Out of the Basement and Into the Classroom: Pathways for Expanding the Role of Radiation Oncologists in Medical Student Education

Assessment of Student Perceptions of Aspects of a Career in Radiation Oncology

PURPOSE

To determine medical students' views of various aspects of a career in radiation oncology (RO) to identify areas that may benefit from reform and to guide initiatives to stimulate broader and more diverse student interest in the specialty.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An electronic survey was sent to student oncology interest group members at seven US medical schools. The survey asked students to rate 19 aspects of RO on a 5-point bipolar Likert-type scale. Descriptive statistics are reported, along with subgroup analyses based on participants' demographics.

RESULTS

The response rate was 51.1% (n = 275 of 538). The most favorably rated aspects of RO were outpatient working hours (mean ± SD Likert-type rating of 4.51 ± 0.82), routinely working with other physicians (4.45 ± 0.76), and use of advanced technology to treat patients. The most unfavorably rated aspects of RO were less geographic flexibility for residency or employment (1.98 ± 1.04), spending a lot of time on a computer doing treatment planning (2.80 ± 1.21), and having a job that is not well understood by most doctors and the general public (2.89 ± 1.02). Gender was associated with significant differences in 8 of 19 questions in how each aspect of RO was viewed. Few differences were observed based on race or ethnicity, though Asian participants had a significantly more favorable view of RO being a more science-oriented specialty compared with White or underrepresented students, respectively (3.50 versus 3.21 versus 2.84, P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings inform the RO community in the development of more effective initiatives to encourage students to fully explore the specialty.

A nationwide survey of the current status of radiation oncology teaching in Spanish medical schools

Background

The present study was designed to collect information on the current status of radiation oncology (RO) teaching in undergraduate medical schools in Spain.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted with the support of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR). An anonymous questionnaire was sent in two waves, one month apart, between January and June 2022, to all Medical Schools and affiliated Institutions having radiotherapy departments throughout the country. Data on load, curricular location of OR, the academic course (or courses) in which the subject of OR was taught, and teachers position were recorded.

Results

Responses were obtained from 26 of the 46 available Medical Schools (response rate 56.5%). The average number of theoretical classes was 13 (0-30), seminars: 4.5 (0-12) and hours of practical training 17 (0-60). The scientific content of RO was covered very evenly. Medical physics and radiobiology were taught with different extension in 24 medical schools (92.3%). Information on technological equipment, brachytherapy, indications, and clinical results was provided in all but one medical school. In 13 medical schools (50.0%) the contents of RO were taught in more than one course, but the distribution of RO teaching during the six years of undergraduate training was quite dispersed. The teaching staff included 4 full professors, 8 tenured professors, and 68 clinical associate professors. The average number of associate professors per medical school was 2.2. Also, the average number of full professors and tenured lecturers was 0.42 per medical school, although there were none in 16 centers.

Conclusions

The overall teaching content of RO in Spanish medical schools seems appropriate but actions to improve the heterogeneity in the curricular location of RO and the shortage of teachers should be implemented.

Integration of Radiation Oncology Into the Preclinical Curriculum Through Problem-Based Learning

PURPOSE

Early exposure to oncology care during the preclinical years of medical school may translate to increased student interest in oncology-related fields and improved understanding of oncologic treatment modalities, including radiation oncology. Many schools incorporate problem-based learning (PBL) into the medical school curriculum; this is an opportunity to immerse students in oncologic case management. We describe the effective incorporation of one course into the medical school curriculum that may be replicated at other institutions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A PBL case regarding pancreatic cancer was created by a radiation oncology resident and faculty member in collaboration with the gastrointestinal course director for first-year medical students at a single institution. Pancreatic cancer was chosen based on curricular needs. Learning objectives were discussed to guide the creation of the case.

