present your abstract during the workshop at IGCS. Ashley, can you please confirm if a recording is suitable as it was last year, or do the presenters need to be in person? We can have a recording available. So if you're unable to join us in Seoul, which we hope you can, you are welcome to pre-record and we can play the recording during the workshop. It's really important that if you are selected, that you stick strictly to time and speak slowly and clearly, particularly if it's recorded, because otherwise it's very difficult for the audience to hear your presentation. Your abstract submission must include an introduction, methods, results, and conclusion. And we've gone through that with the last three abstracts. So you'll be well-tutored on how that works. You must also include a title. And I suggest that you might have a catchy title, something that grabs the audience, something that summarizes your abstract, but also is interesting to the audience. You do have the option of including one table and or one figure only. And there is a maximum word limit of 250. The title, the table, and the figure do not count towards the word limit. And Geetu and Flo gave you some tips earlier about how to keep your words down, particularly by excluding the word the. Okay, next slide. Completed abstracts will be reviewed by the workshop scientific committee. This committee will be following a blinded grading process and the applicant's name, country, and other identifiers will not be shared with the graders. So please do not send your abstract to us as individuals, but rather to the IGGS survey website, which we'll give you details of later. So the abstracts may be submitted and then the formal IGGS 2023 annual global meeting, you'll hopefully be able to attend in person. But as we said, if you can't, you can have a prerecorded abstract presentation. So the applications are submitted through SurveyMonkey and we will send you a link to the survey at your email on or before June the 1st. So we'll go through some dates now. That's what the SurveyMonkey looks like. The abstract submissions open on June the 1st. They then close two weeks later on June the 15th. You will receive, if you are accepted or not, a notification on the 3rd of July. And of course the meeting is on in November. Okay, next slide. Okay, so if you do have any questions relating to that, please submit them now through Q&A. Arthur says attendees cannot see the chat. They need to go to the Q&A section. Oh, I see. They can't see this link. Ashley. So for anyone preparing an article, you can look up this video that someone has submitted to you. You can look up this video that someone has posted, the IGCS Education Committee has posted. I just chatted the link to all the attendees. So everyone should be able to view that in the chat. Great, thank you. Thanks, Ashley. Okay, so it brings us to this research and publication survey. This survey is the beginning of a very important drive and opportunity for all of you Early Career Research Networkers to get involved in significant research projects in collaboration with other Early Career Network members around the world. The survey has been put forward by our two new Early Career Research Network members, Arthur Jayraj from India and Esu Maburu from Kenya. And I'll just have a few brief words on what the survey is about and how important it is that you answer the survey and then become involved if you would like to in ongoing collaborative research projects. Arthur or Anisa. Hello all, I'm Arthur here. And as you all know, the IGCS Early Career Network was set up with the goal to help our members with publishing their research and submitting it to good journals and getting it published. So with this initiative, we've come up with this survey to better understand how the data collection and management of your institute is. And with that, we'll be able to help you more in publishing the research. It's just a five minute survey. And one amazing thing is that if you register for the survey, that one person will be selected who will be given free registration for the IGCS 2023. Yeah. Thanks, Arthi. That's fantastic. What a great offer. I was going to say I'll complete the survey, but I will leave that. Leave me out of the free registration. Okay, so everyone, if you could go to the survey and then of course, once the survey results are through, we will let you know and continue on with some great collaborative research projects around the world. So that brings us to conclusion of tonight's meeting. Thank you all for joining. Thank you for Dr. Bandoria and Dr. Noll for organizing this webinar. And thank you to Ashley and the IGCS staff. Thank you to Arthi and Anissa for being involved as the new Early Career Network members. Just to let you know out there that there is a didactic, which is excellent that Dr. Renee Perea has put together. We don't have time to look at that directly tonight, but that will be available on the IGCS Education 360 portal for you all to look at, to give you some great information and tips about putting together your abstract and carrying it through to a great manuscript. And the recording of today's webinar will be available on the IGCS Education 360 learning portal by the end of the week. So thank you all for joining. And we look forward to seeing you soon. We look forward to seeing another webinar before our ASM and then again at our ASM at the end of the year. So put in your abstracts and it'll be great for us to have a look at them and get back to you with who has been accepted for the meeting. Take care and look after yourselves. Bye. Thank you, bye. Bye. Thank you, bye-bye.

webinar

abstract submissions

IGCS 2022

Seoul

feedback

revision

resubmit

research opportunities

Learning Portal