Critical Reflection to Investigate Medical Student Attitudes Toward Skin Tone in Their Preclinical Years.

INTRODUCTION: Implicit racial bias, defined as unreasoned judgement based solely on an individual's skin color, is a persistent barrier to quality medical care for people of color in the United States. Early, learner-centered intervention is crucial to establish cultural competence within health professional training programs. METHODS: Over 3 academic years, preclinical, second-year medical students were asked to submit an anonymous critical reflection regarding skin tone in medicine (n=794). Critical reflection is an instructional approach that encourages students to investigate their own thoughts and actions. Course credit was given based on the honor system. Reflection submission content and student feedback were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively using constructivist thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most students completed the assignment (93.0%) and reported feeling comfortable expressing themselves honestly in the anonymous format (84.6%). Students' comfort level with honesty declined if they would have had to identify themselves (50.8%). Student comments indicated relief to have a place to process experiences and emphasized the importance of anonymity for value of this assignment. Thematic analysis identified 2 themes and 13 subthemes among student submissions. Submissions varied in format and typically contained multiple codes (4.08 ± 1.77 subthemes), indicating that students participated meaningfully in the assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Although some educators may hesitate to address these topics, students at our institution appreciated having a space to process their thoughts. This assignment structure is an effective way for educators to address a difficult, sensitive, and important topic in a meaningful way with students.

Outcomes of limited stage primary bone diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era: a multicenter, retrospective study.

Primary bone diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a rare variant of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) historically treated with induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation therapy (RT). It remains unknown whether RT confers additional benefit following rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) induction in patients with limited-stage disease. We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients treated between 2005 and 2019 using rituximab-based CIT regimens with or without consolidative RT to discern whether consolidative RT adds benefit in patients with stage I-II disease that could be encompassed in one radiation field. A total of 112 patients were included: 78 received CIT and radiation (RT group), and 34 received CIT alone (no RT group). The OS at 10 years was 77.9% in the RT group and 89.0% in the no RT group (p = 0.42). The RFS at 10 years was 73.5% in the RT group and 80.3% in the no RT group (p = 0.88). Neither improved OS nor RFS was associated with the addition of consolidative RT. Subgroup analysis of patients only achieving a partial response after CIT suggests that these patients may benefit from consolidative RT.

Evolution in the Presence and Evidence Category of Radiation Therapy Treatment Recommendations in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Purpose: The changes in the recommended use of radiation therapy (RT) in the presence of expanding systemic cancer therapies and technological advances are poorly characterized. We sought to understand the recommended utilization of RT across a broad range of malignancies by examining National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines. Methods and Materials: We conducted a comprehensive review and categorization of RT recommendations, with their subsequent supporting evidence categories, in 3 versions of NCCN Guidelines, specifically years 2000, 2009, and 2019. These NCCN Guidelines were individually examined for RT-specific recommendations among the 10 most common tumors. The presence of RT as a recommended modality was recorded for each tumor type in each guideline. Recommendation categories including Category 1, 2A, 2B, and 3 were tallied and compared with examine totals and percentage distributions in each tumor type. Results: A total of 3858 NCCN recommendations were individually reviewed. The presence of a recommendation inclusive of RT increased from incidence of 205 in the year 2000 to 992 in the year 2019 (383%). In the 2019 NCCN Guidelines, the most Category 1 RT recommendations were found within small cell lung (13%), non-small cell lung (5%), breast (5%), bladder (2%), rectal (2%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (1%). Pancreatic, uterine, prostate, melanoma, kidney, and colon cancer guidelines had no Category 1 RT recommendations. Rectal cancer had 31 (27%) preferred recommendations. The majority (89%) of 2019 RT recommendations were for initial therapy, and 9% were specific to salvage therapy. Tumor sites with the highest proportion of RT Category 1 evidence were small cell lung (29%), non-small cell lung (24%), and breast cancer (24%). Conclusions: The frequency of recommendations for using RT in NCCN Guidelines has increased by >300% in the past 20 years among the 10 most common malignancies. Consideration of the quality of evidence supporting these recommendations by tumor type is useful to identify specific malignancies in need of higher-level evidence supporting the role of RT.

Assessment of Differences in Academic Rank and Compensation by Gender and Race/Ethnicity Among Academic Radiation Oncologists in the United States.