RESULTS

All 140 first-year medical students participated in the 1-hour small group case focused on oncologic work up, multidisciplinary care, and radiation therapy concepts. Students were provided with a case prompt and resources to review prior to the PBL session. Volunteer radiation oncology facilitators attended a 30-minute educational meeting and were provided a detailed case guide 1 week before the PBL session. During the PBL case, facilitators guided students to achieve desired learning objectives. Among the 76 (54%) medical students who completed an optional post-PBL survey, the majority reported that the case motivated them to learn more about oncology (89%) and radiation oncology (82%). There was an increase in the number of subscribers to the Oncology Interest Group (43% increase from previous year) and preclinical students shadowing in the radiation oncology department. The PBL case was continued in future years for all first-year students and extended to 2 hours to promote additional discussion in response to student and facilitator feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

A cancer-specific PBL case facilitated by radiation oncology educators is an effective avenue to integrate radiation oncology into the preclinical curriculum and stimulate interest in oncology among first-year medical students.

Assessment of Medical Student Research Mentorship in Radiation Oncology

Purpose

Mentored medical student (MS) research opportunities in radiation oncology (RO) provide in-depth exposure to the specialty and may promote greater interest in a career in RO. Many radiation oncologists conduct research; however, the extent to which they directly engage MSs in their research is unknown. The purpose of this study was to characterize MS authorship in American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) journals.

Methods and Materials

The byline and abstract of all scientific articles (ie, clinical, basic science, training/education) and case reports published from 2019 to 2021 in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics; Practical Radiation Oncology; and Advances in Radiation Oncology were reviewed. Characteristics of MSs and senior authors are reported.

Results

A total of 105 of 1785 articles (5.8%) included an MS author, among which 72 (68.6%) were clinical, 13 training/education (12.4%), 12 case reports (11.4%), and 8 basic science (7.6%). MS authors were more common for publications in Advances in Radiation Oncology (9.0%) than Practical Radiation Oncology (6.4%) or the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics (4.2%; P = .002). There were 125 unique MS authors from 72 institutions, among which 40 were first author (32.0%), 28 second author (22.4%), and 57 third (or higher) author (45.6%). There were 88 unique senior authors from 55 institutions, among which 10 (11.3%) were on 2 or more MS publications, and 57 (64.7%) shared the same institution as the MS. The median number of articles per mentor institution was 1 (interquartile range, 1-2), and the mentor institutions in the upper quartile in terms of number of MS publications accounted for 53 (50.5%) of all MS publications.

Conclusions

Few publications in American Society for Radiation Oncology journals include MS authors with mentorship disproportionately from a small number of academic faculty at select institutions. These findings suggest that there is great potential for radiation oncologists to proactively engage more students in their work.

Evaluation of a Radiation Oncology Microclerkship as a Component of Medical Student Education

Compared to most oncologic subspecialties, radiation oncology (RO) lacks a natural pathway for incorporation into the clinical clerkships, and few students ever complete a formal rotation in RO. The feasibility, and perceived value, of a 1-day "microclerkship" exposure in RO during other related clerkships was evaluated in this study. At a single institution, the RO clerkship director partnered with clerkship directors in medical oncology, palliative care, and radiology so that every 3rd or 4th year student would spend 1 day in RO during those clerkships. Afterwards, students completed an electronic survey containing multiple choice and 5-point Likert-type questions describing their experience. Descriptive statistics are reported. Ninety-seven students completed the RO microclerkship over 2 years, and 81 completed the survey (response rate 84%). Only 8 students (10%) had ever been in a RO department previously. During the microclerkship, 73 students (90%) saw at least one new patient consultation; 77 (95%) were involved in contouring or treatment planning; 76 (94%) saw treatment delivery; and 38 (47%) saw a brachytherapy procedure. Seventy-nine students (98%) felt that the microclerkship was at least moderately valuable (mean Likert-type rating 4.01, SD 0.73). Forty students (49%) were either somewhat or much more interested in participating in a longer (2-4 week) rotation in radiation oncology (mean Likert-type rating 3.59, SD 0.83). This study demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating a 1-day RO microclerkship into other related elective clerkships. Students viewed the experience favorably and found it valuable in their education.

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.

