Connor Kinslow, MD

Very proud and fortunate to be mentored by Dr. Neugut, who won the @columbiacancer Mentor of the Year Award

@PDBrownOnc This editorial is excellent to contextualize the results. I was very impressed but also didn’t know exactly what to think at SNO. May I highlight that despite the limitations this is the first ever treatment that may prolong OS in recurrent glioma

doi.org/10.1200/JCO-25… Thoughtful editorial by Dr. Galanis Since is a subgroup analysis confirmatory studies are needed

Antiparasitic effective for recurrent brain tumors? YES, according to this randomized trial Subgroup analysis based on 2021 WHO CNS5: IDHm Gr3 median OS 35 mo w/DFMO vs 24 mo ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JC…

@rust_ruslan Because it’s so glorious to publish in high IF 😍

I currently have three papers in review at "high impact" journals. One of them has been sitting there for two years. In that time my daughter was born and learned how to walk, but apparently publishing a PDF was still not possible for me. For another one, after four months in review the editor told me they cannot find a second reviewer and asked me to suggest more reviewers. A third one sent me a message in 2026 saying the PDF I uploaded was larger than 10 MB and that I should please reupload everything to make the file smaller. All of this just to eventually pay between 7,000 and 12,000 USD per paper so someone can officially approve that the science we do is "legitimate". Reminder: not a single reviewer will be compensated here. I still don't understand how we as scientists can collectively be so smart when doing science and still tolerate a system like this when it comes to sharing our findings. We should move to preprints plus open review, whether human or AI, asap. So frustrated about it. I'd suggest sharing your work on bioRxiv or medRxiv, reading and reviewing preprints when you can, and highlighting good research, especially if it is still a preprint. Try platforms like ResearchHub (that pay for peer review) and experiment with AI based reviewers for faster feedback. Instead I read this as a proposed "revolutionary" measure:

Using AI to do real work is awesome if you like playing "two truths and one lie" all day.

@francisdeng 😂

Attention radiologists, apparently AI has already replaced our interpretive work and there is a higher demand for radiologists so we can walk patients to their scan and talk to them 🙄

Definitive radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in anterior nasal cavity cancers achieved high rates of long-term organ preservation & favorable local recurrence rates for patients who declined rhinectomy or had unresectable disease. ja.ma/4aSQIQY

@DongNguyeb @neerajaiims @ASCO @AmarUKishan @DrSpratticus @OncoAlert @urotoday @PCF_Science @montypal @DrChoueiri @Huntsman_GU @Soum_Roy_RadOnc @PBarataMD @prostatemd @nataliagandur @DrYukselUrun @gbanna74 @DrPaulNguyen Many abstract have been criticized for too liberal interpretation of primary and secondary end points.

@DongNguyeb @neerajaiims @ASCO @AmarUKishan @DrSpratticus @OncoAlert @urotoday @PCF_Science @montypal @DrChoueiri @Huntsman_GU @Soum_Roy_RadOnc @PBarataMD @prostatemd @nataliagandur @DrYukselUrun @gbanna74 @DrPaulNguyen OK, I agree with your point. But the issue of hard P value cut offs is a broader issue in clinical research, not limited to this abstract. I wouldn’t label their conservative adherence to statistical norms as “misinformation”.

Ab#305 @ASCO #GU26 by @AmarUKishan👉bit.ly/4ccn5vi👉POSEIDON IPD meta-analysis of post-op RT ± ADT in recurrent #prostatecancer👉No OS benefit from adding ADT to RT (HR 0.87, p=0.06) at PSA <0.5 ng/mL👇@DrSpratticus @OncoAlert @urotoday @PCF_Science

@DongNguyeb @neerajaiims @ASCO @AmarUKishan @DrSpratticus @OncoAlert @urotoday @PCF_Science @montypal @DrChoueiri @Huntsman_GU @Soum_Roy_RadOnc @PBarataMD @prostatemd @nataliagandur @DrYukselUrun @gbanna74 @DrPaulNguyen That’s a result, not a conclusion, and while I agree w your interpretation they were using strict definitions (saying “borderline” significance in an abstract also would b criticized). Conc states no benefit <.5. It’s hard to tell w/o seeing the paper.