Purpose: Advancing equity, diversity, and inclusion in the physician workforce is essential to providing high-quality and culturally responsive patient care and has been shown to improve patient outcomes. To better characterize equity in the field of radiation oncology, we sought to describe the current academic radiation oncology workforce, including any contemporary differences in compensation and rank by gender and race/ethnicity. Methods and Materials: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiation Oncology Programs (SCAROP) 2018 Financial Survey. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with associate or full professor rank. Compensation was compared by gender and race/ethnicity overall and stratified by rank and was further analyzed using multivariable linear regression models. Results: Of the 858 academic radiation oncologists from 63 departments in the United States in the sample, 33.2% were female, 65.2% were White, 27.2% were Asian, and 7.6% were underrepresented in medicine (URiM). There were 44.0% assistant professors, 32.0% associate professors, and 22.8% full professors. Multivariable logistic regression analysis for factors associated with associate or full professor rank did not reveal statistically significant associations between gender or race/ethnicity with academic rank (odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.32; P = .48 for gender; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.5-1.30; P = .37 for Asian vs White; and OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.31-1.55; P = .37 for URiM vs White), but CIs were wide due to sample size, and point estimates were <1. Similarly, multivariable linear regression analysis modeling the log relative total compensation did not detect statistically significant differences between radiation oncologists by gender (-1.7%; 95% CI, -6.8% to 3.4%; P = .51 for female vs male) or race/ethnicity (-1.6%; 95% CI, -7.3% to 4.0%; P = .57 for Asian vs White and -3.0%; 95% CI, -12.1% to 6.0%; P = .51 for URiM vs White). Conclusions: The low numbers of women and faculty with URiM race/ethnicity in this radiation oncology faculty sample limits the ability to compare career trajectory and compensation by those characteristics. Given that point estimates were <1, our findings do not contradict larger multispecialty studies that suggest an ongoing need to monitor equity.

Radiation Oncology Residency Training Program Integration of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: An Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Equity and Inclusion Subcommittee Inaugural Program Director Survey.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate United States (US) radiation oncology (RO) program directors' (PDs) attitudes and practices regarding racial/ethnic diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to better understand potential effects on underrepresented in medicine (UIM) residents in RO. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 28-item survey was developed using the validated Ethnic Harassment Experiences Scale and the Daily Life Experiences subscale, as well as input from DEI leaders in RO. The survey was institutional review board-approved and administered to RO PDs. PDs were provided with the American Association of Medical Colleges definition of UIM, that is, "Underrepresented in medicine means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population." Descriptive statistics were used in analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 71% (64/90). Institutional Culture and Beliefs: 42% responded that they had a department DEI director. A minority (17%, n = 11) agreed "I believe that people from UIM backgrounds have equal access to quality tertiary education in the US." The majority (97%, n = 62) agreed "My program values residents from UIM backgrounds." Support and Resources: The majority (78%, n = 50) agreed "My program has resources in place to assist/provide support for resident physicians from UIM backgrounds." Interview and Recruitment: Most PDs (53%) had not taken part in activities aimed at recruiting UIM residents and 17% had interviewed no UIM applicants in the past 5 years for residency. Resident Experiences of Racism: 17% (n = 11) agreed "UIM residents in my program have reported incidents of racism to me," and 28% (n = 18) agreed "I believe that UIM residents in my program have been treated differently because of their race/ethnicity by faculty, staff, coresidents or patients." CONCLUSIONS: Most PDs reported that they did not believe that UIM residents were treated differently in their department because of their race/ethnicity, and only a minority had received reports of racial discrimination experienced by residents. These data contrast resident experiences and suggest a disconnect between DEI perceptions and resident experiences among US RO PDs that should be addressed through increased programmatic action and evaluation.

Access to Radiation Therapy and Related Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Cervical and Breast Cancer Across Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To better understand the barriers to accessing standard-of-care radiation therapy (RT) for breast and cervical cancer in sub-Saharan Africa and their impact on outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was completed with a medical librarian. Articles were screened by title, abstract, and full text. Included publications were analyzed for data describing barriers to RT access, available technology, and disease-related outcomes, and further grouped into subcategories and graded according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: A total of 96 articles were included: 37 discussed breast cancer, 51 discussed cervical cancer, and eight discussed both. Financial access was affected by health care system payment models and combined burdens of treatment-related costs and lost wages. Staffing and technology shortages limit the ability to expand service locations and/or increase capacity within existing centers. Patient factors including use of traditional healers, fear of stigma, and low health literacy decrease the likelihood of early presentation and completion of therapies. Survival outcomes are worse than most high- and middle-income countries and are affected by many factors. Side effects are similar to other regions, but these findings are limited by poor documentation capabilities. Access to palliative RT is more expeditious than definitive management. RT was noted to lead to feelings of burden, lower self-esteem, and worsened quality of life. CONCLUSION: Sub-Saharan Africa represents a diverse region with barriers to RT that differ on the basis of funding, available technology and staff, and community populations. Although long-term solutions must focus on building capacity by increasing the number of treatment machines and providers, short-term improvements should be implemented, such as interim housing for traveling patients, increased community education to reduce late-stage diagnoses, and use of virtual visits to avoid travel.