Impact of a Virtual Introduction to Radiation Oncology Presentation on Stimulating Interest in the Specialty Among Diverse Medical Students at Multiple Institutions

PURPOSE

Many US medical students lack access to radiation oncology (RO). The authors' hypothesis was that a virtual, cross-institutional presentation introducing students to a career in RO would be valuable in exposing students to RO who are less likely to access it otherwise and would increase students' interest in a career in RO regardless of their gender, race, or ethnicity.

METHODS

A 1-hour, live, virtual, extracurricular presentation was offered to deans of US medical schools lacking affiliated RO departments and/or having high enrollments of students underrepresented in medicine (UIM) and also student groups composed primarily of UIM students. Presentations were given individually to each school by a single radiation oncologist. An electronic survey captured data from participating students.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-seven students from 13 institutions attended presentations; 114 students responded to the survey (response rate, 58%). Ninety-two students (81%) were aware of the specialty of RO before the presentation; however, UIM students were significantly less likely to be aware of RO than all others (69% versus 87%, P = .05). Only 19 students (17%) reported previously hearing presentations from radiation oncologist (29% among second- to fourth-year students versus 9% among first-year students, P = .01). Ninety-eight students (86%) expressed more interest in pursuing a career in RO after the presentation. There was no significant difference in interest in RO for any demographic subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual RO exposure was feasible to deliver to students less likely to be exposed otherwise and successfully stimulated interest in the specialty regardless of students' gender, race, or ethnicity.

A Multimedia Strategy to Integrate Introductory Broad-Based Radiation Science Education in US Medical Schools

US physicians in multiple specialties who order or conduct radiological procedures lack formal radiation science education and thus sometimes order procedures of limited benefit or fail to order what is necessary. To this end, a multidisciplinary expert group proposed an introductory broad-based radiation science educational program for US medical schools. Suggested preclinical elements of the curriculum include foundational education on ionizing and nonionizing radiation (eg, definitions, dose metrics, and risk measures) and short- and long-term radiation-related health effects as well as introduction to radiology, radiation therapy, and radiation protection concepts. Recommended clinical elements of the curriculum would impart knowledge and practical experience in radiology, fluoroscopically guided procedures, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and identification of patient subgroups requiring special considerations when selecting specific ionizing or nonionizing diagnostic or therapeutic radiation procedures. Critical components of the clinical program would also include educational material and direct experience with patient-centered communication on benefits of, risks of, and shared decision making about ionizing and nonionizing radiation procedures and on health effects and safety requirements for environmental and occupational exposure to ionizing and nonionizing radiation. Overarching is the introduction to evidence-based guidelines for procedures that maximize clinical benefit while limiting unnecessary risk. The content would be further developed, directed, and integrated within the curriculum by local faculties and would address multiple standard elements of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education and Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Pilot Study Exploring the Feasibility of Incorporating Radiation Oncology Into Pre-existing Early Pathway Programs for Diverse Premedical Students

PURPOSE

Many medical schools in the United States have affiliated pathway, preparatory, and/or prematriculation programs that enroll a high percentage of students historically underrepresented in medicine (URiM). The purpose of this pilot study was to better characterize exposures to radiation oncology (RO) among students in these programs and determine the feasibility of incorporating a radiation oncologist within their pre-existing format if nonexistent.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

During the summers of 2021 and 2022, a radiation oncologist gave a presentation about basic principles of cancer care to 18 unique student groups in 12 premedical programs affiliated with 8 medical schools. Participating students were asked to complete an anonymous postpresentation questionnaire. Descriptive statistics are reported.

RESULTS

A total of 467 students attended the presentations, and 241 completed the questionnaire (response rate 52.0%). The majority of participants reported being female (63.5%), URiM (66.4%), and low income (57.3%). Students were less likely to report previous teaching from a radiation oncologist (11.2%) than a surgical (17.0%) or medical oncologist (18.3%). Prior clinical shadowing with a radiation oncologist (2.9%) was also less likely than shadowing a surgical oncologist (5.0%), medical oncologist (6.6%), or any other physician (53.1%). Students were also less likely to previously believe that radiation could cure cancer (65.8%) compared with surgery (74.9%) or chemotherapy (89.3%). After the presentation, 168 students (69.7%) were more interested in a career in RO, and 211 students (87.6%) responded that the presentation was either quite or extremely valuable (median Likert-type score, 5; interquartile range, 4-5).

