The cost-effectiveness of external beam radiation therapy in bone metastases

Radiation Therapy at the End of-Life: Quality of Life and Financial Toxicity Considerations

In patients with advanced cancer, radiation therapy is considered at various time points in the patient's clinical course from diagnosis to death. As some patients are living longer with metastatic cancer on novel therapeutics, radiation oncologists are increasingly using radiation therapy as an ablative therapy in appropriately selected patients. However, most patients with metastatic cancer still eventually die of their disease. For those without effective targeted therapy options or those who are not candidates for immunotherapy, the time frame from diagnosis to death is still relatively short. Given this evolving landscape, prognostication has become increasingly challenging. Thus, radiation oncologists must be diligent about defining the goals of therapy and considering all treatment options from ablative radiation to medical management and hospice care. The risks and benefits of radiation therapy vary based on an individual patient's prognosis, goals of care, and the ability of radiation to help with their cancer symptoms without undue toxicity over the course of their expected lifetime. When considering recommending a course of radiation, physicians must broaden their understanding of risks and benefits to include not only physical symptoms, but also various psychosocial burdens. These include financial burdens to the patient, to their caregiver and to the healthcare system. The burden of time spent at the end-of-life receiving radiation therapy must also be considered. Thus, the consideration of radiation therapy at the end-of-life can be complex and requires careful attention to the whole patient and their goals of care.

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.