The scientific chair and vice chair lead the review and selection of scientific programming from all abstracts submitted to the meeting, organizing presentations into oral and poster formats. They also lead selection of the abstracts of the year and featured abstracts.
Does the return to an in-person meeting inform how you planned the scientific program in any way?
Maureen P. Kohi, MD, FSIR: Being in person allowed us to accept more oral original scientific research (OSR) presentations. When the meeting was virtual, we couldn’t devote as many sessions to our top scoring abstracts.
Erik and I really appreciate the importance of being in the same room as a presenter, or standing in front of your poster as you discuss your research with those who walk by. Knowing this is our first in-person SIR annual meeting after 3 years, we’re trying to make a big impact with our scientific sessions.
Erik N.K. Cressman, MD, PhD, FSIR: We want to make the most of the opportunity to meet in person again. I think we’ve all felt the lack of interpersonal interaction over the last two years and are looking forward to reconnecting.
What can you tell us about the abstracts that were submitted this year?
MK: We’re all aware of how badly COVID-19 has affected research in the past few years, but I was very impressed by the caliber of tremendous, innovative, outstanding science that was submitted and that we’re going to showcase. I think it demonstrates the strength of IR and those who have been able to perform research, innovate and push the envelope, pandemic or not. The number of abstract submissions was very similar to those of past in-person meetings, so we’ll be able to showcase a similar number of presentations as well.
EC: I would agree that the quality of the science is in general very high. That also means that it’s gotten more competitive, so attendees will have tremendous options to choose from in Boston. For the first time ever, we’ll also give all attendees access to the SIR 2022 content after the meeting without having to buy the SIR 2022 On-demand content. That’s a huge bonus for coming to the meeting.
MK: I’d also emphasize the diversity of programming—just about every aspect of interventional radiology is covered.
EC: That’s right—COVID has seriously hampered so much in society, education, in the economy, you name it. But the diseases we treat as physicians are agnostic. They don’t care if COVID is present or not. Cancer doesn’t stop. Neither does kidney disease. And by the same token, the innovation doesn’t stop either. COVID hasn’t changed how creatively IRs think.
What specific areas of IR research are you most interested in as interventional radiologists?
EC: I was first drawn to IR by the idea that, with transcatheter therapies, you were never more than a few cells away from your target. I also always enjoyed the energy level, the fact that there are ways to treat patients without needing to recover from surgery, and all the different disease processes that can involve us.
MK: When I was starting out in my career at University of California San Francisco, I was fortunate enough to be at a point where the department had acquired the first high-intensity focused ultrasound that’s coupled to MR. As a result, I was able to do UFE at the same time as HIFU for fibroids. Together with a wonderful collaborator in gynecology, we led in a variety of clinical trials, including a multicenter NIH randomized control trial comparing HIFU to fibroid interventions. So the beginning part of my career was investigating different clinical outcomes for therapies for women with fibroids and looking at women with morbidly adherent placenta—what kind of procedures help decrease blood loss and decrease hospital stays.
From mid-career on, I’ve really focused my efforts on trying to understand sex-related disparities on outcomes as it applies to peripheral artery interventions, cancer therapies and beyond. I think we’re learning more and more about socioeconomic factors affecting outcomes—where you live can predict and determine the kind of care you get, and looking at that globally is exciting and powerful.
This is the second SIR annual meeting with both a scientific chair and scientific vice chair. Can you describe what that dynamic brings to the scientific program?
MK: Bringing more people into the Annual Meeting Committee (AMC) was one of the positive outcomes of COVID. Other programming committees have more individuals than SIR’s traditional three-person AMC, and we realized we needed more help.
I do want to say that the AMC is more like a family. Years ago, you just focused on your specific area: scientific sessions, workshops, plenaries. Now we all collaborate and help each other and watch out for each other's blind spots.
EC: When you first get involved in the AMC, you have no idea how big the scope really is, even though you go in thinking you do. Once you find out what’s involved, you’re glad to see how much teamwork is involved. It’s been a steep learning curve but it’s great to have someone there to coach you through your role.
I’ve already taken so many notes from other meetings to see how I can improve the process for the person who comes behind me next year. It’s helpful to have people you can rely on because they’ve already gone through the experience. Maureen, Baljendra and Nadine know what the confusion can be like and are more than happy to tell you how everything works and what to look out for. I’m just really grateful that I’m coming into this with so much help.
MK: In the words of Jim Caridi, it’s a “framily.” When we select the new member to join the AMC, we want to make sure they even out the group and bring in something that’s missing. We’ve been fortunate to create a group that gets along really well. We’re all busy but are very willing to drop everything to meet virtually and answer each other's questions. It takes a lot of time, but we also enjoy hanging out and working with each other. There is that human element of a shared experience, and that’s why it’s special.