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the students in premedical programs lack prior exposure to RO or knowledge of multidisciplinary cancer care, which was ameliorated by a simple yet effective presentation across a variety of different types of programs in this study. Longitudinal assessment of different types of educational initiatives and students' ultimate career trajectory will help optimize future RO initiatives among premedical URiM students.

Demographics of ASTRO Student Members and Potential Implications for Future U.S. Radiation Oncology Workforce Diversity

Purpose

The radiation oncology workforce in the United States is comparatively less diverse than the U.S. population and U.S. medical school graduates. Workforce diversity correlates with higher quality care and outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether student members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) are any more diverse than resident members-in-training using the recently established medical student membership category.

Methods and Materials

Self-reported sex, race and Hispanic ethnicity, medical school, and degree(s) earned for all medical students (n = 268) and members-in-training (n = 713) were collected from the ASTRO membership database. International members were excluded. The χ² test was used to assess for differences between subgroups.

Results

Compared with members-in-training, student members were more likely to be female (40.0% vs 31.5%, P = .032), black or African American (10.7% vs 4.8%, P = .009), candidates for or holders of a DO rather than MD degree (5.2% vs 1.5%, P = .002), and from a U.S. medical school that is not affiliated with a radiation oncology residency program (30.5% vs 20.9%, P = .001). There was no significant difference in self-reported Hispanic ethnicity (7.3% vs 5.4%, P = .356). There were no indigenous members in either category assessed.

Conclusions

Medical student members of ASTRO are more diverse in terms of black race, female sex, and osteopathic training, though not in terms of Hispanic ethnicity or nonmultiracial indigenous background, than the members-in-training. Longitudinal engagement with these students and assessment of the factors leading to specialty retention versus attrition may increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in radiation oncology.

A Survey to Assess and Delineate Approaches to Medical Student Outreach to Promote Diversity at Academic Radiation Oncology Programs

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

To assess how academic radiation oncology departments engage medical students who are either female and/or from racial and ethnic demographic groups that are underrepresented in medicine (URiM).

MATERIALS/METHODS

An electronic survey was sent to all 83 radiation oncology residency program directors (or if applicable medical student directors) whose department is affiliated with an on-site medical school. Questions assessed whether any faculty in the participants' department offer exposure in radiation oncology specifically to medical and premedical student groups whose members are typically female or URiM, or promote the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Minority Summer Fellowship (MSF) Award. Barriers to these types of involvement were also assessed.

RESULTS

A representative from 54/83 programs responded (response rate 65%). Faculty from 83% of departments had given a presentation to an oncology or radiation oncology medical student interest group. However, faculty from only 18% of departments had given a presentation to a Student National Medical Association chapter, 9% to a Latino Medical Student Association chapter, and 11% to an American Medical Women's Association chapter. Faculty from 15% of departments actively promote the MSF to the general student body, and 24% promote it to any minority students who express interest in radiation oncology. Faculty from 22% of departments had given a presentation to a premedical student group, 10% to an undergraduate student group focused on minority or female students, and 20% to a pipeline program for high school (or younger) female or URiM students. Lack of awareness of the existence of such programs, or not being invited, were the most common barriers to participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Most academic radiation oncology departments do not offer educational outreach specifically targeting women or minority students or promote the MSF. Further efforts are needed to break from the status quo and attract a more diverse workforce.