Using Holistic Residency Applicant Review and Selection in Radiation Oncology to Enhance Diversity and Inclusion-An ASTRO SCAROP-ADROP-ARRO Collaboration.

Disproportionate sex, racial, and ethnic diversity remains in the radiation oncology physician workforce despite widespread awareness and longitudinal efforts to improve representation. In this collaborative review, we define the rationale and components of holistic review and how it can be best used to provide a comprehensive evaluation of applicants to residency programs in radiation oncology. We initially discuss the current state of diversity in the field of radiation oncology and highlight the components of the residency selection process that may serve to perpetuate existing biases. Subsequently, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and Association of American Medical Colleges holistic review framework is reviewed in detail to demonstrate the balanced assessment of potential applicants. The implementation of holistic review in medical school and residency selection to date is examined to underscore the potential value of holistic review in the radiation oncology residency selection process. Finally, recommendations for the practical implementation of holistic review in radiation oncology trainee selection are outlined.

Radiation Oncology Resident Perspectives on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: An Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Equity and Inclusion Subcommittee Inaugural Resident Survey.

PURPOSE: In this study, radiation oncology residents were surveyed on perceptions of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in their residency training programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 23-item survey was developed by the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Equity and Inclusion Subcommittee resident members and faculty advisors. The survey was divided into 4 sections: institutional culture, support and resources, interview and recruitment, and experiences of bias. The survey was sent individually to residents from all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited radiation oncology programs. RESULTS: The survey was issued to 757 residents. A total of 319 residents completed the survey, for a response rate of 42%. All postgraduate years and geographic regions were represented. Significant racial, ethnic, and gender differences were present in survey response patterns. White residents (94%, 164 of 174) and male residents (96%, 186 of 194) were more likely to strongly agree/agree that they were treated with respect by their colleagues and their coworkers than other racial groups (P < .005) or gender groups (P < .008). Only 3% (5 of 174) of White residents strongly agreed/agreed that they were treated unfairly because of their race/ethnicity, while 31% (5 of 16) of Black residents and 10% (9 of 94) of Asian residents strongly agreed/agreed (P < .0001). Similarly, Hispanic residents were more likely to strongly agree/agree (24%, 5 of 21) than non-Hispanic residents (7%, 20 of 298) (P = .003). Regarding mentorship, there were no differences by gender or ethnicity. There were differences by race in residents reporting that they had a supportive mentor (P = .022), with 89% (154 of 174) of White residents who strongly agreed/agreed, 88% (14 of 16) of Black residents, and 91% of Asian residents (86 of 94). CONCLUSIONS: This survey reveals that experiences of support, mentorship, inclusion, and bias vary significantly among radiation oncology residents based on race, ethnicity, and gender. Radiation oncology has opportunity for growth to ensure an equitable experience for all residents.

Increasing Diversity of Patients in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials.

Radiation oncology clinical trials lack full representation of the ethnic and racial diversity present in the general United States and in the cancer patient population. There are low rates of both recruitment and enrollment of individuals from underrepresented ethnic and racial backgrounds, especially Black and Hispanic patients, people with disabilities, and patients from underrepresented sexual and gender groups. Even if approached for enrollment, barriers such as mistrust in medical research stemming from historical abuse and contemporary biased systems, low socioeconomic status, and lack of awareness prohibit historically marginalized populations from participating in clinical trials. In this review, we reflect on these specific barriers and detail approaches to increase diversity of the patient population in radiation oncology clinical trials to better reflect the communities we serve. We hope that implementation of these approaches will increase the diversity of clinical trials patient populations in not only radiation oncology but also other medical specialties.

The Current State of Departmental Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts Within US Academic Radiation Oncology Departments.

