Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 24, 2026
Single-Port Robotic-assisted Transaxillary Breast-conserving Surgery: A Prospective, Single-arm, Non-randomized Phase IIa Clinical Trial
Published on: August 19, 2025
Building mentorship infrastructure for cancer surgery training: a scoping review from COST Action CA24158 DISSECT
Susanna Polotto1, Luiza Ohasi de Figueiredo2, Hüseyin Bayram3
1Department of Oncoplastic Breast Surgery, Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chesterfield, United Kingdom; School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Background:
COST Action CA24158 DISSECT (Disparities in Surgical Specialization and Education in Cancer Training) is a European multidisciplinary research network focused on identifying and reducing disparities in cancer surgery training across Europe and beyond. Working Group 4 (WG4, Surgical Mentorship) focuses on mentorship as a practical mechanism to support equitable professional development, technical progression, research capacity, leadership and wellbeing across diverse training settings. Yet mentorship remains inconsistently defined, delivered and evaluated.
Methods:
WG4 conducted a scoping review with narrative synthesis. Predefined questions addressed definitions, relationship components, mentoring models, measurable outcomes, implementation barriers, evaluation tools and non-technical skills. Candidate papers were centralised in Rayyan and screened against PICO(TT)-based eligibility criteria, with reference-list searches supplementing targeted database searches. Key characteristics and findings were extracted into a shared evidence table for narrative synthesis.
Results:
Of 136 records identified, 47 studies were included. Mentorship was characterised as a purposeful, sustained developmental relationship supporting clinical judgement, technical development, professional identity, career planning, wellbeing and academic growth. Effective programmes require purposeful matching, role clarity, mentor and mentee preparation, psychological safety, continuity, bidirectional feedback and rematching routes. The included evidence suggested potential benefits for technical skills, safety indicators, academic productivity, career progression and professional identity, although outcome measurement remained heterogeneous.
Conclusions:
Surgical mentorship should move from informal chance encounters to structured, inclusive and measurable infrastructure for cancer surgery training. This review provides an evidence-informed basis for a DISSECT WG4 mentorship framework adaptable across institutions, countries and resource settings.