Radiation oncology teaching provision and practice prior to and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in medical schools in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Radiotherapy is a key cancer treatment modality but is poorly understood by doctors. We sought to evaluate radiation oncology (RO) teaching in medical schools within the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland (RoI), as well as any impacts on RO teaching delivery from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

A bespoke online survey instrument was developed, piloted and distributed to oncology teaching leads at all UK and RoI medical schools. Questions were designed to capture information on the structure, format, content and faculty for RO teaching, as well as both the actual and the predicted short- and long-term impacts of COVID-19.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 29/41 (71%) UK and 5/6 (83%) RoI medical schools. Pre-clinical and clinical oncology teaching was delivered over a median of 2 weeks (IQR 1-6), although only 9 (27%) of 34 responding medical schools had a standalone RO module. RO teaching was most commonly delivered in clinics or wards (n = 26 and 25 respectively). Few medical schools provided teaching on the biological basis for radiotherapy (n = 11) or the RO career pathway (n = 8), and few provide teaching delivered by non-medical RO multidisciplinary team members. There was evidence of short- and long-term disruption to RO teaching from COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

RO teaching in the UK and RoI is limited with minimal coverage of relevant theoretical principles and little exposure to radiotherapy departments and their non-medical team members. The COVID-19 pandemic risks exacerbating trainee doctors' already constrained exposure to radiotherapy.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This study provides the first analysis of radiotherapy-related teaching in the UK and RoI, and the first to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiationoncology teaching.

Integrating Radiation Oncology Into Undergraduate Medical Education

Cancer is one of the most important public health problems. However, medical education has not advanced at the same rate when it comes to cancer education. Currently, the United States Medical Licensing Examination subject examinations do not cover radiation oncology, prevention, and survivorship planning in its assessment model. Incorporating medical oncology and radiation oncology training into the undergraduate medical education curriculum can have a significant benefit in training future physicians. In this paper, we review current literature and propose some ideas that can help incorporate oncology, and specifically radiation oncology, into undergraduate medical education.

Surgeons Underestimate the Importance of Surgical Topics for Non-Surgeons: Results of a National Survey

OBJECTIVE

To determine if surgeons and non-surgeons agree on the importance of surgical topics covered in the surgical clerkship to the daily practice of non-surgeons.

DESIGN

An IRB-approved anonymous survey ranking the relative importance of 35 topics drawn from surgical clerkship curricula asking physicians to rank the relative importance of each topic, using a five-point Likert scale, to the daily practice of non-surgeons.

SETTING

Online anonymous survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Convenience sample of practicing physicians and trainees. The survey was offered to physicians in all specialties via social media and professional connections, responders identified their practice specialty.

RESULTS

295 physicians completed the survey. Two hundred thirty-one (85%) were from non-surgical specialties: emergency medicine (EM, n = 100); primary care (PC, n = 71 - included internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics); a variety of others (n = 60).  Surgeons and non-surgeons agreed on the relative importance of the acute abdomen, breast disease, inguinal hernias, inflammatory bowel disease, morbid obesity, sinusitis, thyroid and parathyroid disease, and wound care; surgeons believed colorectal cancer and diverticulitis to be more important. Surgeons rated all other topics as less important to non-surgeons than non-surgeons. EM rated most acute problems more important that PC; both groups ranked most topics higher importance to the practice of a non-surgeon than surgeons (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons consistently underestimate the importance non-surgeons place on surgical topics in their practice.  These results reinforce the perceived importance of a wide exposure to surgery in the surgical clerkship to all medical students - but topics could be focused differently depending on acute or non-acute non-surgical care career plans.

A Scoping Review of Radiation Oncology Educational and Career-Planning Interventions in Undergraduate Medical Education

Radiation oncology (RO) teaching in undergraduate medical education (UME) is lacking worldwide with potentially detrimental effects on medical student career choices and patient care. The objective of this scoping review is to examine the extent of published literature describing RO educational and career-planning interventions in UME. Online databases were searched from respective dates of inception to June 2020 for articles that reported outcomes from RO educational and career-planning interventions in UME. Two independent reviewers screened entries for inclusion. Following full-text reviews, 25 articles were analyzed. Most interventions were a single session, involved clinical medical students, and were based in North America. Didactic teaching was most commonly used, though a majority included interactive learning in addition to or in place of didactic teaching. As expected, there was a heterogeneity of outcomes reported, and most studies collected data using surveys alone. Recurring topics included the multidisciplinary nature of oncology and psychosocial oncology. There was a paucity of studies reporting on formal mentorship programs and research programs. The data collated in this study can help develop new initiatives based on what has succeeded in the past. Areas that may benefit from future studies include mentorship programs, research programs, and interventions from outside North America.