PURPOSE: Promoting a diverse workforce of health care professionals that delivers equitable patient care is an important goal in oncology, as in all of medicine. Although most medical schools have a diversity office and associated initiatives, little is known about radiation oncology (RO) department-level efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). We describe the current state of DEI leadership and initiatives in RO departments in the US to guide future policies and programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 124 US RO departments affiliated with a medical school were contacted to identify departmental DEI leadership. Identified DEI leaders were asked to complete an anonymous survey assessing characteristics of their departmental DEI leadership, committee/organizational structure, activities, and perceived barriers to, and effect of, their work. Descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: Among 85 RO departments that responded (68.5% response rate), 48 (56.5%) reported having a departmental DEI leader. Thirty-four DEI leaders completed the survey (70.8%). Of those who answered each survey question, most DEI leaders were assistant or associate professors (n = 24, 82.8%), women (n = 19, 73.1%), and identified with at least one non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity (n = 15, 53.6%). Nineteen (57.6%) had an associated departmental DEI committee; with 10 of these starting in 2020 or later. Few DEI leaders had administrative support (38.2%), funding (29.4%), protected time (23.5%), or increased compensation for added duties Fifteen (50.0%) believed their DEI-focused efforts were considered for promotion. The most reported initiatives included offering programming/education, supporting students from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine, improving recruitment practices/hiring, and implementing pipeline/pathway projects. The perceived impact of DEI initiatives included an increased culture of respect (89.7%), improved health care disparity awareness (75.9%), and improved systemic/structural racism awareness (79.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Departmental DEI efforts are increasingly common within RO, however, the structure, resources, and recognition associated with DEI work are variable. Additional dedicated resources and recognition for these efforts will help ensure a culture of inclusive excellence for the RO workforce and patients.

Long term clinical outcomes and associated predictors of progression free survival in anal canal cancer.

Background: Reports of long term clinical outcomes for patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the anal canal treated with chemotherapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) are limited. Pre-treatment hematologic variables associated with outcomes remain understudied. We sought to report the long-term clinical outcomes of a cohort of patients treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT) utilizing helical tomotherapy (HT) IMRT at a single tertiary referral center. We further sought to examine for any correlations between pre-treatment hematologic parameters and progression free survival (PFS). Methods: Data from patients with SCC of the anal canal treated with definitive CRT using HT IMRT from 2005 to 2017 were collected. Pre-treatment patient characteristics examined for correlations with PFS included: hemoglobin (Hgb) level, age, diabetes mellitus (DM) status, smoking status, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil/WBC ratio, lymphocyte/WBC ratio, sex, transplant status, HIV status, Karnofsky performance score, T-stage, and N-stage. Pre-treatment Hgb levels were recorded within two weeks prior to starting CRT. Clinical outcomes, including PFS, were described using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. A multivariable (MVA) Cox model of PFS evaluated the impact of pre-treatment Hgb and diabetes while adjusting for T-stage and age. Results: The median patient age was 57 years old (range, 26-87) and there were 39 females (63.9%) with the remaining patients identifying as males. Median patient follow up was 5.8 years. The PFS was 83% at 5 years. The median pre-treatment Hgb was 13 g/dL. On multivariable analysis (MVA), Hgb ≤10 g/dL (HR: 11.891, 95% CI: 2.649-53.391, P=0.001) and a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (HR: 4.524, 95% CI: 1.436-14.252, P=0.010) were both significantly associated with a worse PFS. These factors were independent of T-stage and age. Conclusions: Long-term clinical outcomes for patients with SCC of the anal canal treated with definitive CRT are presented. Pre-treatment hemoglobin of ≤10 g/dL and diabetes were both independently associated with worse PFS on MVA. This retrospective data supports further prospective study of the impact of hematologic markers and medical co-morbidities such as DM and their management on clinical outcomes for patients with SCC of the anal canal treated with curative-intent CRT.

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.

Characterization of Underrepresented Populations in Modern Era Clinical Trials Involving Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: The demographic composition of modern radiation therapy (RT) clinical trials is incompletely studied. Understanding and minimizing disparities in clinical trials is critical to ensure health equity and the generalizability of research findings. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinicaltrials.gov was searched to identify RT clinical trials that occurred from 1996 to 2019. A total of 1242 trials were reviewed for patient characteristics. The demographic composition of the studies was summarized by the frequency and percentage of patients by race, gender, and ethnicity. The racial composition of the study population was compared with the 2018 US Census using a 1-sample χ2 test. Subgroup racial composition was compared using χ2 tests of independence. Analyses used a complete case approach. RESULTS: A total of 122 trials met the inclusion criteria, and 121 of these (99.1%) reported race. Trial subgroups included 63 trials in the United States (51.6%), 9 proton therapy trials (7.4%), 34 RT toxicity mitigation or prevention trials (27.9%), 24 trials for female cancer (19.7%), and 17 trials for male cancer (13.9%). US clinical trials overall, US RT toxicity mitigation or prevention trials, US trials for female cancer, and US trials for male cancer had significantly different racial compositions compared with the 2018 US Census data (P < .001 for all). Compared with all clinical trials, those for proton therapy had the largest magnitude of significantly lower enrollment of participants who identified their race as Black, Asian, or other (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study characterized the racial composition of prospective RT clinical trials in a modern cohort. The racial population represented across multiple categories in the United States differed significantly from US census data and was most pronounced in trials evaluating proton therapy. This is a benchmark study for future efforts to characterize and balance the participation of underrepresented populations in RT clinical trials.

