Where Are the Women in Radiation Oncology? A Cross-Sectional Multi-Specialty Comparative Analysis

Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy: A Cross-sectional Survey Study of US Radiation Oncologists

OBJECTIVES

For many malignancies, hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) is an accepted standard associated with decreased treatment time and costs. United States provider beliefs regarding HFRT likely impact its adoption but are poorly studied. We surveyed US-based radiation oncologists (ROs) to gauge HFRT utilization rates for prostate (PC), breast (BC), and rectal cancer (RC) and to characterize the beliefs governing these decisions.

METHODS

From July to October 2021, an anonymized, online survey was electronically distributed to ROs actively practicing in the United States. Demographic and practice characteristic information was collected. Questions assessing rates of offering HFRT for PC, BC, and RC and perceived limitations towards using HFRT were administered.

RESULTS

A total of 203 eligible respondents (72% male, 72% White, 53% nonacademic practice, 69% with 11+ years in practice) were identified. Approximately 50% offered stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early/favorable intermediate risk PC. Although >90% of ROs offered whole-breast HFRT for early-stage BC, only 33% offered accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI). Overall, 41% of ROs offered short-course neoadjuvant RT for RC. The primary reported barriers to HFRT utilization were lack of data, inexperience, and referring provider concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

HFRT is safe, effective, and beneficial, yet underutilized-particularly prostate SBRT, APBI, and short-course RT for RC. Skills retraining and education of ROs and referring providers may increase utilization rates.

Gender inequality in genitourinary malignancies clinical trials leadership

BACKGROUND

Over the past 2 decades, there has been a growing interest in the significance of gender roles in healthcare and several efforts and initiatives have focused on increasing female representation in the medical field. Clinical trials play a very important role in shaping medical practice; moreover, the leaders of clinical trials often represent the upper echelon of researchers in any designated field. Presently, there is no data regarding women's representation in urological oncology clinical trials leadership. Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine the extent of female representation in leading urological clinical trials.

METHODOLOGY

To thoroughly examine the representation of females as principal investigators (PIs) in urological cancer clinical trials between 2000 and 2020, we conducted a comprehensive search of completed trials focused on kidney, prostate, and bladder cancer on ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted relevant information regarding the PIs and analyzed the data using univariate analyses to identify any significant differences between male and female PIs.

RESULTS

A total of 9145 cancer clinical trials were conducted over the last 2 decades, and 11.3% (n = 1033) of them were urological cancer clinical trials. We were able to obtain detailed information about the principal investigators (PI) in 79.0% (n = 816) of the clinical trials, and we found that 16.8% (n = 137) of them were led by female investigators. Upon evaluating the characteristics of the PIs, female PIs had a significantly lower median age and median total citations as compared to male PIs (55.0 vs 59.0 and 5333 vs 7902; p-value < 0.001 and 0.006, respectively). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the termination rate, publication rate, funding source, cancer type, and the subject of conducting the clinical trials between male and female PIs.

CONCLUSION

Between 2000 and 2020, only 16.8% of urological cancer clinical trials were led by a female PI, perhaps reflective of a low percentage of senior female researchers in the fields of urology, oncology and radiation oncology. Universities, research institutes and funding agencies should work to improve mentorship, representation and opportunities for female investigators to encourage more involvement for female researchers in these clinical trials.

Oncology Physician Workforce Diversity: Rationale, Trends, Barriers, and Solutions

ABSTRACT

This chapter will discuss (1) the rationale for physician workforce diversity and inclusion in oncology; (2) current and historical physician workforce demographic trends in oncology, including workforce data at various training and career levels, such as graduate medical education and as academic faculty or practicing physicians; (3) reported barriers and challenges to diversity and inclusion in oncology, such as exposure, access, preparation, mentorship, socioeconomic burdens, and interpersonal, structural, systemic bias; and (4) potential interventions and evidence-based solutions to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion and mitigate bias in the oncology physician workforce.

Structural Sexism and Cancer Care: The Effects on the Patient and Oncologist

Despite progress toward equity within our broad social context, the domains of gender as a social, cultural, and structural variable continue to exert influence on the delivery of oncology care. Although there have been vast advances in our understanding of the biological underpinnings of cancer and significant improvements in clinical care, disparities in cancer care for all women-including cisgender, transgender, and gender diverse women-persist. Similarly, despite inclusion within the oncology physician workforce, women and gender minorities, particularly those with additional identities under-represented in medicine, still face structural barriers to clinical and academic productivity and career success. In this article, we define and discuss how structural sexism influences both the equitable care of patients with cancer and the oncology workforce and explore the overlapping challenges in both realms. Solutions toward creating environments where patients with cancer of any gender receive optimal care and all physicians can thrive are put forward.