The Radiation Oncology Mentorship Initiative: Analysis of a Formal Mentoring Initiative for Medical Students Interested in Radiation Oncology

The importance of mentorship in medicine and its impact on academic and professional development has been widely studied. However, mentorship for medical students in the field of radiation oncology is limited. Our radiation oncology department developed a formal medical student mentorship program in 2004. This program included both clinical and research mentoring pathways. Our study aims to gain feedback and perspective from former medical student participants who subsequently entered into a radiation oncology residency program. An anonymous survey was sent to 22 former students in the mentorship program from 2005 to 2016 who entered a radiation oncology residency program. The survey included Likert scales (1-5), multiple choice, strength category rankings, and free responses. Data was compiled and analyzed with Qualtrics data software. The survey response rate was 100%. Seventeen (77.3%) participants reported that the mentorship program strongly affected their career choice and a majority reported that their research experience strongly (45.5%) or moderately affected (31.8%) their career choice. Fourteen (63.6%) respondents reported that the mentorship program was very effective and 8 (36.4%) reported it as being effective. Eighteen (81.8%) respondents reported that mentorship was extremely important to their career. Students participating in the research pathway also reported improvement in valuable skills such as presentations, abstract writing, manuscript writing, statistical analysis, and coordination with colleagues. A total of 66.7% of attending radiation oncologists who previously participated in this program now practice in an academic setting. Our institution successfully developed a formalized mentorship program for medical students interested in radiation oncology. Participants in this program reported high levels of satisfaction and emphasized the importance of mentorship in the development of valuable research competencies and on their overall career path. This program can serve as a model for future mentorship initiative in medical school.

Assessment of the Medical Schools From Which Radiation Oncology Residents Graduate and Implications for Diversifying the Workforce

PURPOSE

To identify factors predictive of a medical school graduating a high volume of future radiation oncology (RO) residents to better understand potential pathways to effectively recruit women and underrepresented minority (URM) students into RO.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Demographics for US allopathic medical schools and affiliated RO departments were collected from web resources and correlated with the percentage of graduates from each school currently enrolled in RO residency in 2019, and the probability of at least 1 female or URM student from each school pursuing RO.

RESULTS

The median percentage of students per medical school who pursued RO residency was 0.37% (interquartile range, 0.16%-0.66%). A total of 79.7% of schools graduated at least 1 RO resident, whereas 51.7% graduated at least 1 female RO resident and 14.0% graduated at least 1 URM RO resident. The 30 schools graduating the highest percentage of RO residents accounted for 52.1% of current RO residents, only 4 of which were in the top quartile for URM enrollment. Medical students were significantly more likely to pursue RO when there was an affiliated RO department (0.42% vs 0.18%, P < .001) or RO residency program (0.51% vs 0.18%, P < .001), more total RO faculty (r_s = 0.521, P < .001), female RO faculty (r_s = 0.481, P < .001), and URM RO faculty (r_s = 0.197, P < .001). The probability of at least 1 female student pursuing RO was also correlated with the number of female faculty in the affiliated RO department (r_pb = 0.348, P = .001), and a similar correlation was observed between URM students and URM faculty (r_pb = 0.312, P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS

Most RO residents graduate from medical schools with larger affiliated RO departments but fewer URM students. To promote greater RO diversity, outreach should be considered among schools with greater URM enrollment but fewer affiliated radiation oncologists, and among female and URM students in schools that graduate many RO residents.