Overcoming Barriers to Radiation Oncology Access in Low-Resource Settings in the United States.

Providing high-quality radiation therapy in medically underserved, low-resource environments can be challenging in the United States. During the American Society of Radiation Oncology 2020 Annual Meeting, the American Society for Radiation Oncology Committee on Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion hosted 4 radiation oncologists from both academic and community practices in an educational session. Speakers discussed creative ways to overcome barriers to equitable cancer care and outcomes for their vulnerable patient populations in both rural and urban settings. Successful tactics have included applying for state-sponsored grants, lobbying hospital leadership for equipment upgrades, implementing quality improvement programs specifically targeting the needs of the patient population, studying novel hypofractionation schedules, monitoring toxicities using wearable devices, and expanding transportation options.

Mitigating Implicit Bias in Radiation Oncology.

Implicit bias is one of the most insidious and least recognizable mechanisms that can cause inequity and disparities. There is increasing evidence that both implicit and explicit biases have a negative effect on patient outcomes and patient-physician relationships. Given the impact of Implicit bias, a joint session between ASTROs Committee on Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and the National Cancer Institute (the ASTRO-National Cancer Institute Diversity Symposium) was held during the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, to address the effect of implicit bias in radiation oncology through real life and synthesized hypothetical scenario discussions. Given the value of this session to the radiation oncology community, the scenarios and discussion are summarized in this manuscript. Our goal is to heighten awareness of the multiple settings in which implicit bias can occur as well as discuss resources to address bias.

Long-Term Outcomes of Dose-Escalated Pelvic Lymph Node Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) With a Simultaneous Hypofractionated Boost to the Prostate for Very High-Risk Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate: A Prospective Phase II Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: There remains limited data as to the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of higher doses of elective radiation therapy to the pelvic lymph nodes in men with high-risk prostate cancer. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate moderate dose escalation to the pelvic lymph nodes using a simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were eligible with biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma of the prostate, a calculated lymph node risk of at least 25%, Karnofsky performance scale ≥70, and no evidence of M1 disease. Acute and late toxicity were prospectively collected at each follow-up using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE v4.0). The pelvic lymph nodes were treated to a dose of 56 Gy over 28 fractions with a simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate to a total dose of 70 Gy over 28 fractions using intensity-modulated radiation therapy. RESULTS: Thirty patients were prospectively enrolled from October 2010 to August 2014. Median patient age was 70 years (57-83), pretreatment prostate-specific antigen was 11.5 ng/mL (3.23-111.5), T stage was T2c (T1c-T3b), and Gleason score was 9 (6-9). CTCAE v4.0 rate of any grade 1 or 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were 55% and 44%, respectively, and there was 1 reported acute grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, both unrelated to protocol therapy. With a median follow-up of 6.4 years, the biochemical failure free survival rate was 80.2%, and mean biochemical progression free survival was 8.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2-9.4). The prostate cancer specific survival was 95.2%, and mean prostate cancer specific survival was 8.7 years (95% CI, 8.0-9.4). Five-year distant metastases free survival was 96%. Medians were not reached. CONCLUSIONS: In this single arm, small, prospective feasibility study, nodal radiation therapy dose escalation was safe, feasible, and seemingly well tolerated. Rates of progression free survival are highly encouraging in this population of predominately National Comprehensive Cancer Network very high-risk patients.

Improving the Clinical Treatment of Vulnerable Populations in Radiation Oncology.

The increasing role of radiation oncology in optimal cancer care treatment brings to mind the adage that power is never a gift, but a responsibility. A significant part of the responsibility we in radiation oncology bear is how to ensure optimal access to our services. This article summarizes the discussion initiated at the 2019 American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting educational panel entitled "Improving the Clinical Treatment of Vulnerable Populations in Radiation Oncology: Latin, African American, Native American, and Gender/Sexual Minority Communities." By bringing the discussion to the printed page, we hope to continue the conversation with a broader audience to better define the level of responsibility our field bears in optimizing cancer care to the most vulnerable patient populations within the United States.

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.