@DongNguyeb @neerajaiims @ASCO @AmarUKishan @DrSpratticus @OncoAlert @urotoday @PCF_Science @montypal @DrChoueiri @Huntsman_GU @Soum_Roy_RadOnc @PBarataMD @prostatemd @nataliagandur @DrYukselUrun @gbanna74 @DrPaulNguyen I think the community will be able to wait for the full publication. There is a lot of data on ADT in post-RP, leaves a lot of options for management. This group has solid biostats support, reporting is very reasonable, I don’t think the conclusions are overstated. Still v helpfl

@RadOncConnor @neerajaiims @ASCO @AmarUKishan @DrSpratticus @OncoAlert @urotoday @PCF_Science @montypal @DrChoueiri @Huntsman_GU @Soum_Roy_RadOnc @PBarataMD @prostatemd @nataliagandur @DrYukselUrun @gbanna74 @DrPaulNguyen Yes, they get the request to delete their post already, but they choose to keep silent. That’s a pity.

@5_utr Not a high impact pub, not terrible depending on the language used. Clear limitations everyone knows in SEER, NCDB would be better but also clear limitations as well. I believe even those data would contradict known truths about CSM from PROTECT trial.

Confounding-by-indication maxxing and calling it causal inference

@DrewMoghanaki Had been considering calculating this stat a few yrs ago for a trial concept

The latest data from the NCDB demonstrates ongoing declines in the proportion of patients with stage IA and IB NSCLC managed with upfront surgery. It is now well under half of all cases, with rates continuing to decline as preferences shift towards upfront SBRT. This update was published with 30 co-authors representing pulmonology, thoracic surgery, medical oncology, and radiation oncology, and ends with an important take-home message that we practice at our institution. "Until results from ongoing phase III trials become available to confirm SBRT offers similar long-term survival, patients should continue to be counseled about surgery alongside considerations for SBRT." sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

@DrewMoghanaki Great work! Important statistic to share. Allows estimation of annual number of cases SBRT in US using combined SEER/NCDB estimates, assuming 70% US pop in NCDBis fairly representative

@VickersBiostats Should it be fixed effects only?

COULD EVERYONE PLEASE STOP USING RANDOM EFFECTS META-ANALYSIS WHEN COMBINING 3 OR 4 TRIALS? AND COULD REVIEWERS STOP DEMANDING IT?

@agomeziturriaga @RicBertolo @piet_ost @PaulSargos @ESTRO_RT Well said

Rapid response just released by the ESTRO Urology Focus Group after the publication of the IRRADIaTE study. sciencedirect.com/science/articl… @RicBertolo @piet_ost @PaulSargos @ESTRO_RT

@nbn426 We had this lecture at Columbia GR! One of our best. What a refreshing privilege to hear one of our most productive academics discuss wellness for an hour

Fantastic back to back lectures from Dr. Hall on staying well/productive in academic medicine and perspectives on future trial design. I always find it fascinating that as local modality RO must show OS but as a systemic modality drug therapy often can sneak by with DFS. We may need to evaluate how we pick our endpoints and possibly focus on things like retreatments from other local modalities , financial toxicity, time toxicity, hospitalizations. @NiuSanford

@gminniti2012 @EORTC Congrats! Excellent concept

Great start for the @EORTC ohase 3 randomized trial VIGOR on Vorasidenib maintenance for IDH-mut gliomas after standard chemotherapy

Why wasn’t this published in JCO 😭

@CraigHorbinski If I’m right this still requires 1p19q testing, correct? My understanding is that codel testing is not needed only if astro morphology and ATRX loss of expression

@CraigHorbinski If IDH+ and ATRX preserved, then more likely oligo? Are those fried eggs I see? #NeuropathForTheRadiationOncologist

H&E followed by IDH1 R132H and ATRX immunostains of a right frontal tumor in a 55 year-old. Diagnosis? (youtube.com/watch?v=6S6w5m…) #pathology #neuropath #pathtwitter