Pathways for Recruiting and Retaining Women and Underrepresented Minority Clinicians and Physician Scientists Into the Radiation Oncology Workforce: A Summary of the 2019 ASTRO/NCI Diversity Symposium Session at the ASTRO Annual Meeting

Diversifying the radiation oncology workforce is an urgent and unmet need. During the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2019 Annual Meeting, ASTRO's Committee on Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (CHEDI) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) collaborated on the ASTRO-NCI Diversity Symposium, entitled "Pathways for Recruiting and Retaining Women and Underrepresented Minority Clinicians and Physician Scientists Into the Radiation Oncology Workforce." Herein, we summarize the presented data and personal anecdotes with the goal of raising awareness of ongoing and future initiatives to improve recruitment and retention of underrepesented groups to radiation oncology. Common themes include the pivotal role of mentorship and standardized institutional practices – such as protected time and pay parity – as critical to achieving a more diverse and inclusive workplace.

Development of Residents' Self-Efficacy in Multidisciplinary Management of Breast Cancer Survey

BACKGROUND

Treating patients with breast cancer is multidisciplinary; however, it is unclear whether surgery residency programs provide sufficient training in multidisciplinary care. Self-efficacy is one way of measuring the adequacy of training. Our goal was to develop a method of assessing self-efficacy in multidisciplinary breast cancer care.

METHODS

Based on a literature review and subject-matter expert input, we developed a 30-item self-efficacy survey to measure six domains of breast cancer care (genetics, surgery, medical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology, and radiology). We constructed and validated the survey using a seven-step survey development framework. The survey was administered to general surgery residents at a single academic surgical residency.

RESULTS

Response rate was 66% (n = 31). Internal consistency was strong (Cronbach alpha = 0.92). Self-efficacy was moderate (mean = 3.05) and tended to increase with training (postgraduate year [PGY] 1: mean= 2.37 versus PGY 5: mean= 3.54; P < 0.001), providing evidence for construct validity. Self-efficacy was highest in the surgery (3.56) compared with others (genetics 2.67, medical oncology 3, radiation oncology 2.67, pathology 2.67, and radiology 3.33). This trend was similar across all PGY groups, except for interns, whose self-efficacy in surgery was low.

CONCLUSIONS

We created a survey to assess self-efficacy in multidisciplinary breast cancer care and provided initial evidence of survey validity. Although self-efficacy in surgery improved with years in training, medical and radiation oncology self-efficacy remained low. As modern breast cancer treatment is highly multidisciplinary, an expanded education program is needed to help trainees incorporate multidisciplinary clinical perspectives.

Characterizing Palliative Radiotherapy Education in Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellowship: A Survey of Fellowship Program Directors

Background: Educational deficiencies among hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) physicians contribute to suboptimal utilization of palliative radiotherapy (PRT) for patients with advanced cancer. Objective: To survey HPM fellowship program directors regarding the need for PRT education in HPM fellowship. Design: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HPM fellowship program directors in June 2018. We used a 5-point Likert-type scale to assess agreement with statements related to PRT education. Setting/Subjects: Program directors for all United States Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited HPM fellowship programs with at least one enrolled fellow at the time of survey distribution were included. Results: Eighty-one of 120 eligible program directors completed the survey (68% response rate). Nearly all of the respondents agreed that HPM physicians should possess a working knowledge of PRT and that the principles of PRT should be formally taught in HPM fellowship. Thirty percent of HPM fellowship programs, however, lacked a PRT curriculum and only 14% of programs provided more than two hours of PRT education. Limited didactic time, lack of interest among fellows, and lack of collaboration with radiation oncologists were not perceived to be significant barriers to incorporating PRT education into HPM fellowship. More than 75% of program directors indicated that they would consider implementing a PRT curriculum designed specifically for HPM physicians if one were available. Conclusion: There is a need for PRT education in HPM fellowship. This need may be best addressed by developing a widely accessible PRT curriculum designed to meet the needs of HPM physicians.

Palliative Radiotherapy Education for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellows: A National Needs Assessment

Background: Insufficient knowledge of palliative radiotherapy (PRT) among hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) physicians is thought to be a barrier to the provision of high-quality palliative care. Objective: To assess the need for PRT education in HPM fellowship. Design: A cross-sectional survey of HPM fellows was conducted in June 2018. Setting/Subjects: The survey was distributed to accredited HPM fellowship programs in the United States for distribution to enrolled fellows; 114 fellows responded to the survey. Results: Nearly all respondents agreed that the principles of PRT should be taught in HPM fellowship, yet 51% had received no PRT education and 35% had received only one or two hours. Only 25% of respondents rated their working knowledge of PRT as sufficient, 40% felt confident in identifying radiation oncology emergencies or managing radiotherapy side effects, and 52% felt confident in assessing which patients to refer for radiotherapy. More than 75% agreed that were they more knowledgeable about PRT, they would be more likely to consider referral to radiation oncology, to collaborate with radiation oncologists, and to advocate for a short course of treatment based on a patient's prognosis or goals or care. Fellows who received PRT education in fellowship had significantly greater knowledge of and more favorable attitudes toward the use of radiotherapy. This difference was the greatest among fellows who had received at least five hours of PRT education. Conclusion: There is a need for PRT education in HPM fellowship. Efforts to address this need may lead to more appropriate utilization of PRT for patients with advanced cancer.

The status of radiation oncology (RO) teaching to medical students in Europe

AIM

To provide an overview of Radiation Oncology (RO) teaching to medical students around Europe.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic survey was sent to European academic teachers of RO. The survey focused on the teaching of RO to medical students throughout their undergraduate education.

RESULTS

A total of 87 academic RO teachers from 29 countries were invited to participate in the electronic survey. Thirty-two surveys were completed by respondents from 19 European countries (response rate: 37%). The median number of hours devoted to RO teaching was 10 h (mean 16 h, range 2-60). The number of hours assigned to RO teaching was equal or inferior compared to medical oncology. In two institutions (6%) RO was delivered as a stand-alone course with an individual knowledge assessment. In 30 institutions (94%), the RO course was taught and/or assessed in a modular curriculum with other disciplines. Radiobiology, breast, lung, gastrointestinal, gynecologic malignancies, RO adverse events and palliative RO were taught in 80% of institutions. Pediatric RO, RO for benign conditions and economic topics were taught in less than 30% of institutions. In most institutions, classical written and oral examinations were used. Computer-based examinations and/or objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) were seldom used. E-learning methods were available in less than 10% of institutions. A clerkship in RO department was available in 28 out of 32 institutions (87%), less than 5% of medical students were involved in research in RO during their undergraduate education. Strategies to encourage medical students to consider RO as a future career were offered in 53% of institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

RO teaching to medical students was not uniform in Europe. RO teaching during undergraduate education in Europe was undervalued, and its knowledge and learning tools could be broadened and updated in the core curricula of medical students.

The status of radiation oncology teaching in Australian and New Zealand medical schools

INTRODUCTION

Radiation therapy is a core component of curative and palliative cancer treatment; however, its indications and benefits remain poorly understood across the medical profession.

METHODS

An electronic survey focussing on curriculum content, teaching and assessment in radiation oncology and plans for curriculum change was developed. The Faculty of Radiation Oncology, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiology (RANZCR) distributed the survey to all 24 Australian and New Zealand medical schools. The survey was conducted from November 2017 to January 2018 following ethics approval.

RESULTS

Sixteen of the 24 (67%) medical Faculties in Australia and New Zealand responded. Ninety-four percent of Faculties had no formal radiation oncology curriculum. Most Faculties (87%) dedicated <15% of the total medical course to oncology, of which the majority (63%) dedicated <10% to radiation oncology. At least 50% of Faculties did not offer formal radiation oncology teaching to all students. When offered, students' exposure to radiation oncology was often <5 days over the entire course (44%). The majority of medical schools (73%) are planning curriculum changes in the next 5 years; however, most have no intention of changing radiation oncology teaching.

CONCLUSION

Radiation oncology continues to be underrepresented in medical curricula throughout Australia and New Zealand with no plans for improvement by Faculties. This study supports the need for formal advocacy for improving radiation oncology education in medical schools and will form the basis of new national recommendations for radiation oncology curriculum development.